Cook County "Poll" on gun control

From the Illinois State Rifle Assn:

ISRA URGENT ALERT ? YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED

Larry Suffredin and his cohorts on the Cook County Board are up to
their old tricks again.

In order to justify passage of gun control ordinances designed to
close all gun shops and ban and confiscate most guns owned by
citizens of the county, the Cook County Board is conducting a
telephone poll where callers can vote for or against the gun control
ordinances.

Like everything else in Cook County, this poll is probably rigged.
So, it?s very important that you do the following:

1. Call 1-312 -603-6400 and select Option #1 when prompted. At the
next prompt, select Option #1 again. Then, when prompted to vote on
the gun control ordinance, press #2.

2. You should also forward this alert on to all your gun owning
friends and have them vote too.

3. You should also post this alert to any and all Internet bulletin
boards or blogs to which you belong.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT OF COOK COUNTY TO VOTE!

Let?s beat Suffredin at his own game! Vote early and often, and save your guns.

Never Again!

Arm yourself. Learn how to shoot. Defend yourself and your family. It is better to die fighting than to be subjugated.

Armed people are citizens, disarmed people are subjects and slaves.


Yeah, I know the source of the spot is weird, but the message is still good.

(h/t) Rustmeister

Why you should carry everyday!

Here's a good article from WND.

Here's a sample. Be sure and read the whole thing.

"The first step to stopping criminals from acting like they are entitled to rob, rape and murder is to get as many honest, law-abiding citizens as possible out in society carrying a gun. If the deranged killers knew they wouldn't get a shot off before being gun downed, they would find a different outlet for their rage. Instead, they are most likely to find a location where everyone turns and runs like sheep or choose to meekly submit.

Usually, after a person submits he is shot.

Instead of kneeling down to be executed or running like frightened rabbits, people should use their right to bear arms and fight back. Only by stacking the deck in favor of the law-abiding can we hope to stop criminals from preying on innocent people. Two things need to happen to put criminals on alert."

(H/T) to Jeffersonian

CCW Bills in WA State

I was unable to make it to Olympia yesterday due mostly to health reasons. I wish I could have been there though, last year was a blast!

The usual suspects were on hand to sponsor and support the anti-gun bill. Thankfully it seems that a large number of gun rights supporters were on hand to thwart their efforts.

Here is a news story about yesterday's events. Enjoy!

As was pointed out by Joe Waldron, someone really should enlighten Ms. Comer and KOMO what the difference between defending yourself and vigilantism is.

--------

Two bills take opposite sides on issue of guns on campus

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Two state lawmakers have offered dramatically different bills dealing with guns on college campuses and the measures touched off spirited debate Thursday at a Senate committee hearing.

The bill offered by Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, would ban weapons at colleges that host high school students. That would include community colleges that offer the Running Start program, and universities when high school students are touring.

In response to Murray's bill, Sen. Pam Roach, R-Auburn, introduced her own measure that would prohibit universities from banning concealed weapons. Her argument is that people with permits to carry weapons would make campuses safer. Most universities now ban weapons on campus, but that is not a state law.

The debate before the Senate Committee on Higher Education touched on everything from the Second Amendment to last year's fatal mass shooting at Virginia Tech.

Neither measure is likely to go anywhere in this year's short legislative session, said Sen. Paull Shin, D-Edmonds, the committee chairman. He suggested the sponsors work out their differences and come back next year.

Murray said his bill is an extension of existing state law that prohibits weapons at elementary and secondary schools.

"When you talk about guns, people start to flip out," he said. "We have a tragic history in this country with guns in high schools. We're not infringing on the Second Amendment when we try to protect (students)."

But Roach declared, "Based on the policy of the last 30 years, it may be evident that this is a failed policy, there have been 38 college and school shootings since the prohibition of guns in schools was enacted. There were only two recorded during the 150 years preceding that prohibition."

Murray offered his bill after hearing from constituents of a case last October at Seattle Central Community College where a student was found carrying three weapons, including semiautomatic handguns.

