BofA Drops McMillan Group for Political Reasons

I missed this the day it came out. Bob Owens had a piece on Pajamas Media reporting that Bank of America drops Gun Company for Political Reasons. If you have an account at BofA, and the other banks in your area haven't thoroughly disgusted you yet, you might think about moving your money elsewhere.  Be sure to tell them why you are changing banks. You do not expect to change the company's policies, but why should you help fund something you don't agree with?

We are now seeing the real danger of the TARP bailouts, and indeed, of bailouts in general.  When the government pays the bill, the government gets to tell you what to do.  Given the rabidly anti-gun nature of this administration, it makes sense that they would try to cut off as much funding to gun manufacturers as the could.  While I am sure McMillan Group will survive, they way that these TARP bailouts were handled such that the government muscled there way into otherwise profitable banks has always struck me as being not much different from a mafia protection racket.

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.

"If it Bleeds, it Leads" Unless there is a good Sex Scandal

The writer of this piece of reporting at the American Thinker today gives a very generous, extremely magnanimous take on why the MSM has failed to cover the Fast and Furious scandal, otherwise known as Gunwalker. In this piece, M. Catherine Evans claims Politicians Sex Drives Trump High Level Government Crime. Really?  Take a look.  Ms. Evans actually does take the media to task, but then gives them an out by claiming that a sex scandal will always trump murder and mayhem with the public.  It is true that sex sells, but so does violence. 

Does the fact that hundreds of people in Mexico, and an as yet untold number of Americans were killed, on our own soil, by guns which were deliberately allowed to walk into the hands of drug cartels by an agency of our own Federal government, with the knowledge of at least Eric Holder and some of his assistants, not really count as news?  What happened to the adage "if it bleeds it leads?"  I am not talking here about theoretically having blood on their hands.  I am talking here about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) actually breaking both U.S. and Mexican laws (presumably to enforce the law) to create a bloodbath with guns that could be shown to come from U. S. gun dealers to prop up a political agenda to again ban so called "assault weapons."  These are indictable crimes!  Yet no one has been indicted, or tried.  No one has had to fall on their sword.  The MSM has barely mentioned it, and the public barely knows it happened.

While the law breakers are trying to claim that they just made a mistake, the truth is that many are experienced law enforcement and prosecutors.  They knew exactly what they were doing, they knew the likely outcome, but deemed lives to be a cost they were willing to pay for a political agenda.  The least we can do is require them to pay something more.

The Morality of Gun Control

Caught an interesting piece over at the Buckeye Firearms site entitled It's the Criminals, Stupid-Man is dead after City of Cleveland fails to get violent felon off the streets by Ken Hanson, Esq. Hat tip to Keep and Bear Arms for pointing me to this site. I recommend every read the whole article, though the title says everything you need to know.

Now, putting aside that the City of Cleveland is run by a gang of leftwing ideologues who have more sympathy with people like Mr. Lesure than the do with the average, hardworking and taxpaying American, this article points up the entire problem with telling people where, and when, and how they may carry defensive weapons, or if they may carry them at all. It is not the average person on the street you need to worry about. It's the criminal, stupid.

Many people do not know this, and are shocked to discover, but the police do not in fact have any duty to protect individual citizens.  You can read about it here. Indeed, how the citizen who was, at the time, the main means of defense of both himself and his family became a "vigilante" who should not take the law into his own hands is just one more way in which our natural rights have been perverted over the years.  But it points up the moral problem various governments have when they try to restrict any citizen from carrying a weapon, either concealed or openly.  How can a government morally say that a citizen may not carry, or can only carry with permission, and then disavow the responsibility for that citizen's death if it is not natural?  Indeed, how can a restaurant that serves alcohol put up a sign that says "no guns" and then not be responsible for the safety of everyone in that restaurant?  How can an employer say to someone they may not carry, and then not provide security for their safety.

