Liberty Slowly Creeps Northward

Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation have struck again, this time in Maryland. Fox News has the story. From Fox News:

U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg wrote that states are allowed some leeway in deciding the way residents exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms, but Maryland's objective was to limit the number of firearms that individuals could carry, effectively creating a rationing system that rewarded those who provided the right answer for wanting to own a gun.

"A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights," Legg wrote. "The right's existence is all the reason he needs."

Marylanders have been fighting this for a long time. It seems that at every level of State government, the attitude has been to fight tooth and nail to maintain its supposed monopoly on the use of force, but refuse to provide security for citizens who may be danger. The hypocrisy of the State's position has been breathtaking in its chutzpah.  While the Governor of Maryland goes about with armed body guards like an emperor, and State and local police are armed to the teeth, the average citizen can not usually get a permit,even if a woman has had documented death threats against her.  A "good and substantial" reason typically has not been good and substantial enough.

Typical of Marylanders' frustration with the law in Maryland pertaining to carry permits are the commenters to Red Maryland. I especially liked this comment from warpmine:

The CCW permit for criminals is one that is a Don't ask don't tell honorary law of the jungle. Criminals generally use their weapons for aggression rather than self protection and when they hunt, it's usually human beings that are the bounty.

Maryland liberal logic mandates that only criminals should have the opportunity to carry a fire arm forcing the law abiding citizens to fear for their lives.

Having lost, the State Attorney General plans to appeal.  I don't have any insight into what the AG's strategy or thinking may be, but I suspect it is a delaying tactic.  But remember that a right delayed is a right denied.  How many more victims will the State have on its conscience as it tries to maintain the fiction that they, and they alone, have a monopoly on force in the State.

Update:  Dave Kopel has more analysis over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Gun Control Laws are Unjust

For those of you waiting patiently for a post, I have just posted over at the Free Liberty Writers. Go on over they, and check it out. While you are at it, check out the other Liberty Writers.

It's not just me saying it. Here's a police officer saying it.

So, you don't believe me that the only person who will be there to defend your life is yourself. You don't believe the Supreme Court.  Well, then, take if from a police officer himself over at Officer "Smith".

Buy a gun. Get a bat. Own some weapon and have enough skill to use it to save your own life and the lives of your family members. DO NOT RELY ON THE POLICE TO SAVE YOUR LIFE FOR YOU.

Wait. What's this? What heresy are you speaking of? Officer Smith, are you really telling me not to rely on the police to protect me? What about that "Protect and Serve" horse shit plastered all over the sides of their patrol cars? Aren't they SUPPOSED to protect me?

Go read the whole post, as it is an eye opener. The bottom line is that the police won't be there to defend you if you find yourself under attack. They also won't be there to defend your children or grand children should someone try to take them. It will be you, and probably you alone.

There is also the moral question one has to ask: how moral is it to demand that someone you pay, say $48,000 per year, defend your life even though you yourself are not willing to defend it? Officer Smith:

The bottom line is this. If you're depending on us, the police, to save your ass in any foreseeable situation, you're deluding yourself. You need to be able to protect and defend YOURSELF. Then, after you have taken care of business, you can call us to come clean up the mess. That way it'll be the person who attacked you who is bleeding in your driveway, instead of you.

Folks used to understand this, once upon a time. There has never been a time when the police would magically appear at the snap of your fingers. In fact, modern technology has made police response MUCH faster than it was at any time in the past. But people have somehow forgotten over the years that it is first YOUR responsibility to protect yourself. People have gotten soft, and come to the conclusion that any violence on their part is a bad thing. They don't want to be responsible for an injury to another person, no matter what that other person is doing unto them.

So, why don't people still understand this?  Could it be that anti-gun Mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, and news papers have convinced a wide swath of the American public that the government should have a monopoly of force?  Could it be that at the same time they are decrying crime in the streets, they are sending a message that the average citizen is safe, and should rely on the police for self defense?  Some people I talk to seem unaware of what could happen.  "Well," they will say, "I don't need a gun here."  But crime happens when you least expect it, where you least expect it.  Perhaps as you are going into the office, a fleeing felon will come up the driveway in a bid to out run the police, see you there and decide to take you hostage.  The police will ultimately get their man.  But whether you live or die that day will depend on you.  Got Gun?

I really only have one bone to pick here with Officer Smith, who seems like a hard working, stand up guy. But he seems to be located in Kalifornia, a State where, depending on the County, it can be almost impossible to obtain a permit to carry concealed. In the scenario outlined by Officer Smith, the victim was attacked in his driveway. It does little good if his gun is in his house, stored in a safe and unloaded. Few criminals are willing to wait while you go in the house, open the safe and acquire the gun, then find the ammunition and load it into the magazine, to return to say "Alright, I'm ready now!" Of course, Officer Smith points to bats and other things that are also useful weapons, but if you are small, or disabled, any contact weapon may be problematic.

Thanks to Sean Sorrentino for the link.

Rest in Uneasy Peace

The Canadian Parliament has repealed the Long Gun Registry, as reported in the National Review by John Lott and Gary Mauser in an article published February 20, 2012 entitled Death of a Long-Gun Registry. The passage of the repeal represents a small victory for gun owners, and a small set back for the gun grabbers. But left in place are all the goofy laws that dictate which weapons one may own. An example is provided in the comments to this over at Sebastian's new blog Shall Not Be Questioned. Lott and Mauser make the point that the Long-Gun Registry cost Canadian taxpayers $2.7 Billion over its 14 year life while producing zero results. That is, if the results were to be a reduction in crime.

Read the rest at here.