At Virginia Tech last April, a student fatally shot 32 people before committing suicide.

At the University of Washington in Seattle, employee Rebecca Griego was fatally shot last April by an ex-boyfriend who then killed himself.

The hearing attracted a handful of college students, including some from the UW, who testified in favor of concealed weapons on campuses.

Trip Volpe, a UW student who has a concealed weapon permit, called the policy against weapons on campus ineffective and added "there's very little anyone can do to stop a person with a gun in hand and murder in their hearts."

During the current session, Gov. Chris Gregoire requested a bill aimed at improving campus safety, but it did not touch on the gun issue. Idaho's Legislature is also considering a bill similar to Roach's.

Pro-gun backers showed up in force, handing out buttons opposing the gun-banning bill. They argued that people who want to use guns to hurt people would not care about weapon bans.

"I want to make sure the record reflects that Virginia Tech was a gun free zone, and results (were) painfully predictable," said Brian Judy, testifying for the National Rifle Association. "Only the victims were gun free."

But gun foes said guns on campuses would create more trouble.

"Well-intentioned people who have firearms and want to save the day often end up adding to the violence of the situation or becoming victims themselves," said Kristen Comer, executive director of Washington Cease Fire. "Any time we start to get into the area of vigilante justice, it's a bit precarious."

---

The bill banning weapons on community college campuses is SB 6841. The bill prohibiting universities from banning concealed weapons is SB 6860.

Burglars have rights too...

Bullshit. If some idiot comes into my house to steal or otherwise engage in criminal activity, he has no rights. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. I am not going to endanger my life, or the lives of my family members, to ensure that Mr. Bad Guy doesn't get hurt. And if he ends up dead because of his bad choices, it's not my problem.

Of course it would have to be the British. What a perfect example of the failed social experiment called gun control. Yet there are people who would like us to become just like them. It boggles the mind.

From the Telegraph...

----------

Burglars have rights too, says Attorney General

By Melissa Kite and Andrew Alderson

Last Updated: 12:35am GMT 13/12/2004

A fresh row broke out last night about the rights of householders to fight back against intruders after the Government's most senior lawyer defended the rights of burglars.

Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, flew in the face of the Prime Minister's pledge to look again at the law with a view to giving homeowners more rights when he said that existing legislation was adequate.

	Sir John Stevens: confident of support

He said that criminals must also have the right to protection from violence, prompting David Davis, the shadow home secretary, to accuse the government of being dangerously split on the issue.

Lord Goldsmith's intervention came as Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, dismissed fears that giving homeowners greater freedom when tackling burglars would lead to an "arms race" that would put them in greater danger.

He denied that a change in the law, which currently gives homeowners the right to use "reasonable force" when tackling intruders, would encourage burglars to become more aggressive.

In an interview with The Telegraph, Sir John - who last weekend came out in favour of the Right to Fight Back campaign, launched by this newspaper two months ago - said: "I am convinced that enabling householders to use whatever force is necessary will discourage burglars.

"The fact that a would-be intruder knows a householder can respond without the fear of being prosecuted will undoubtedly deter criminal acts." Sir John, who will step down next month after five years as commissioner, said fellow police officers were confident that it would act as a deterrent.

"We are on the ground," he said. "We smell it, we see it, we hear it. We know what we are talking about."

Last week, Tony Blair told the House of Commons that he would look at strengthening the law and a Tory MP has introduced a private member's bill to do so.

Lord Goldsmith, however, appeared to take issue with the Prime Minister's pledge to act. "We must protect victims and law abiding citizens," he said.

"But we have to recognise that others have some rights as well. They don't lose all rights because they're engaged in criminal conduct."

Mr Davis said: "They certainly do lose quite a lot of rights. The Government ought to make up its mind. The Prime Minister says one thing and the Attorney General says another.

"Of course all human beings have rights, but when somebody enters your home to commit a crime they give up a large portion of them."