Now, before I get a bunch of hate mail from hoplaphobes saying I want to give guns to every newborn as soon as he leaves the hospital, and train them to shoot before they can walk (there is a prone position, isn't there?) I do realize that going into some of these places is entirely voluntary.  You don't need to visit a restaurant, and if you do, you take the risks the owner imposes.  But working has been determined, (by the Left interestingly enough,)  to not really be a choice.  That was the basis for no smoking bans in bars and restaurants.  Bartenders and waitresses were subjected to second hand smoke their entire shifts, day after day.  These people couldn't decide that they would rather work elsewhere.  Or was it that you felt they were to stupid to make the right decisions for them?  But I digress from the topic at hand.   Governments, on the other hand, are not voluntary, and the sovereign nature of governments makes suing them for negligence or dereliction of duty problematic.  It is even difficult to sue based on a government acting illegally.

Of course, what I am saying here ultimately has nothing to do with law, or "justice" as we know it in this lifetime.  I am speaking of morality.  When I read about instances of citizens living in places like Cleveland, where everything is done to discourage citizens from exercising their rights, and then find they are killed by a criminal who should be behind bars, but isn't, I ask myself by what moral right do they act?  Our Constitution recognized the right to keep and bear arms for all citizens.  What gives these people the right to overturn the Constitution and say otherwise?  And while the law may have nothing to do with such morality, surely the closer it cleaves to that standard, the better it would be for everyone.    

Hard History Coming

I have been getting reoriented since my return on Sunday. But things continue to be busy around PolyKahr Estates, so I have had limited time. One thing I have been paying some attention to is the debt ceiling debate, in which our "brave" Republicans have once again capitulated and given the Left what it wants for a mess of pottage.  So, it was with interest that I noted that my friend, fellow blogger, and Conservative Examiner, Anthony Martin posted a piece on Saturday entitled Why Bloody Civil War is Inevitable. Go read the whole piece, including the links. I'll wait.  Then read the Curmudgeon Emeritus's post at Eternity Road entitled The Short Route to Chaos. Notice some similarities?

On Sunday, Anthony had to publish again to make clear he was not calling for civil war, but felt in was inevitable. You can read that here. I was particularly disgusted by the comments left by on the Examiner site by "Glenn Wright" who frankly looked to be a troll trying to provoke someone...anyone... into careless words that he could take and say "See, see! They are plotting to overthrow the government!" Today I read at the Summer Patriot, Winter Soldier site the following:

it seems to me inevitable that we fight them. it is because they are our enemies, as surely as vladimir putin, as sure as ahmadinejad. we owe them no apology for our views, and we should back away from them not one iota, and give them not one peppercorn's consideration.

There are, in fact, many other sites where one will find expressions like this. To a man or woman, all express the fear that a civil war is inevitable because otherwise, liberty will be wiped out on the face of the earth.  In a former time, one could emigrate to America.  But now there is no place to run.  Those who desire freedom to live their lives without some dictator telling them at every turn what he will and will not allow, will have no choice but to stand and fight, or accept slavery for themselves and their children, grand children, and all future generations.  For too long, liberty loving individuals have been giving up ground to the loony Left. It is as if we were in a primitive tribe who gives into mad man rather than provoke him, because nobody knows what he will do next.

On guns, to take one issue, we have caved, and capitulated our way to where we were back in the 1990s, when the concealed carry movement really got rolling. If gun rights activists became radicalized, it was because it was only by being radical that they made any progress regaining our former rights. I remember GCA 68, though I was in high school at the time.  All the wise men recommended appeasing the mad men because society was coming apart, "riots everywhere you know, we can't let them have guns too. It's only a small infringement on our rights, after all.  Who knows what they will do."  But once they got GCA 68, there were further demands, always more demands to "compromise" and "be reasonable" yet again.  But we began to see that we were not being asked to compromise, but to capitulate, and we began to follow Jesse Helms advice:

“Compromise, hell! … If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?”

"By any means necessary" is not just a slogan, but a modus operandus with the Left.  It was telling to me that one of the guests interviewed on Andrew Napolitano's show, Freedom Watch, Friday let slip the remarkable statement that they needed to cut a deal to raise the debt ceiling because they feared Obama would actually not send out Social Security checks or pay the troops!  If true, the President can be said not to be merely fear mongering, but committing economic terrorism on vulnerable Americans.  And what does that say about who cares more about grandma?  The "we care more" party is willing to hold Grandma hostage until they get their debt ceiling raised, because spending more is all that counts with them!