Shamelessly Glombing onto Fellow Blogger

So, what does a blogger do when he is out of ideas of his own? Of course a blogger who just can't think of anything to say, and who has any integrity at all, will just say nothing. The rest of us will try link into another blogger's work in hopes of getting a little reflected light.  That's what I am doing today with fellow blogger Sean Sorrentino over at An NC Gun Blog.  Sooner or later, the temptation to shamelessly glomb onto other's work is bound to strike.  

I have made the point many times that gun control does not control crime, or criminals. Criminals can get whatever weapons they want, any time they want. Further, while you and I are forbidden from carrying a firearm into schools, banks, theatres, some restaurants, hospitals, and ...well, you know the list is long, a criminal carries wherever he likes, whenever he likes. If he is planning on committing a crime, what is one more charge against him?

Sean Sorrentino makes exactly that point every day in his blog An NC Gun Blog. When he can't find a good story from North Carolina, he is not above pointing out that places like Australia, (The Formerly) Great Britain, New York City, and other places where the gun grabbers have had their way with the populace (and are therefore that much closer to Utopia) have a surprising amount of gun crime. Guns are banned, but people intent on committing a crime get them anyway.

To hear a gun grabber whine about gun crime, as if bat crime, knife crime, screw driver crime, nail gun crime and so forth, aren't quite so bad, sometimes makes a person grounded in reality want to throw up his hands. It is as if they believe in the instrumentality theory of crime. That is, the gun sends out signals that cause normal, everyday people to go out and murder others for no reason whatsoever. Such people also have to believe that lamp posts jump in front of cars, or that cookies magically appeared in the child's mouth.

So called "journalists" often foster a belief in the instrumentality theory of crime by the way they write news stories. How many times have you read a story about a man killing his his wife that reads like a gun just went off? The poor victims: the gun jumped out of the holster and into his hands, and then pulled its own trigger, killing his wife. Then it turned on him, and shot him too. His neighbors report he was a quiet person and a good family man. If only guns were banned!

But here in the real world, guns are just a tool, like bats, knives, screw drivers and nail guns. Sean takes a given story, and shows you that these guys have a long and sordid history of committing crimes. These are not cases of innocent victims being led astray by bad guns. These are bad people, who use guns (or bats, knives, screw drivers, or nail guns) to do bad things to their wives, girl "friends," children, and anyone else that happens to get in their way. The outrage is not that you and I have guns to defend ourselves from these animals, the outrage is that the "Justice" system allows them to roam our streets.

Two from the War on Guns

In Virginia, the Senate has passed a bill that would eliminate the one gun a month law. Typically, a Senator on the opposing side, that is the gun grabbers, took to the Fairfax Newsto express her outrage. But then there is this little item in the report:

She said that evidence is mounting that Virginia is already falling into favor again with drug and gun cartels. In December, ten residents of Manassas, Virginia were arrested in a “three-year investigation of interconnected cocaine and firearm distributors.” In June, The Virginian-Pilot reported, “five men funneled guns from Virginia’s Eastern Shore to New Jersey and put them in the hands of gang members, murderers and drug dealers.”

Over the last several years, more than 60 people have been arrested in connection with bulk firearms distributio (sic), Favola said.

So, here Senator Favola is admitting that the law, on the books for the last 18 years, does not work to stop gun runners from getting guns, or from selling them to felons. What it does do is prevent legal collectors and peaceable armed citizens from acquiring guns in quantities exceeding one a month, and prevents legitimate businesses from selling more guns.

We often talk about something called "unintended consequences." Unintended consequences are things that result from passing a law for other reasons. In many cases, unintended consequences can be predicted if one assumes that people who do not want to be bound by the law will adapt and find a way around the law. Because of the ability to predict unintended consequences, I don't believe they are unintended. I don't believe that our politicians are that stupid.  In this case, I think the law does precisely what it was intended to do. But that infringes on the rights of peaceable armed citizens. So, to deflect attention away from the fact they are deliberately infringing on peoples rights, they instead natter on about gun traffickers. Nonsense! Virginia should repeal this law as a total failure.

Meanwhile, there are laws on the books to deal with illegal arms traffickers, that don't burden peaceable armed citizens in any way.

In North Carolina, Grass Roots North Carolina is preparing to sue the City of Winston-Salem to force them to comply with the State law passed in July of last year. The Winston-Salem Journal reports approvingly, and no wonder. They had an editorial back in January praising the City Council for passing the new ordinance. But as I note in that post, the Journal gets it wrong on all counts.  Now, it looks like a court will decide.  What a waste of money in difficult times.

A hat tip to David Codrea over at the War on Guns for pointing to both articles.

Why do You Need a Gun at the Outlet Mall

I have returned to Stately PolyKahr Estates.  We traveled yesterday.  This morning, I am catching up today on e-mails and any gun news that might have escaped my attention during our brief vacation.  However, I did want to recount something that happened Sunday, while we were still in the Atlanta area.

Mrs. PolyKahr and her friend wanted to visit the outlet mall for some shopping.  I went along to carry bags and generally be useful.  At one point, they went into a Wedgewood store.  Wedgewood is known for having lots of very expensive glass objects on its shelves.  Now, on such extended excursions as the trip to the outlet mall, Mrs. PolyKahr drives around on an electric scooter.  However, she wasn't sure she could maneuver said scooter with enough precision so as not to knock some very expensive glass off the shelf and break it.  So, she left me sitting outside on a bench, guarding the scooter and her purse.

At such times, I watch people, and their reactions to various stimuli.  Some were so intent on what they were immediately doing that they barely noticed anyone else around them.  Some almost tripped over me as if I wasn't there.  Others, especially mothers with small children, usually gave me a wide birth, which practice I heartily applauded.  After all, for all they know, I might be a child snatcher!  I also deduced that a bus had deposited a load of tourist at the mall, because I saw quite a few walk by in foreign dress speaking a language I didn't understand.