Some critics of a change in the law have voiced concerns that burglars will feel they have to carry guns, knives and other weapons to protect themselves from householders.

Sir John, however, did not see this as a problem. "I have confidence in the good judgement and common sense of the public in knowing how far they should go."

He said that householders should be able to use whatever force is necessary even if - in exceptional circumstances - it involved killing the intruder.

He spoke of his regret about the repercussions over the verdict on Tony Martin, the farmer who shot dead one burglar and seriously injured another during a break-in at his farm in August 1999.

There was a public outcry when Martin was found guilty at Norwich Crown Court and sentenced to life in prison. The charge and sentence were later reduced to five years for manslaughter.

Sir John did not suggest that the jury had reached the wrong verdict, but added: "The Tony Martin case is unfortunate because it has skewed the debate [on the public's right to protect their home]. But it is a fact that burglars have acted with greater confidence since the Tony Martin verdict and that has to be a matter of regret."

Lord Goldsmith, however, warned of the dangers of using the Martin case to make bad law: "There are very few cases that have given rise to this problem. Besides Tony Martin, there's only one I know about.

"It's always possible to extrapolate from one case and think that something is happening across the country when it isn't."

Mr Blair's announcement of a review of the law came three days after the Conservative Party threw its weight behind a new parliamentary attempt to win more rights for householders to protect them from burglars.

The Telegraph revealed last weekend how Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP, would introduce a Private Member's Bill to change the law in favour of homeowners.

In an article in this newspaper today, Mr Mercer described Mr Blair's promise to consult before taking action as a "classic delaying tactic".

Michael Howard, the Tory leader, yesterday praised this newspaper's campaign. "I pay tribute to the highly effective campaign run over so many months by The Sunday Telegraph. It was the first newspaper to highlight this crucial issue and its persistence has been a key factor in winning this change to the law and in forcing Tony Blair's U-turn," he said. "We now need to ensure that Patrick Mercer's bill gets through parliament. The Sunday Telegraph's continued vigilance will be crucial in ensuring this."

More PSH

Gun-Shaped Belt Buckle Causes Police Response

EDMONTON -- A belt buckle shaped like a pistol got a lot of attention at Edmonton City Hall.

The tipster says he noticed the gun as the man was tucking in his shirt. Police descended upon the building shortly before noon yesterday after receiving an anonymous tip that a man was in one of the building's washrooms with a gun.

But it turned out there was no weapon, just the oversized belt buckle.

Edmonton Police Service spokesman Jeff Wuite says the tipster said there was a suspicious-looking guy in the restroom with a firearm tucked into his belt.

Officers responded and found the man, along with two other people.

The trio were put on the ground, handcuffed and searched. Wuite says even though the call turned out to be bogus, police take all firearms calls seriously.

Dreaming the implausible dream...

Consider this editorial by Joe Klock, Sr. of the Coral Gables Gazette. I've tried to break it down into manageable chunks, but just when I thought he'd stopped with the $#!^, there was even more.

I'll comment only on parts of his editorial, if you'd like to read the whole thing click here.

"As written, B.O.R. #2. reads, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Some hold that this only protects our right to have well-organized militias, while others read the same words as sanctioning the private possession of lethal weaponry.

What Madison really meant was interred with his bones, leaving interpretation to generations of English majors, history buffs, pacifists, gun-fanciers and, in their current session, the oracular whizzes of our Supreme Court."

He would have to pick the version with the most commas wouldn't he? Different versions of the second amendment exist with varying numbers of commas. With or without the commas it makes perfects sense when read in context and by studying other things the founders had to say about it.

"After extensive thought, exhaustive research and pleasurable study of "Eats, Shoots & Leaves," I have taken two firm positions on the issue: I will not speculate on what Founding Father Madison had in mind in 1789 or how he'd advise our Supremes in 2008.

Furthermore, I care not a rat's butt about that, although it might be interesting to know how he'd feel about private citizens owning AK-47s.

I do care that 30,000 Americans die annually as a result of guns in the hands of evil and/or irresponsible shooters."