The great majority of Americans consider themselves some brand of conservative, while only 20 percent consider themselves Leftists.  Typical of conservatives, they have been slow to react to the foreign invasion of a European philosophy called Marxism.  It has not helped that the Marxist have hidden themselves behind false flags and innocuous sounding names.  But America is waking up, at the 11th hour.  It appears that the Left is currently in control of all the cards.  We just have ourselves, our faith and our guns.  So be it.  Our side is through capitulating.  With Jesse Helms, we say "Compromise, hell..."  Of course, that will not satisfy the mad men.  They have taken everything else, but the want our freedom and liberty too.  So, yes, there will be bloody civil war.  I am not calling for it, I just don't see any way to stop it, barring a miracle.  Don't shoot the messenger.

Prosecution under RICO

Bob Owens has the latest summary of the Gunwalker scandal over at Pajamas Media entitled More Gunwalker Emails Suggest Gun Control Conspiracy. It is a good read, and an excellent summary. Unfortunately, it does not give credit where it is due, namely David Codrea (The War on Guns) and Mike Vanderboegh (Sipsey Street Irregulars). I remain in awe of Mike's ability to get sensitive information out of ATF.

Bob Owens:

Chait was asking Newell to use tracing data to support an initiative supported by the administration to require the reporting of multiple rifle sales.

If that sounds familiar, it should; this week, President Obama pushed an executive order — an end-run around Congress – stating the feds will now require the reporting of multiple rifle sales within a five-day period. That the office of the presidency lacks the constitutional authority to enact such a rule seems irrelevant to this administration, which is certain to see this edict challenged in court if the ATF attempts to enforce it.

The emphasis is mine. This President, and his administration, have no respect for the laws of this nation, no respect for the Congress, and since they were elected by the people, no respect for the people of the United States.  To our "Most Wise Anointed One", we are just a bunch of rabble who need to go back and play with our toys, while the "Professional Politicians" solve our problems for us.  What nonsense.

Owen again:

Every component of federal law enforcement within the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security — and most likely with the knowledge of the Department of State — undertook a massive operation designed to facilitate the flow of thousands of weapons into the hands of some of the most vicious criminal organizations on Earth. These operations likely took place with the full knowledge of cabinet level officials, and possibly the White House. The weapons “walked” were used to gun down innocent men, women, and children, not to mention the brave police officers and soldiers in each nation trying to wage peace.

It demands a criminal investigation and the possible RICO prosecution of dozens of federal law enforcement officers, supervisors, senior management, political appointees, and possibly elected officials.

Our federal law enforcement apparatus became a criminal conspiracy. This was an assault on the democratic rule of law and the very essence of our republic.

Some of these people may actually believe that the presence of guns is the problem, and not the fact that Mexico is a kleptocracy that doesn't recognize the Mexican peoples' natural rights. Maybe. But they have succumbed to the totalitarian temptation very quickly. They are manufacturing "evidence" and writing illegal laws that will enable them to control, not the guns, but the law abiding people on this side of the border.  That is always the way, isn't it:  in order to stop some criminal bastard, miraculously they put the burden on the law abiding citizens, and not on the criminals who in any case just ignores the laws.  And they do it over and over and over.  At some point, one has to note that such "incompetence" always seems to make your and my life more difficult while seeming to make the criminal's life easier.  Do you see a pattern?  It is not about guns, it is about control.  Our government does not trust the average citizen to use guns responsibly.  That is the problem.

Update:  From the Klamath Falls Herald and News comes this letter to the editor. It is pretty direct and to the point:

This is an astonishing development when the very agency that will be charged with the administration of the new regulation was responsible for permitting the felonious sale and transportation of firearms to Mexico.

It is Official: Congress Irrelevant

It is now official: Congress has become irrelevant. The BATFE has just announced that buyers of 2 or more long guns in 4 Southwestern States will have to register their purchases. I was notified Tuesday by the NRA at Obama Administration Approves Illegal Multiple Sales Reporting Requirements. I have to admit to taking some time to digest my thoughts and put them into a post because I was so angry. You see, the fact is, the Obama Administration has no authority under law to do this.