At one point, I spotted a man coming towards me, whose behavior seemed off somehow.  He wasn't moving as a man going from one point to another, but ambling along and stopping frequently.  I took note of the fact that he was a Latino wearing a dark blue jacket, but I couldn't make out the logo on the jacket at that distance.  I kept my eye on him.  As he approached, he noticed that he had been noticed, and turned toward the parking lot, turned again and stopped.  Realizing that he might be making a spectacle of himself, he went and stood by the Ked's shoe store, perhaps 50 feet away.  After a few moments, he went inside, though he had no child in tow.  After a few more minutes, he came back out, walked around me, and stood by the Wedgewood door.  He didn't look like a typical Wedgewood shopper either.  Of course, I kept my eye on him, and at some point reached my right hand under my coat in case I might need to get my gun out quickly.  He seemed to take note of this action, and moved off looking for an easier target.  I didn't even have to have my hand on the gun, much less brandish it.  While I believe that his target was the purse, he might well have had a knife, and might have used it to get what he wanted.  Now, I would not have shot him merely to save my wife's purse, but if he had pulled a knife, that would have changed the situation considerably.

There are several lessons to this story.  First, you need to be alert to anything out of order in your environment.  Despite news reports that the economy is growing, the facts say otherwise.  I can not tell you how many boarded up businesses we saw on the trip.  In such times, more people may become more desperate.  Outlet malls and other places where people gather may attract unwanted attention from pick pockets and petty thieves.  Since you must sometimes be in such places, have you thought about what you would do?  If you don't carry a gun, what other means of defense do you have?  Personally, I am thinking about additionally carrying a cane, and learning how to use it as well.

"You have a gun?? You can't take a gun in there!!"

I have explained this many times, but it still keeps popping up. Why do I carry a concealed gun? Guns.com has a well written article explaining Why do Concealed Carriers Carry Concealed?. Go check it out.   A hat tip to the Gun Blog Black List, a great aggregation of gun bloggers around the world.

A quote:

Don’t believe me? Just ask yourself this, why would anybody go through the three-ring circus of getting a permit, forfeit their fingerprints over to Uncle Sam in the process and then spend the rest of their days becoming an armchair attorney just so they can navigate the labyrinthine system of state-to-state carry laws, if they didn’t have a well-thought out reason for concealed carrying? Just to waste time?

It’s my informed opinion that most folks who carry firearms do not do so because they are looking for altercations or because they’re afraid or exasperated by life, as Obama insinuated when he said people “cling to guns… as a way to explain their frustrations” while on the campaign trail in ‘08. They do so simply because they do not feel safe in 2012 America and no amount of data is going to change that. They know that a violent criminal isn’t going to be convinced to abort his felonious mission because of a bunch of statistics that show the crime rate he’s contributing to is actually going down; instead they take every individual story they hear about these horrible acts of violence seriously.

And no wonder—does it hurt any less to get shot during a downswing in crime? Do you think some eloquently delivered rhetoric about fewer robberies will convince your attacker you don’t have to hand over your wallet to him? Does a plummet in statewide gun crime change the fact a man was murdered down your block? Of course not.

While here in an undisclosed location in the Atlanta metro area, Mrs. PolyKahr wanted to visit the Atlanta Aquarium, having heard how fabulous it was. As we approached the ticket counter, Mrs. PolyKahr said "They won't let you take your gun inside," whereupon her friend blurted out "You have a gun?? You can't take a gun in there!!" I approached the unarmed guard, explained the situation, and was told I would have to leave it in the car. Now, I have become pretty expert at slipping it out of the holster and securing it in the car. North Carolina has a list of places you can't carry that would make any gun grabber's heart swell with pride. But her reaction disturbed me none the less. In all fairness, I could have simply not gone into the aquarium, but didn't want the hassle of hearing Mrs. PolyKahr complaining that I had ruined the day for them.

Yesterday evening, I attempted to engage her friend in "reasoned discourse" on the issue. She said "Well, I don't like guns." "Fair enough," I pointed out, "but I never said you had to have one if you don't like them." I pointed out that concealed carriers are among the most law abiding citizens, exceeding even police officers. I don't think she believed me, but statistics show it to be true. "I just think that if some criminal decides to shoot me, then my time is up," she said. "But what do I do, if I am disarmed because of some policy, and I feel just as surely that it is my duty to defend my life, and that of Mrs. PolyKahr?"  I asked. She pointed out that you can't take a gun to a hockey game, as if that non sequitur should settle the matter.  I pointed out that I did not attend hockey games, but the principle holds that while I am being disarmed, a criminal would find a way to get a weapon into pretty much any venue he wanted.  I pointed out that they didn't check my ankles, so that someone could very well have been carrying in an ankle holster.  I also pointed out that the guards were not armed, so they would be very little help in saving her.  Eventually, she returned to "Well, I just don't like guns."

Unfortunately, that is the attitude of a typical gun grabber and gun bigot. If she had been brutally honest, she would have blurted "Tough! Because I don't like them, you can't have them!" Also, unfortunately, no amount of evidence is likely to change her mind.

The War on Guns: Now for the Bad News...

The War on Guns: Now for the Bad News...

Go to the link for David Codrea's comments, then go to the Gun Owners of America link and read that. I'll wait. I will have my own comments after you do.

Read it? Good.

The GOA writes:

Well, this past Friday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a setback to gun owners. The issue involved a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s illegal multiple sales regulations. [NSSF v. Jones, Acting Director, BATFE.]