Apparently you didn't do too much thought, exhaustive research and pleasurable study did you. Perhaps you'd have been better off researching the origins of the second amendment instead of a book of punctuation. Then again, since you don't care not a rats ass about the subject, you're just going to empty your gray and black water tanks on us in the form of this editorial.

Personally, I think Madison would have been fine with private ownership of Ak-47's by the unorganized militia.

Joe, would you care to back up your statistics from a non Brady or Joyce Foundation sponsored, or discredited study? I didn't think so.

"I also respect the rights of all people to defend themselves, their loved ones and their possessions against criminals, using firearms if need be.

Neither would I prevent millions of hunters from engaging in their chosen pastime, although such peculiar pursuits as shooting doves barely seem to qualify as sporting events.

Finally, I recognize that total prohibition of private gun ownership would be only a tad more popular and effective than the ill-fated banning of John Barleycorn in the Roaring (but seldom boring) 20's.

I submit, though, that those claiming the right to bear arms, either for fun or protection, assume concomitant obligations of responsibility and competence - not unlike those imposed on those who drive automobiles or perform heart transplants.

This question to those on both sides of the gun control controversy: Why not make training and licensure pre-qualifications for weapon ownership, with really heavy fines and jail sentences for those who don't comply?

No law-abiding and well-intentioned citizen should object to such a restriction, given its obvious benefit to society."

Oh my, where to start. First you respect the rights of individuals to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property with firearms. Second, you recognize hunters being able to pursue their sports whether you agree with them or not. Thirdly, you state (and I agree) that a total ban on firearms would be about as popular, and effective as prohibition was in the 1920's. Good on you for that, but then you had to flush it all away with your next statement. You state that you can't see how anyone would have an objection to treating gun ownership like driving a car. For someone who seemed to understand the rights of individuals earlier on, you prove that you really don't get it. I shouldn't be surprised.

Read the Bill of Rights Joe, I have. It's okay if you have to look them up online and read through it, I'll wait.

Done?

Okay, where in the Bill of Rights does it mention anything about driving a car, erm, horse and buggy? No? Okay, now what does the second one say? Okay, and no, it doesn't mean the National Guard or the government giving itself permission to form a militia (how stupid would that be). Now, how many times do you see "The People" and "The State" mentioned? Okay, now read the other nine (original BOR) and tell me whether or not it's clear on who has which right? Now why is the second amendment somehow different than the others? What's that? It says "Well Regulated?" Do yourself a favor and research the meaning of the phrase as it was used at the time for the correct context. Oh that's right, you really don't care about the "technical woo-woo's" as you put it.

Completely aside from this Joe, I and millions of other gun owners like me will never submit. Every gun confiscation in history was always preceded with registration. How do you think they knew where all the guns were? It sounds cliche, but "Legislation, Registration, Confiscation" has a lot more truth going for it than you'd imagine.

"This would counter the argument that if guns were banned entirely, only the criminals would be armed.

As to that lot of scoundrels, use of firearms in the commission of a violent crime could be raised to the level of a capital offense, with appropriate punishment. (Cruel and unusual, you say? Tell that to the victims and/or their families!)

Spare me, puh-leez, the legalese woo-woo and technical hair-splitting.

Simplistic though it may be, the remedy I suggest would save thousands of lives, make society safer and still allow private citizens to protect themselves, their loved ones, their hobbies and their worldly goods.

The doves are another matter, perhaps for another column when I really feel fearless."

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!" *sigh* Okay, yes, it's true. Following your plan though, the government could decide to take them at anytime they want. As to more severe punishment for criminal misuse of a firearm. Before they start doing that, I think they should make murder, robbery, rape, etc... against the law first. Oh wait, murder is against the law already and many states have the death penalty. You'd think with that in mind there'd be no murders. Aren't criminals afraid of capitol punishment?

Also, regardless of what the Brady Bunch say, there are well over 20,000 gun laws already in existence with more being added all the time. It's a constant battle to make sure my rights aren't being infringed.