Now the term "has no authority" sounds so tame. What it means is that the government can not do it. But as the executive, they can do it if they are willing to ignore Congress. Neither Congress, nor the Courts have the ability to enforce their statutes or rulings. This has been the danger many of us perceived all along if Obama was elected President. My Leftist "friends" always thought I was racists for opposing this guy, or that I was merely hyper partisan. No, I perceived that Mr. Obama would be a lawless, rogue executive, and so he has proven to be.

The BATFE has no legal authority to demand these reports, and the flood of new paperwork (BATFE estimates 18,000 reports per year) will waste scarce law enforcement resources that should be spent on legitimate investigations.

Deputy Attorney General James Cole said in the DOJ statement that this new reporting measure “will improve the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to detect and disrupt the illegal weapons trafficking networks responsible for diverting firearms from lawful commerce to criminals and criminal organizations.”

As anyone who watches the news is aware, the BATFE has recently come under intense scrutiny due to its involvement in, and handling of, the ill-conceived and ill-fated “Fast and Furious” operation. "Fast and Furious" was a part of the five-year-old "Project Gunrunner" program and encouraged Arizona gun stores to sell thousands of guns to suspicious buyers, despite objections from dealers and BATFE field agents alike.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) called the new policy "the height of hypocrisy," and said the Obama administration is restricting the gun rights of border state citizens "when the administration knowingly and intentionally allowed guns to be trafficked into Mexico.” Smith went on to say, “Limiting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens is not going to solve the problem."

Earlier this year, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on and passed, by a vote of 277 to 149, an amendment to H.R. 1 offered by Reps. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) and Dan Boren (D-Okla.) that prohibits the use of federal funds for the reporting scheme.

That last, the Rehberg Amendment was stripped out of the final bill by Senate Democrats. And it is Democrats again who are showing that they are more than willing to infringe on that which shall not be infringed.

Here's the thing.  When the government violates the clear meaning of its own Constitution to create new "laws," those "laws" are not legitimate, and you and I have no reason to follow them, other than the consequences getting caught.  No one respects the law when the laws are made or broken at the apparent whim of Dear Leader. It may be the Chicago way, but it is not the American way. In the case of Second Amendment rights, it is interesting to me that governments that deny those rights, such as New York City, Chicago, and Mexico are always whining that governments that recognize more of those rights, such as Virginia and Florida are creating crimes by exporting guns.  Except for Fast and Furious, though, guns are not the problem. Any time you deny the peoples' natural rights, you are going to be creating crimes. People are going to try to earn a living legitimately if possible, illegitimately if it is not. People are going to try to defend themselves, legitimately if they can, illegitimately if they can't.

Speaking of Fast and Furious, Katie Pavlich had a piece yesterday in Townhall.com entitled Operation Fast and Furious Designed to Promote Gun Control.

"Internal ATF emails seem to suggest that ATF agents were counseled to highlight a link between criminals and certain semi-automatic weapons in order to bolster a case for a rule like the one the DOJ announced yesterday [Monday]."

The "one the DOJ announced yesterday" was the rule on multiple sales of long guns I was posting about above. Instead, it is the smoking gun proving that the entire operation Fast and Furious was nothing more than a plot designed to provide evidence supporting the Obama administration's preconceived gun control agenda. It was not about catching drug cartel heads, because they already knew who and where they were. It was not about catching straw purchasers, because if they had that in mind, they would have arrested them as soon as they walked out the door with the goods. It was about manufacturing "evidence." The government violated the laws, that you and I must obey on pain of prison. Untold Mexican nationals were killed. At least two Federal agents, and Lord knows how many U. S. civilians will eventually be killed because of it, just to manufacture evidence for a non existent problem.

The laws are supposed to apply to everybody, irrespective of station and status. If the Administration has chosen to break some laws, and they are not held to account (as in go to jail) then all bets are off.  Nobody has to obey any law they choose not to.  Meanwhile, if Congress wishes to regain relevancy, Democrats must put ideological considerations aside, and will join with Republicans to stop this President's lawlessness now. 

Update: Appropos of about which I was talking is David Codrea's Nation Gun Rights column entitled Will Gunwalker Violations Bust Criminal Investigations Wide Open. David's column includes an e-mail from someone who sounds like he has experience, and knows whereof he speaks. Go read what he has to say.