Through those regulations, Obama has demanded, by regulatory fiat, that firearms licensees in four southwestern states report multiple sales of certain long guns to the federal government.

The GOA is absolutely right on both counts. This ruling upholds the violation of both the Constitution and explicit statutory law, and thus exposes the danger we face as gun owners in relying on the Courts as the only line of defense in these matters. The Courts have proven to be fickle on the matter. But then the GOA says we have another line of defense:

But the larger issue is this: Congress can block these regulations by simply cutting off the money to implement them. Last fall, we demanded that the House include such a prohibition in its giant money bill. But congressional leaders ignored the Second Amendment community on this and a variety of other pro-gun issues, including defunding ObamaCare.

Ignoring for a moment that the Republicans have largely been gutless when it comes to denying this regime anything it seemingly wants, here we see the real danger cutting oneself loose from the Constitution: the sacrifice of the rule of law. The President can simply refuse to obey Congress's instructions regarding any funding by issuing a "signing statement." Why not? There are no rules other than what you can get away with. It's the Chicago Way.  The Courts are obviously willing to let him get away with anything he wants. And the Congress's hands are not exactly clean either. Even the Republicans, who had a new mandate after the 2010 elections to perform within the strict intent of the Constitution have continually violated that highest of all laws in the land.

I had thought previously that there was a small chance of avoiding the fight to come through political means and at the ballot box.  Mea culpa, but I did not believe the lengths the left would go to, to transform the founders country into a fascist hell hole. Unless there is a miracle...Today, I feel like a Spartan at the Battle of Thermopylae.

Molon Labe

Security Theatre

Kurt Hoffman has a St. Louis Gun Rights examiner piece entitled Honor Martin Luther King by Defeating Racism Inherent to Gun Control,which got me thinking. Check it out.   The truth about gun control can be found first in the South, where the white population was afraid of a slave rebellion.  After the war, they recognized the fundamental rights of their former slaves, to the point that they actively tried to deny them their rights.  Then there was Alan Korwin's piece on Diplomatic Carry. Go check that one out too.  Korwin points out that diplomats carry, and have significant body guards around them carrying, despite whatever laws may prevent them from doing so.  It is a sort of diplomatic exemption.  Korwin's point is that a diplomat's life isn't any more important than that of one of the "commoners."

Yesterday, a co-worker asked me how my weekend went, and we ended up discussing the Raleigh Gun Show put on by Dixie Gun and Knife shows, and the fact that Grass Roots North Carolina had done a land office business signing up new members (not, btw, due to anything I did. We had a new and enthusiastic member there.) He is from South Carolina, and was curious about the concealed carry permit system here in North Carolina. As I was explaining our shall issue system to him, suddenly, another person broke into the discussion to say that they had always been armed. "I would rather sit in jail than be dead," he said. He also pointed out that a concealed carry permit did not permit you to take it to very many places. I did not ask him if he were armed at that moment. Such would be a breach of etiquette among those who go armed. But good to know. Another says that "Hey, it's nobody's business if I am packin' or not." He is from New York, and he is correct. I have never advised anyone to do something illegal, and I did not do so this day either. Everyone needs to evaluate the risks according to their own lights, and act accordingly.

But all this got me to thinking about what is essentially Security Theatre, whether it is the TSA groping people, and finding your tube of toothpaste in your bag, or the Town of Garner posting "No Gun" signs on playgrounds. Crime can happen anywhere, at any time, to anyone, and it tends to happen where you least expect it. Coming out of your office at night, with no one else around, and suddenly there is some thug, and you hope all he wants is your money.  Wouldn't you wish you had a gun?

North Carolina doesn't want you to go into a place that charges you a price to go in, like a movie theatre, if you are carrying a gun. They don't want you to attend a parade if you are armed, or to run into a protest. They don't want you to take your family out to Ruby Tuesdays while armed, or to go to a hospital, or a financial institution (notice how broadly some of these things are defined.) All these victim disarmament zones are simply Security Theatre. The State will not guarantee your safety, and will not have anyone there to defend you. They also will not make the people who run these places have security on site to defend you. Instead, they depend on laws and signs to provide an illusion of safety. I know, from talking to a great many people that the illusion works on them, but I doubt it works on the criminal, and I know it doesn't work on the peaceably armed citizen who feels deeply the injustice of the State deciding for him where and when he can carry his self defense. I was in Ohio several years ago, right after the concealed carry law was passed in that State. I had gone to a range to get in a little practice. The range master and I struck up a conversation, and he mentioned that he had carried every day, everywhere he went, for 25 years.  He was another who believed it was better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

Who is Servant to Whom?

Nursing student Meredith Graves continues to garner headlines. In a piece on January 8, 2012, Kevin Williamson wrote I am Meredith Graves in the National Review Online. Williamson notes that when he worked in Philadelphia, he had a State issued concealed carry permit, exactly as Meredith Graves from her home in Tennessee, and how easy it was to violate the terms of that permit. If you have ever been to Philadelphia, you will know that Delaware, New Jersey, and New York are all within a quick drive of each other. Williamson relates a particular case in which he was taking friends to see the Liberty Bell. After explaining that it became routine for him to carry his gun whenever he went out:

So routine, in fact, that I sometimes forgot that I was carrying it, until something reminded me. That was the case when I was standing in line to take some visitors to see the Liberty Bell. Like Meredith Graves, I told the security guys that I had a license to carry a gun, that I was in fact carrying one, and asked them what they’d like me to do with it. They were typical government employees, of course, struck dumb by any unexpected turn of events.