Simplistic? Nah, I'd never say that...I'm too polite to tell you that you're full of crap!

UPDATE: Robb over at Sharp as a Marble has an excellent post concerning the 30,000 firearm deaths a year the anti's like to crow about. Go read!

Sanity in Maine

Click here to read the whole thing.

'Has anyone ever wondered why people with guns who have kissed sanity good-bye never take out their uncontrollable rage on the nearest police station?

Nor do they drive off to the nearest Army base, shooting range or hunting club to vent their murderous frustration.

It should only take a moment's thought to understand why: Those places have people who have relatively easy access to weapons themselves.

It's one thing to be homicidal and suicidal, but it's quite another to consider that one's murderous intent could be brought to an untimely halt through the immediate application of superior firepower.

However, there are places that draw these people like magnets, and they, too, are easy to locate: They are the places where the possession of firearms is forbidden, and that fact is widely advertised.

Some of these places even go so far as to publicly display their vulnerability to mass murder through the posting of signs that say "No Guns Permitted" or "Gun-Free Zone."'

Self-defense against suicidal killers

LINK
By Michael S. Brown
December 12, 2007

Mass shootings are becoming so regular that they are now a routine part of American life. There are almost always certain common factors. You always find one or more disturbed young men who wish to commit suicide in a way that will guarantee media immortalization. You also need a place where guns are prohibited, like a church, school or shopping center. These draw the killers like magnets.

We will never have the resources to provide police protection for all the soft targets. We will never get the media to stop turning killers into celebrities. It is unlikely we will ever get Hollywood and the video game industry to stop glorifying violence in ways that appeal to young men with money to spend. Trying to prevent access to guns is a losing proposition. As history has shown, someone who has made the decision to die is not going to flinch at the prospect of stealing guns wherever he can find them.

Media analysts seem blind to the obvious pattern in these violent attacks, but the recent violence at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs may give them a clue. In this case the attacker was quickly shot by a church member, Jesse Asssam, who had volunteered to provide armed security. Using her licensed, concealed handgun, she was able to end the attack in the early stages, saving many lives.

Contrast this to last week's attack at Omaha's Westroads Mall, where the deranged attacker was allowed to kill freely until he finally chose to end his own life. The difference is striking, not only in the number of victims, but in the message it sends to other lunatics who may wish to end their tortured existence in a way that enshrines them forever on television and the Internet. There is no glory in being shot down by a church member.

This example should be examined by everyone who has responsibility for any facility that would attract suicidal young men or homegrown terrorists. This includes churches, schools, office buildings and hospitals. Now is the time to take a survey of your employees, adult students or congregation. If you are willing to accept help from the police, why not your own people? You will find that some of them are not only quite competent with a handgun, but are willing to put themselves in the line of fire to protect innocent life. Look for the ones who already have a concealed handgun license and especially those with military or police experience.

Screen them carefully. If you would not trust them to protect your loved ones, pass them by. Help your volunteers obtain additional training. Make them part of an unpublicized security team that discusses likely threats and ways to respond. This would provide real security, not just feel-good fakery, with little or no expense.

Do this quietly, since those who don't believe in armed defense will respond with their usual strawman arguments. They'll say you want to give guns to everyone, even minors and incompetents. They'll say that fighting back makes things worse. But most of all they fear that people will be empowered to stand up in their own defense.

Wise Words From Uncle Ted

Gun-free zones get people killed
Ted Nugent
December 10, 2007 12:00 PM

Here we go again. Someone tell me why, with nearly 3,000 articles written worldwide within 48 hours following the tragic slaughter at the Omaha, Neb. Westroads Mall last week, not a single article mentioned the most important fact of all -- that there were "no guns allowed" in the mall?

What helped cause the tragedy is the liberal dream known as "gun-free zones." Guns also weren't allowed at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech University, Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, and every other location where the wanton slaughter of unarmed, helpless victims is a virtual guarantee.