Update 2: The American Thinker has an excellent article on the Gunwalker scandal, and the Mark Chait e-mail which provides us with a "smoking gun" at The Real Under the Radar Target of Operation Fast and Furious by Roya Johnson. A good read.

Gunwalker Scandal: Why Charges Are Not Being Brought

Mike Vanderboegh has an interesting post up entitled Media & Congress the Big Legal Point of the Gunwalker Scandal: It Was a Conspiracy to Illegally Export Weapons to a Foreign Country. Mike makes some excellent points, and an excellent case that high officials should be brought up on charges. Yet nobody is talking about such a thing.  Even Mexico, which has been injured in this debacle, has not brought any charges.

Hmmm.

Oh, so that's why.  Go read the whole disgusting thing.

Gunwalker: Why is nobody being charged with a crime?

Here's a real dumb question for you, but it goes to the heart of much of the current terror raining down on the American people by their own government: Why is any agency of any government allowed to break the law as part of law enforcement? I have been reading the "Gunwalker" scandal that has been finally in the news lately, after getting very little traction for months. David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh raised the alarm when Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed, but could get no news agency interested. Finally, Codrea got one of the whistle blowers in touch with Senator Grassley's office, and a few news agencies began to take notice. Now GOA is calling for the ATF to be dismantled.  I agree with them.  The ATF has been charged with enforcing Unconstitutional laws.  Whether or not recognized by the courts, an Unconstitutional law is not valid (though of course you WILL go to jail for violating such a law, and rot in prison with the cold comfort of knowing you were right.)

The one thing that has struck me all along about this situation, and that nobody seems to be talking about is why we allow agents of our government to break our own laws? It is clear from the Issa hearings that ATF agents knowingly allowed an estimated 2000 guns to get into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels, when they could, and should, have stopped them. The AFT agents therefore chose to overlook violation of United States laws for which they were charged with upholding.  Doesn't that make them complicit in the violation of those laws?  Since the consequences were in some cases actual murders, then why are those agents, or their supervisors who ordered them to overlook these laws, not brought up on charges? If a someone gets killed in a bank robbery, the get-away driver who did not shoot anybody is still held accountable for murder, as if he had pulled the trigger himself. By that logic, the same should hold for these agents.

Now, before a bunch of Brady-bots get ready to blog about how hard a police officers job is, and how they need maximum latitude to perform it, don't worry.  No ATF agent is likely to be charge with anything, or even reprimanded.  Just as Lon Horiuchi was not charged with murder even though he did pull the trigger on an unarmed woman, just as the members of the SWAT team that killed Iraqi war veteran Jose Guerena was recently exonerated, just as...well, I could go on. The point is that time and time again we let police, prosecutors, law enforcement, and agents of the State off for doing things that you and I would be put in prison for doing.  So don't worry that some poor miscreant might be in danger here.  But we are not going to reign in our out of control government until the American people get good and "het up."

Editor's note "het" is the past tense of "heat".

Winston Salem Journal Lies about HB 111

That there would be opposition to allowing carry in restaurants that serve alcohol is a given. That it would be so meretricious is not. The Winston Salem Journal has an unattributed editorial out entitled Hidden Handguns in Restaurants is a Bad Idea that hits all the typical, emotion laden arguments, while avoiding facts of any kind.

The editorial starts of by alleging that the law will allow people to purchase alcohol while carrying concealed. In point of fact, it is now, and will remain illegal for someone to be drinking and carrying a concealed handgun. This notion that suddenly you will have a bunch of drunk bubbas with handguns in restaurants is simply untrue. Look at the experience in Kentucky, in Tennessee, and lately in Virginia. Are North Carolinians a lesser breed? Do you really want to say that to your audience?  Because you are, you know.

Then there's the usual:

We support the Second Amendment on this page, and have long done so. We believe in guns for sporting purposes, and support the rights of individuals to protect their homes.

As soon as I see this sort of argument, I know what is coming next. The Second Amendment was not written to preserve hunting or target shooting. Indeed, the "sporting purposes" idea did not enter American law until 1968, and it should be yanked from American law with extreme prejudice. What they are really saying here is that is fine for Fudds to have weapons, because they aren't afraid of these types of people. They grew up with people hunting with expensive rifles and shot guns that cost as much as the plantation house. But handguns? It's bad enough that just anyone can have a permit to carry by applying for it, but now in restaurants (as Scarlett O'Hara faints)?  Oh my!