Fortunately, he resolved his problem by placing the gun in his brief case, and checking the brief case in with the valet's desk at a nearby hotel. That in itself probably violated some law, but I doubt that Pensylvania will go after Mr. Williamson at this late date.

What I find interesting in most of the reports I read about either the Meredith Graves case, or the myriad of other cases involving otherwise peaceable citizens getting caught with a gun in New York City is that so few mention the outrageousness of someone sitting in jail for, much less being charged, when there was clearly no criminal intent; no mens rea. For peurposes of gun law in this country, a 3 year sentence would turn Graves into a prohibited person. How can a person be "prohibited" without having a criminal intent, much less an actual crime.  If she had kept her mouth shut, and kept her weapon concealed, would anyone have been the wiser?  It seems as if our masters intend to treat us like they treat school children with a "no tolerance" policy.  Williamson again:

Some will object: “You two should have known better. You should have made sure in advance that you were in compliance with the local law at all times.” And there’s something to that. (A Man for All Seasons and all that.) On the other hand, Meredith Graves and I are Americans, and the American government exists at our sufferance, not the other way around, and it sometimes needs to be reminded of that fact, especially when it is acting capriciously and incompetently, which is the rule when it comes to firearms and crime.

I am guilty as charged. But the larger point is, as Williamson indicates, in our society, the citizen is supposed to be sovereign, and the government is supposed to be our servant.  When will we begin to act like that is the case?

Jeff Knox Makes a Christmas Wish. Santa Gives Him Coal Instead

Jeff Knox has a good article over at World Net Daily entitled All I Wanted for Christmas: Fewer Stupid Gun Laws that points out the enormous annual costs of gun control. Hat tip to David Codrea of the War on Guns for pointing me to the article.

Knox firsts points out the personal costs of gun control:

In order to take advantage of the great deal from my friends in Prescott, I had to either drive up there or call and have the gun shipped to a dealer closer to my home in the Phoenix area. Driving up to Prescott takes over 2 hours each way and would burn close to $50 worth of gas. Having the gun shipped down to a local dealer would add a $22 shipping charge plus a $35 transfer fee from my local dealer. Either way, I would have to fill out paperwork and get approved through the NICS “instant” background check system.

My sister, who lives in Prescott, could have gone down to J&G and picked up the gun for me, except that’s illegal. If she were buying the gun for me as a gift, that would be OK, but if she were to buy it on my behalf or with the intention of selling it to me, that would be considered a “straw purchase” and she could face 5 years and $50,000 in penalties.

But that's not all. If you wish to carry your gun legally, you must also get a Concealed Handgun License. In some States, that can be as much as $100 dollars every five years, plus training requirements. Altogether, it can cost you quite a bit to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. Remember too that a lot of gun control laws grew out of the war on so-called "Saturday Night Specials," those cheap guns supposedly used by poor people to defend themselves against those who would prey on them. We may now have a higher quality class of firearms, but at what price?

But there is another message which could get lost in Mr. Knox's article:

There were some 16 million NICS checks conducted in 2011 at a direct cost of more than a billion dollars. That billion dollars comes out of your paycheck, and the value received for it is highly questionable. There has never been a single study indicating that the background check system has reduced violent crime. Still, a NICS check is required every time I buy a gun from a dealer. It doesn’t matter how many guns I already own or how many I have recently purchased. Each time I wish to add to my collection, I am placed under suspicion and investigated anew. Couldn’t those billions have been used to fund proven, effective crime-fighting programs or to keep serious criminals behind bars longer?

One of the principles under girding our legal system is that we are innocent until the State proves us guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We often take that for granted, but there are many places where you are automatically guilty until you prove yourself innocent.  But our system is supposed to assume we are innocent. The background check turns that principle on its head. Now you are guilty until the State satisfies itself that there is no evidence of your guilt. Further, by imposing a background check before you purchase your gun, the State is creating a prior restraint. Imagine if I had to get permission from the State prior to publishing this blog. Do you think they would let me? Do you think most of the articles that are linked to in the blog would have been published. "Shall not be infringed" means that no prior restraint should be placed on the keeping and bearing of arms.

Of course, I can hear you now saying "but we don't want criminals to have guns! What's to keep the criminal from just going in and buying a gun from Walmart, if we didn't have this background check?" My answer is that criminals don't get their guns through legal means. They steal them, of purchase them through the black market. Criminals don't get a background check, only the law abiding individual submits to it. So, what is the real purpose? Who is inconvenienced by it?

The answer to these questions becomes obvious with a little thought.  By some counts, there are 20,000 gun laws on the books at the Federal, State, and local level.  Nobody can be aware of all of them, much less observe them all.  Because of background checks, concealed carry laws, and a stunning array of other laws that you might not know about until you break one, most people no longer carry a gun as a matter of routine.  That is, of course, the purpose of all those laws.   

A Potentially Productive Citizen Rots in a New York Jail

The New York Post has an article calling for a more common sense approach to New York's gun laws when tourists are involved. The article, entitled Common Sense on Guns makes a point that when so many states now have shall issue concealed carry laws, people who have no criminal intent (mens rea) are likely to show up carrying guns for self defense from time to time. That being the case, perhaps New Yorkers should stop panicking and throwing the book at them, as they appear to be doing to Tennessee medical school student Meredith Graves.  Graves visited the 9/11 memorial over the holidays, noticed the gun free zone sign at the entrance, and asked a security officer where she could check her gun.  Graves is a permit holder in Tennessee.  The security guard promptly called police who arrested her.

I feel sympathy for Ms. Graves, I really do.  New York City gun laws are irredeemably unjust, and as these fine criminal defense attorneys explain, they don't even obey Federal law that protects travelers merely transiting through their airports. New Yorkers seem to take their gun control very seriously, and ignorance of their laws does not let you off the hook.