It is truly anti-American and downright bizarro that private property and business owners can deny (that is, "infringe" on) this "inalienable" right bestowed upon free men by our Creator.

Consider what happened last year at a Salt Lake City mall. An armed off-duty cop properly defied that mall's "gun-free" policy and thwarted a mass shooting that was about to unfold.

How dense must someone be to hide from this information? Denial runs deep in a growing population of "we the sheeple." For shame.

When did a nation of rugged individuals turn into helpless whiners, crying and running in fear from danger and evil?

When did we abandon our natural instinct to counterpunch and attack evil, overpowering it and neutralizing it into submission?

When were we forced to dial 9-1-1, wasting precious, decisive time, instead of doing the right thing and stopping bad guys ourselves? When did we trade in independence for dependency? It's pathetic.

Every day in this country, according to the Department of Justice and other studies, armed, law-abiding citizens stop dangerous, violent confrontations from escalating into death and tragedy simply by having a gun handy to provide real "equality" on the mean streets of America.

Dedicated cops will tell you that they can't possibly be there to protect us. By the time the police show up, many innocents will likely perish at the hands of evil while good people hang around hoping and praying.

I would highly recommend that we finally learn from all these senseless tragedies. Get real. Get rid of politicians who support gun-free slaughter zones. Get rid of gun-free zones. Get a gun, learn to use it and do the right thing.

Bad guys should be shot dead, not Christmas shoppers.

Ted Nugent, the Motor City Madman, is a rock singer, hunter and board member of the National Rifle Association. Please mail letters to The Detroit News, Editorial Page, 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226, or fax them to (313) 222-6417 or e-mail them to letters@detnews.com.

From the ISRA

ISRA Action Alert:
**TOTAL COOK COUNTY GUN BAN CLEARS FIRST HURDLE**

Rabid gun-grabbers on the Cook County Board came one step closer last week
to instituting a total ban on firearm ownership in the county - except for
police and military personnel.

Introduced by Commissioner William Beavers, the so-called "Safe
Streets/Weapons Registration Ordinance" appears on the surface to be some
sort of gun registration scheme. However, closer examination reveals that
the only people who could comply with the registration requirements would
be Chicago residents who had previously registered their guns with the
city. Everyone else in Cook County would have to turn in their guns to the
police.

The ordinance would certainly ban all handguns as the ordinance disallows
registration of handguns that do not have a "chamber load"
indicator. Few, if any, handguns could comply with this requirement, so
they would have to be surrendered to the police.

The full text of Beavers' proposed ordinance may be found here:
<http://www.isra.http://wwhttp://www.isra.http://www.isra.http://www.ihttp>
To learn more about William Beavers, click this link:

<http://www.co.http://www.http://www.htt>

William Beavers is an enemy to our Constitution and an enemy to all
freedom-loving people of the United States. Call him at (312) 603-2065 and
also call his other office at (773) 731-1515 and tell them exactly what
you think of Beavers and his plan to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Another gun-hater on the Cook County Board is Larry Suffredin. Suffredin
has fielded a proposed ordinance that would shut down all gun shops in the
county.
You may read about that ordinance by clicking here:
<http://www.isra.http://wwhttp://www.isra.http://wwwhttp://www.>

Larry Suffredin is an enemy to our Constitution and an enemy to all
freedom-loving people of the United States. For full information on Larry
Suffredin, click this link:
<http://www.co.http://www.http://www.htt>
Call Suffredin at 847-864-1209 and 312-603-6383 and tell them exactly
what you think of Larry Suffredin's plan to punish law-abiding gun owners.

Even if you don't live in Cook County, or even if you don't live in
Illinois for that matter, call anyway. Freedom is at stake here.

In addition to calling these gun-hating stooges, please do the
following:

1. Post this alert to any and all Internet bulletin boards of which you
are a member.

2. Send this alert to all your gun owning friends and ask them to call
Beavers and Suffredin too!

Remember - preservation of our 2nd Amendment rights is a cultural
imperative. Gun control is a disease; you are the cure!