Then to get people really exited, they cite a 2007 case where a policeman was shot by a drunk outside a nightclub as an example. It is heart rending to be sure. But it is not obvious that it is relevant. First of all, (once again) the law will not allow people to drink while carry a gun, period. Second, I can find no evidence that Carter had a concealed handgun permit in any of the reporting. Indeed, I suspect if he did, that information would have been featured prominently in the news.  So if someone who wasn't supposed to be carrying in his car gets out of hand, how is that relevant?

Finally, they have a police chief who speculates that, just to make the point clear, alcohol and guns don't mix.  He further speculates that if the law is passed, we'll have more incidents like the 2007 case of Carter killing a police officer.  But factually, alcohol and guns can exist side by side in the same room.  It happens all the time in the homes of numerous people.  Factually, what should be stated is that someone whose perceptions and ability to react have been diminished by drinking alcohol should not be handling guns.  That goes for police, prosecutors, judges, as well as the citizen.  But again, the law does not allow people who are carrying concealed to "belly up to the bar" unless they are ordering coffee.  Frankly, I would be more inclined to listen if the police chief were speaking from actual experience, rather than just speculating.

If the paper wishes to have an agenda, they should none the less have to use facts to back up their arguments.  They shouldn't be able to lie, tell half truths, and create fear out of emotional stories and still call themselves a "journal."  That is not journalism; that's propaganda.

Overwhelmed

I have a cold, and like many men, I am a total baby about such things. You would think I was about to die. Since I am not running a fever, I am pretty sure I will live, but never the less, I feel a sense of ennui.

There is so much in the news to comment about, that keeping up with all of it, and making useful comments seems an overwhelming task. The unions protesting in Wisconsin against the Governor's plan to require that they pay some of the costs of their benefits is one that simply defies belief. Here we have teachers standing along side socialist and communist organisations, throwing a hissy fit because they are going to be asked to pay a part of their health plans and retirement. Everyone else does. Teachers felt it was OK to shut down the schools, and to use their students as props, and to get fake doctor's excuses to do so. What sort of ethical standard does that make for the children to emulate? What message does it send to have them standing with socialists and communists.  Communists and Fascist regimes were responsible for an estimated 130 million murders of their own people in the 20th century.  How do they justify standing with such people?  While the Left has been calling for "civility" from the right, where it has gotten nothing but civility, what message does it send to students to see their teachers making threats and rude comments to lawmakers on the television?  Perhaps they should all be fired, and Wisconsin should start over.

The Project Gunwalker scandal has reinforced for me my take on Government in general. Namely that it is the biggest, toughest bunch of thugs out there. You can find my personal beliefs about what government is at Of Government and Being Conservative. But the complete, and very public lawlessness of what ATF has done is staggering. In the process of sending guns into Mexico deliberately, they have violated our laws, violated international treaties, violated Mexican law, been responsible for one, maybe two murders, and that is just the start. The cover-up, as always, has led to violations of more laws. The DOJ looks to be running out the clock on Senator Grassley, and they just might succeed. Despite the heroic efforts of David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh to keep the story going, I fear the ATF will get away with it, which will embolden it to more thuggish behavior. I urge anyone who may be concerned to write their Senators ask them to hold hearings on Project Gunwalker. You can find the details at The National Gun Rights Examiner page.

Then there is the utter ignorance in Kaylee Dodson's letter to editor, found at Keep and Bear Arms. Ms. Dodson, writing to the Standard Examiner claims:

Elias makes a good obvious suggestion that would protect schools from such events as the Columbine shootings. The Second Amendment does protect the right to bear arms, but in it may also take away others rights to confidently attend school in safety. It could be argued that one might not see a 'Gun-free Zone' sign and therefore wander into that zone without being aware. How many times has a person been pulled over by a cop because they failed to 'observe' a stop sign or a red light? The warning is there, it's your job to see it. Much like a No Smoking sign, I feel that setting up gun-free zones can help protect those who do not wish to be subject to the dangers that come with the prohibited action. We don't all make the same choice to carry a weapon or smoke a cigarette and therefore shouldn't all be exposed to the fire that may follow.