Fortunately, there are ways to find out about the laws of any state you may be traveling through.  Your first stop should be Handgun Laws US. The keeping of this information is done by volunteers, but the information for my state, North Carolina, seems up to date. Looking at NYC, we see that New York City does not honor any other state permit, including New York State without a NYC endorsement. Then, there are the Attorney Generals of the various states. I have to admit that the New York State Attorney General's web site doesn't seem to mention guns anywhere, but that might just be a clue.

New York's gun control law is called the the Sullivan Act, named after a notorious Irish mobster, New York State Senator, and influence peddler in the corrupt Democrat machine known as Tammany Hall. Around the time of its passage, in 1911, the Italian mafiosi were taking over from the Jewish and Irish mobs. The Italians would shoot first, and ask questions later, if at all. So, to disarm them, Sullivan got his law passed. It didn't work, of course. The criminal element, the Irish and Jewish mobs and the mafiosi, ignored the law. The people who were disarmed were the peaceable citizens. The sordid history of laws like the Sullivan Act, or of laws that sought the disarmament of the black community in the South should cause considerable soul searching for anyone advocating for more of these laws. Gun control laws don't end violence, they merely embolden the criminals among us. And they catch people like Meredith Graves, who wasn't going to shoot anybody.

Update: National Review Online had an opinion piece by Robert VerBruggen. VerBruggans opinion is that Graves should rot in prison. NRO is a New York City publication. What fascinated me, though, were the comments, many of them well argued. Jeff Knox even makes an appearance. Go and take a look.

Winston Salem Journal Gets It Wrong on Guns in Parks

"Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always "against" things, never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so... "  Ronald Reagan, A Time for Choosing October 27, 1964.

The Winston Salem Journal is at it again, compounding ignorance with an anti-gun agenda to create an editorial more notable for lies and half truths than for useful information.  The first thing the Journal should do is its own research.  You see, concealed carriers are actually 5 times LESS likely to shoot somebody than the average person in North Carolina. Indeed, as the NYT inadvertently proved, people with concealed carry permits are far more responsible than the average person when it comes to murder, violent crimes, or drunk driving. That is not to say that those who have a permit to carry are perfect but it does point to this group being far safer than the norm.  If I had a group of concealed carry permit holders around me, I would feel pretty safe.  Go and check out The Truth About Guns website for all the facts.

Next, the editorialists seem to take a great leap of logic off the page and into the great blue sky with this closing statement:

On this page, we recently praised the Winston-Salem City Council for exempting most city parks from the new state law allowing those with concealed-carry permits to strap on their handguns in public parks. We support the Second Amendment, but it has to be applied with common sense.

We realize that there are plenty of responsible permit holders out there, but most have never had to fire at a human being in the midst of an emotional situation. And while troublemakers may be relatively few, the damage and tragedy they can inflict is large. Expanding concealed-gun rules is not worth the danger to the rest of us — and to our children.

Now the great leap occurs here because they assume, apparently that if concealed carry permit holders did not have guns, nobody would. Right? How else to explain the thinking going on here. It is rather like the You Tube Video seen here. But if dissuading people who mean to do you harm was so easy, I doubt guns would have been invented in the first place. So which would you rather have when your children are playing on the teeter-totter and some bad guy tries to abduct them: a cell phone, or a cell phone and a gun. It has become cliche, but when seconds count, the police are minutes away.  And if there is you, with your gun, and someone else has a gun too, chances are your bad guy is going to run away.

The editorialists close with a typical tag line that conjures up the notion of "for the children." It has become so well worn that it should be a trademarked term.  In any case, two can play at that. I take my grand children to the park when it is nice out. Mrs. PolyKahr is convinced that sending the kids to the park helps to wear them down when it comes time to go to bed. I am not so sure, but that's a story for another day. Having been permitted to carry, believe me I want that advantage if someone tries to abduct my grand kids. You take a fat old out of shape fart like me facing a fit 20 year old armed with at least a knife, possibly a gun? Hell, yes I want to equalize the odds if I can.

But there is moral argument to be made in favor of the idea that the peaceful armed citizen should be allowed to carry anywhere he chooses.  The State, be it the city or the county, ultimately can not prevent someone who means harm to others from carrying pretty much anywhere that person chooses, short of setting up an oppressive police state.  Perhaps this is what the Winston Salem Journal wants, but it is not what we have now.  Laws on the books only allow prosecution after the peaceful armed citizen is dead, and signs only warn that the bad guy is about to incur another charge.  That being the case, the defense of our lives, and the lives of our young, depend on us alone.  Shouldn't we then be able to make our own determination about where and when we are going to carry a weapon?  Why should I let others, who will not be there if the gravest extreme should rear its ugly head, make those decisions for me.

Georgia Going for Constitutional Carry

The War on Guns: Georgia Gun Owners going for ‘Constitutional carry’

Go and read at the War on Guns. It is about time. I have accepted having a concealed handgun license as an intermediate step. But frankly, from my perspective, no one should have to obtain a license to either purchase a gun, or to bear it. The move to "shall issue" has had a salutary effect on the argument, however, by demonstrating that concealed carriers are a law abiding bunch who don't go around killing people because they looked at them the wrong way. There has been no blood in the streets, or wild west shootouts. But many people hesitate to obtain these licenses for a number of reasons: fears of what a future government may do, fears of being outed in the press. Some want to have the privilege because they have been threatened before, but fear the process for obtaining a license would alert the other party to where to find them. I understand.