Only 5 days left!

Don't forget, Sarah Brady cries with each box of ammo sold!

The AWB, Then and Now

Shamelessly stolen from Gun Debate Critic:

All Trick, no Treat

I got another email from the Brady Bunch today, one day late... In this email they tell me to support S. 1237/H.R. 2074, or "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007" which basically allows the Attorney General to deny someone the right to buy a firearm without due process. Currently, you have to be convicted of an actual crime for your second amendment rights to be stripped from you.

Look, I'm not for terrorists getting access to guns and explosives, but this bill, if passed, will sidestep the Bill of Rights and allow anyone, added to this list, rightly or wrongly, to be denied their Constitutional rights without due process of law. This violates the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, which read:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

and

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Brady Bunch would be promulgating a law that violates the Constitution of The United States, but it still takes me back a little. I wonder how they would feel if the law was aimed at the first amendment instead? Something tells me they would be screaming to high heaven.

Not only is this dangerous, but people not on this list are already being affected by it. Take the case of the seven year old boy who was denied entry on a plane multiple times because his name just happened to be the same as a Pakistani man who had been deported. While I think he could have worn a better shirt...it still illustrates the fact of how this law could be misused, even by coincidence. Now imagine if certain people, classified as undesirables by the AG, with no oversight and answering to no one, were to be put on this list. How would they get off? How much would it cost? How would they even know until they were denied their second amendment rights for no reason?

This quote, attributed to Benjamin Franklin says it best:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Write your elected representatives and tell them not to support S. 1237/H.R. 2074. These bills are just another incremental step toward "Legislation, Registration, Confiscation" and need to be stopped, now.

Local Reaction to the Empty Holster Protest

Click here for the video from KOMO TV 4 in Seattle, WA. This piece about Ethan Pratt and the Empty Holster Protest organized by the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus aired last night.

Over all I thought it was a pretty balanced piece, although a bit short. They did manage to slip in a couple of negative views versus the one pro-gun viewpoint though. One is the Seattle Pacific University spokesman Vick Peirson who thinks that getting behind a lockable door is the best way to survive a "Cho-like" rampage, and the anonymous young woman who says that guns on campus would make her nervous. How she'd know about it since it's called Concealed Carry for a reason is beyond me. Besides, the protest organizers have stated this isn't about arming every student, instead, it is just about letting the students who have CCW permits already to legally carry their weapons with them on college campuses.

Funny, I've never once considered carrying a lockable door around with me for protection. One, like a police officer, it's too heavy and two, a gun is more effective.

What Good is Gun Control Anyway?

Gun control doesn't protect us -- guns do

Mike Thomas
October 4, 2007

Tiffany Barwick and Michael Ruschak asked the cops to protect them from Barwick's former boyfriend.

She told them he had harassed her, threatened to kill her, bought a gun and sent an image of her riddled with bullet holes.

A Seminole deputy advised her to get a protective court order. We all know how effective they are against the criminally obsessed.

The deputy also would send her complaint to the State Attorney's Office, which is akin to tossing it into the Grand Canyon.

There is a lesson in all this.

The cops can't protect you.

The cops could not protect Erin Belanger and her five friends who were beaten to death by Troy Victorino and his band of thugs in Deltona.

She begged police for help in the days leading up to the assault.

"Can I ask you a question?" she said to a 911 dispatcher. "What can I do?"

Or better yet, what could they do?

Nothing.

I am not knocking the cops, just acknowledging reality. There are a thousand threats in the Big City. Picking out the real ones from the bluster is an impossible task.

Given this reality, given that Central Florida is turning into a bad Mad Max sequel, my liberal belief in gun control is getting wobbly.

I'm not advocating selling machine guns and cop-killer bullets at Wal-Mart. But if somebody faces an immediate threat, I have a hard time understanding why they need to wait three days or longer to buy a handgun for self-protection.

Shouldn't we be allowed to go to a reputable gun store, get a lesson in how to use a specific weapon and buy it after the background check?