The only way that a person can be confident of his or her safety is if he or she is prepared to enforce that safety against someone who might try to violate it. The putting up of signs, whether they are  "gun free zone" signs, or "no smoking" signs, only stops those inclined to obey them. But these are not the people you need to be worried about. The people you need to be worried about are the people who would violate those signs with the intent to do you harm.  I say this with complete respect for the tough job the police do, but if that day ever comes, when seconds count the police will be minutes away.  You may not like to be around people carrying guns, but if a criminal brings a gun on campus despite the signs, you wouldn't know it until he decides to draw and start shooting.  That's the reality.  So, your confidence in your safety is in fact only an illusion, smoke and mirrors to lull you into such a state.  You can remain in your state of arrested development, but I advise that you grow up and see the world as it truly is.  Begin looking out for yourself.  Buy a gun, learn how and when to use it, and carry it with you everywhere you go.  And stop putting up roadblocks to others who have already grown up.

Now, for those who have grown up, there was a post over at the Truth About Guns entitled Self Defense Tip: Just Because You're Shot Doesn't Mean You're Dead. It is definitely worth thinking about. What if you get shot in a confrontation?  According to Robert Farago, most people survive gunshot wounds, which means your assailant has likely survived and you need to keep an eye out not only for further assaults from him, but his possible friends as well.  Please read, and think about what you might do.

Yet Another "Can't We Just Compromise" Article

Around these parts, Senator Jesse Helms is remember fondly for his conservatism and his no compromise style. Helms was the longtime Senator from North Carolina. He is reported to have scream at opponents:

“Compromise, hell! … If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?”

The answer to Senator Helms question is, of course, "No!", just in case anyone had any doubts. So it was with a growing sense of anger that I read in the Huffington Post an editorial by Paul Clolery entitled Intelligent People with Opposing Ideas Can Compromise. He is, naturally, writing about the need to new gun control laws. My answer to him is the same as Jesse Helms answer was: Compromise hell.

I must admit that Clolery brings up some of the memes more subtlety than do many of the articles I read. For example, after a little history lesson about the duel between Hamilton and Burr, he points out that the founders could not imagine multi-shot weapons. Really? I give our Founders more credit for imagining the possibility of modern technology than does Clolery, but just to pop his bubble a bit, pepperbox pistols were already extant at that time, though not many were in use. I am sure some of the founders were aware of them.  If they were aware, I am sure they thought about how these could be used in the future by militia members to great advantage.

Then there's the "Second Amendment was an after thought" meme. Of course, that would mean the First Amendment was an after thought too, and there goes the freedom of the press. Where this meme falls down is that in order to get the ratification of some States, promises were made to immediately amend the document to include a bill of rights. Unlike politicians today who make promises they never intend to keep, Madison intended to keep the promise, and it was his first priority in the new Congress. So, no, the first ten Amendments were not an after thought, but an integral part of the ratification of the Constitution.

The definition of "compromise" includes the idea of a quid pro quo. In other words, we each get something. But I don't see were you are offering one of your basic rights up for grabs. My answer is always "compromise, hell," but since you insist on a "compromise" then you should be willing to give up a fundamental right as precious to you as the right to keep and bear arms is to me.

Since Mr. Clolery likes history so much, he can see the time line of Gun Control here. I would note that for all of these infringements on our Second Amendment rights, the only thing offered up is the vague promise that somehow we'll be a little safer. Of course, we didn't ask the Government to make us safer. Like the TSA grope-athons, they did that all on their own without asking us after a few newspaper editors ginned up a hew and cry. And, as it turns out, like the TSA grope-athons, not one of these laws made us any safer. You can read all about it in John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime.

So, I ask again, what fundamental right are you willing to offer up?  How about this. If we pass this further infringement on our rights, you agree not to vote in any future election. Indeed, the Government would collect the names of everyone who advocated for the infringement, or who voted for it in Congress. If an anti-gun member of Congress voted for it, all who voted for him can be presumed to have voted for it as well. This list of people would then be stricken from the voting lists, and would be barred from ever voting again. Their children would also be barred, and their children, and so forth. You, and your children and grand children would forever be barred. You, and all your family will never have a say in any future undertakings of this Nation. That's compromise. You want the illusion of safety? That's my price, and no less.  Your children will curse you forever, but then mine would curse me forever if I allowed any further infringement of our rights as well.