A right can not be licensed. You don't require a license to publish a blog, for example, no matter how much you dislike what is said. To do so renders speaking out a privilege, not a right. You can not require a fee to exercise your right to vote. Books can not be banned, no matter how disreputable the content of the book. Then why may the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment be licensed and taxed?

It has been argued that the solution for people who speak reprehensible ideas is more free speech. Don't censor these guys, the free speech advocates say, instead encourage others to offer their reasons why it is reprehensible, and let the public decide. Public opinion will do more to stop such ideas than censoring them. I agree. But then, why doesn't the same hold true for Second Amendment rights. John Lott has argued, and no one to date has made a valid counter argument, that more guns equals fewer crimes. Everyone who can should bear arms freely, so that criminals will not know at any time who is carrying a gun and prepared to use it. This is not vigilante justice, but stopping the crime right there when it happens. If an armed society is a polite society, think how much more civil our society would be if more of us were armed.

The Herald Gets it Wrong

A recent editorial in the Johnston County Herald contained an editorial that touched on something that I had some personal experience with. The Town of Garner recently reacted to the new State law allowing concealed carry in public parks by defining "recreational area" fairly tightly.

The Town of Garner, like a lot of towns, views itself as a "right thinking place, where progressive values of the people prevail." I determined this from watching them, rather than from anything actually said. As such, they had designated public parks as places where you couldn't bring a concealed handgun. Never mind that all sorts of other potentially lethal items such as baseball bats, crow bars, knives, and so forth could be brought to the parks, and in some cases were required to be there. I speak of baseball bats. On December 1, 2011, the new Castle Doctrine went into effect. Among the things provided in the law was that cities could no longer designate public parks as no gun zones. It was clear at the meeting of the Town Council that they didn't want to do this. None the less, they also did not want to finance a losing lawsuit from the group Grass Roots North Carolina, a group to which I belong.

Overall, the editorial is not terribly anti-gun, and I would normally pass it without comment, but there are huge flaws in the reasoning.  A quote from the editorial:

As for those who think that law-abiding folks ought to be able to carry a gun wherever they want, we're sympathetic. At the same time, we sympathize with moms and dads who might be uncomfortable at the sight of someone packing a handgun on the playground. We sympathize too with referees who don't want to confront parents with pistols, and no one wants an athlete or spectator to get caught in the crossfire of an exchange of gunfire.

The first thing to note is that moms and dads wouldn't see these guns. They are called "concealed" for a reason-you can't see them. I am always amazed when this argument is trotted out. It is trotted out for instance as a reason to keep concealed carry out of bars. After noting that it is illegal for someone to drink while carrying concealed (which is where they go first) the anti-gunners will rejoinder with "but what if some drunk sees your gun, takes it from you, and shoots up the place." Of course, no one will see it, because it is concealed.

The piece goes on to note that criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. The editors hope thereby to divert the most powerful arrow in our quiver. But look at what they have done! They have just assumed that moms, dads, referees, athletes and spectators can all rest assured knowing that no one has a gun on the premises. Except they don't know any such thing. Instead, these people are lulled by an illusion of safety.  Any security these people feel is created by some security theatre staged by the city. But if putting up signs could prevent violence, the this little skit on You Tube would be true, along with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

During the meeting with the Garner Town Council, we mentioned the case of Anna McCall who fended off a man trying to kidnap her three year old son will playing at a playground. Anna McCall's story was fortunately a happy one. One wonders if the next time it happens in Garner, will the parent be quite so lucky?

Banning Assault Pools and Pillows

Ammoland has a very good summary of child fatality statistics in an article entitled More Children Killed by Pillows than by Firearms. According to the article, in 2010, only 65 children (those aged 14 and under) were killed by firearms. That same year, 1,210 were killed by suffocation, and 739 were killed by drowning. Should we ban assault pillows and assault pools?

Every few years, the gun grabbers bring up the idea that thousands of "children" are killed every year in drive by shootings, and from finding their parent's gun and shooting themselves or others.  I hate to be harsh, but the far greater number of these "children" are ages 15 through sometimes as old as 20, who are involved in criminal gangs, selling drugs, running prostitution and guns.  I feel genuinely sorry for the mothers who come on television and sob that their boy was a good boy, but the facts usually say otherwise.  By the age of 18, many have a long record of crimes.

Please make a copy of the chart included with the article.  The next time someone starts yammering on about the number of children killed with a firearm, pull out the chart.

H.R. 822 Revisited

I recently wrote about H.R. 822, the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act here. I was decidedly underwhelmed by this bill, feeling that it would never receive the support of both houses of Congress and the President. Several other articles have appeared about H.R. 822 at Keep and Bear Arms. The first of these appeared in the Washington Times under the bipartisan byline of Heath Schuler and Cliff Stearns, both Congressional Representatives, entitled The Nation Needs Right to Carry Reciprocity on Friday, November 11, 2011. They write:

H.R. 822 would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed-firearm carrying permit or license to carry a concealed weapon in any other state. It would not create a federal licensing system but merely would require states to honor one another’s carry permits, just as states recognize one another’s driver’s licenses. Concealed-carry permit holders would have to obey the concealed-weapon laws of the state they enter, just as drivers must obey speed limits and basic safety laws of whichever state they are driving in, regardless of where they are from.

For once, Congress would be fulfilling a Constitutional role, enforcing, among other things, the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, as well as strengthening the Second Amendment. As a concealed carry license holder, I appreciate the simplicity of this requirement. It might have prevented this man from being arrested in New Jersey and serving 7 years for possession of guns he owned legally. Then again, if you are carrying hollow points in your defensive weapon, as many of us do, you might just go to jail anyway. Or this from the Blaze. New Jersey is a State that has concealed carry provisions, but not for ordinary "citizens" who must face armed criminals with their bare hands and hope for the best.