Comparing and Contrasting Two Second Amendment Articles

A pretty fair article on a North Carolina firearms instructor can be found at Instructor Teaches Citizens How to Protect Themselves with a Gun courtesy of Keep and Bear Arms. A quick quote:

He educates citizens ranging from retirees to night nurses to bankers, along with people who have had their homes broken into or have faced danger.

“People are afraid on many levels and we can take them and teach them the correct way to fire a gun and also give them the education and laws to know what rights they hold,” Rhodes said.

This is a straight up puff piece, with no attempt to inject any anti-gun bias. As such, I left the article feeling as though I might like to take a course from this guy some day.  But there is little discussion of policy, Second Amendment rights, or the philosophy behind the use and carrying of arms other that noting that his father always carried a gun because "you might never know when you need it to protect yourself against the bad guys."  In fact, I have to wonder if the article wasn't just a reprint of a presser.

Now compare and contrast with The Enforcement of Gun Laws. Where do I begin? How about this:

The mayors' group has helped defeat legislation that would allow gun owners with concealed-weapons permit in one state to carry a concealed firearm in another, a sore point with National Rifle Association supporters. The mayors' group wants to make federal trace data about guns used in crimes available to law enforcement and to make summary reports about trace data available to the public -- another sore point for foes.

Trace data has been available to law enforcement all along for specific crimes. In other words, if a police department is investigating a crime, they have the gun and serial number, and ask the BATFE to trace it, they get this data for this specific gun. What the Mayors actually want is the entire database of trace data to help them prosecute lawsuits against specific gun manufacturers. It is called the Tiahart Amendments and you can find their take on these amendments at Mayors Against Illegal Guns Federal Legislation site.  But no mention of the controversy, or why the "gun lobby" (actually, millions of individual citizens, but characterized in the article as the NRA), might have objections to what the Mayors want to do.  Indeed, if all they wanted was to enforce the laws on the books, why is there even a page on Federal legislation?  Clearly, they don't want to just enforce existing laws, but create more laws making life harder for legal gun owners, while failing to do anything to stop actual criminals.

This paragraph is symptomatic of the entire article.  Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) is characterized as just some poor small town rubes who reasonably just want to enforce the laws we already have.  They are pitted against Big Guns, who are forcing upon an unwilling public a bunch of lethal killing machines for profit.  But in fact, MAIG is a vicious bunch of gun grabbers who don't trust you and me to responsibly handle the keeping a gun.  They also don't seem to think that you and I can handle the truth.  Take a look on the write up for the Tiahart Amendments under the MAIG Federal Legislation website by clicking "read more" in red.  Note the stated reasons they say they want this data.  It's to go after gun dealers who break the law.  Now, unless I missed a memo, I don't remember mayors being deputized to act as Federal agents.  So how are they planning to do this?  I submit that the reasons stated are not truthful, and that the real reason is the desire to put gun manufacturers out of business with burdensome lawsuits in friendly courts.  But the "journalist" writing the article never even raises the question.  Is she even aware of the web site?  Or, does she deliberately burnish the MAIG reputation because in her mind they are fighting on the side of the angels?

Mayor Bloomberg, with the backing of MAIG, has been running around the country acting like some kind of paladin, or a lone ranger, swooping in on gun dealers and gun shows hoping to find illegal activity taking place.  His latest exploits can be found here. In Virginia he broke the law, having private investigators make straw gun purchases, all under his own authority (hint: he has no such authority). Unfortunately, he has not done anything about the real cause of crime in New York City, NYC criminals.  According to Hizzoner, since he has been incompetent at controlling criminals within his own jurisdiction, people as far away as Virginia and Arizona must have their rights curtailed.  And this "journalist" supports more out of control behavior from Bloomberg by refusing to ask the hard questions.  I now know why they call it the "media." Because calling it "journalism" would be a gross misuse of the language.