The Seattle Gun Rights Examiner has an article entitled Showdown Looming on National Right to Carry again on Friday.

That is, the right to keep and bear arms applies to all citizens in all states equally, and this right is a civil right that crosses all state borders and city limits. This – at least in theory – means that all law-abiding citizens who choose to go armed have that right within the borders of the United States, subject to local regulations, which change from state to state. Therein may lay a dilemma, but reasonably intelligent gun owners should be able to understand the basics about where firearms are prohibited and where they are allowed.

I agree. Unfortunately, however, some States feel that their role is to tell their subjects how they may defend themselves, rather than let citizens decide such things for themselves. If this passes, I see New Jersey laws becoming even more draconian as a counter to it. These collectivist bastards will not give up power easily.

Update:  The Gun Owners of America has some important information that you should read.

Getting All Lathered Up Over Nothing

So, according to Opposing Views, Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts will not vote for H. R. 822, the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. Yawn.  This is hardly news. Frankly, I don't get lathered up over bills like this anymore.

But I should explain.

I used to get worked up over such things. Thinking logically, I couldn't see the difference between a gun permit and a driver's license. Different States have varying requirements for obtaining a driver's license, but once I have it, I can drive in any State of the union I want. The same can not be said of my Concealed Handgun Permit. While North Carolina has extensive reciprocity with other States, I can not carry in all of them. Both cars and guns can be used to kill, and thus require their owners to use them responsibly. Approximately 12,000 people are killed as a result of gun homicides. In that same year, 2004, there were 38,444 fatal car crashes. It seems like there should be more emphasis on drivers than on gun owners. Others, apparently, do not see things the same way.

Look, this bill has very little chance of actually being passed and signed into law. Even if it is passed by the House, it is likely dead on arrival in the Senate. Indeed, what the bill is designed to do is allow normally anti-gun Congresscritters to burnish their street cred with the NRA ahead of an election that is sure to upset some Congresscritters' apple cart.  Jeff Knox has a great piece on the issue over at World News Daily. Jeff Knox:

What will probably have the greatest impact on whether the "full faith and credit" concealed weapons permit bill (H.R. 822) gets voted out of the House is its prognosis in the Senate. If Harry Reid and Senate Democrats make it clear to their House colleagues that the bill would be dead on arrival in the Senate, the House will consider it a freebie and pass it in a heartbeat. If, on the other hand, Reid and company suggest that locking up the bill would be difficult and politically inconvenient, there will be much more resistance to passage in the House – from Democrats and Republicans.

It is unfortunate that for once the Congress would be performing a Constitutional act by passing this bill. But there is real danger as well. As soon as the House finds itself back in Democrat control, perhaps with the next election (after all, the Republicans haven't exactly covered themselves in glory so far) the bill would then be used as a basis to add all kinds of restrictions on guns nationally.  And we have seen how little the Democrats care for our opinion with the passage of Obamacare. So, in many ways, I think I would rather let the issue rest where it is.

Meanwhile, we'll be pushing for Restraunt carry here in NC.  We've come so close twice before.

Bill Engvall Should Stick to Comedy

David Codrea, writing as the National Gun Rights Examiner, takes Comedian Bill Engvall to task for statements made about the Second Amendment on Bill Maher's show. You can find it at Bill Engvall Owes Gun Owners and Apology. Kurt Hoffman, writing as the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner has this to say:

Comedian Bill Engvall then disagreed--to an extent--saying he could not support giving up protection of the right to hunt and to defend one's family, but said, "I don't think there's any reason for a person like myself to own an AK-47." Maher interjected, "Can we have just one gun?" on the theory, perhaps, that the First Amendment protects the right to publish just one article. Meanwhile, Engvall offered to meet Wagner halfway, and ban guns on which, "You can just pull the trigger, and 60 bullets fire out." The oppressive laws on machine guns are apparently not oppressive enough for Engvall.

Of course, Engvall is a celebrity comedian, who can probably afford armed security wherever he makes a public appearance. Now, I like Bill Engvall's comedy routines. He makes you laugh without resorting to fowl language and overt sexuality. But Engvall is terribly ignorant about the reasons why the Framers included the Second Amendment. First, Engvall feels that he doesn't "need" an AK-47. That is fine and dandy, but what Bill Engvall needs or doesn't need hardly defines what the other 300 millions of Americans may "need." The Framers wisely left that open to each person to decide. Frankly, having studied the biographies of a few of the Founding Fathers, I would be very wary about second guessing these erudite students of history. Just sayin'. Now, it happens that I don't "need" an AK-47 either, having no place to practice with the weapon. But I know plenty of people who do feel a "need," and I wouldn't second guess these people. On the other hand, I am currently looking for a good pump action shot gun in 12 ga. Others may not feel the same. Thus the gun market provides guns for every purpose imaginable for just that reason.

Second, the Bill of Rights is notably not a Bill of "Needs." Under the Second Amendment, one does not have to demonstrate a need for particular weapon in order to keep and bear it. I would note that while Engvall apparently hunts with traditional bolt or lever action guns, many people are now taking their "evil black rifles" afield to hunt with. In the Eastern part of the country, there is little need for a long distance rifle because the forests are so thick, one can usually only see no more than 100 yards, perfect for an AR-15 platform weapon.

Katie Pavlich has some interesting points at Townhall.com. Pavlich points out that in every case throughout history, tyrants have always disarmed the people first, to gain control of them. She cites the Nazi use of the gun registration lists to confiscate the weapons Jews prior to launching Kristallnacht, the night of broken glass. It is a lesson worth remembering.