The stated reason against this is that some ill-tempered lout will blow a fuse, run off to Guns R Us, buy a Glock and open fire on his spouse, neighbor, boss or co-worker.

One might assume someone this prone to venting with a volley already has a gun, locked and loaded.

A 2000 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association, hardly part of the gun lobby, showed cooling-off periods did not reduce homicide rates or overall suicide rates.

After examining 51 studies on various gun-control laws, including mandatory waiting periods, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded in 2003 that there was "insufficient evidence" to say they reduced gun violence.

It seems we pass laws that feel good without a lot of proof they are doing any good.

Maybe I need a good slap from Ted Kennedy, but I almost buy the National Rifle Association argument that the primary target of gun-control laws would be the people who shoot them at ranges, then lovingly oil and ogle them before safely locking them up.

As far as keeping guns away from bad guys, gun-control laws work as well as crack cocaine-control laws. My footnoted reference on this would be our crime blog.

We even have high school kids in Orange County firing guns in the air at high school athletic events.

If there were no guns, I would say allow no guns. But since all the wrong people already have them, and the cops can't do much about it except match their firepower, then it may well be time to arm thyself, citizen.

When Florida liberalized permits for concealed weapons in the 1980s, critics predicted a Wild West bloodbath. It never happened.

Responsible gun owners don't use guns irresponsibly. Go figure.

Until the cops get better at enforcing gun control on those who shouldn't have guns, a better alternative for the rest of us is gun education, gun classes and secure gun storage.

Mike Thomas can be reached at 407-420-5525 or mthomas@orlandosentinel.com. His blog is OrlandoSentinel.com/mikethomas.

Oregon Teacher Steps Forward

Oregon teacher suing to carry gun in class reveals identity

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — An Oregon teacher suing to assert a right to carry a gun at school has made her name public.

She is Shirley Katz, 43, a teacher for 21 years, the last seven in Medford. She teaches English at South Medford High School.

She went public in interviews beginning Tuesday with Lars Larson on his talk radio show.

Katz says she fears her former husband. They were divorced last year, and she has had two restraining orders against him, the last of which expired in September. She said she missed a deadline to renew it.

Gerry Katz, 54, a photographer, told the Medford Mail Tribune that he's no threat and said his former wife has made unfounded accusations as part of her effort to limit his visitation with their 5-year-old daughter.

Shirley Katz has custody, and Gerry Katz has weekly visitation rights under the divorce decree, which required him to complete an anger management class, the Mail Tribune reported.

On Sept. 26, a judge denied her bid to limit visitation rights and his request for full custody, the paper said.

Gerry Katz also has a concealed weapon permit, but his gun was seized after he waved the weapon at another driver and was charged with disorderly conduct, the paper said.

Shirley Katz filed her suit under the pseudonym Jane Doe. She said she went public after the school district filed a motion to dismiss the case based in part on her anonymity.

"I am definitely under the microscope," she said. "I had sought to avoid that (by remaining anonymous). My son goes to school here. My daughter is in the school system."

Katz filed the lawsuit Sept. 18. Oral arguments are scheduled for Oct. 11.

The Oregon Firearms Foundation is financing her lawsuit.

Oregonians who have concealed weapon permits may carry a gun onto most public properties, including schools, without violating state law.

School districts, however, commonly bar teachers from carrying guns to classrooms.

More Anti-Rights Tripe

Long on emotion, short on logic and reason. Just because a killer violated several Federal, State and school gun laws and killed their son and his friend, these parents want to take more of our rights away by passing even more laws which will be ignored by criminals. Note the anti-rights talking points left unchallenged, and just what the hell are "exploding bullets" anyway? For the convenience of my readers, I've highlighted them below.

------------------

Gun issues hit close to S.L. home

By Cathy Free
Deseret Morning News

The portrait in Ron and Norma Molen's basement study shows a teenager with a "lion's mane" of thick brown hair and a faraway, vulnerable look in his eyes.

When art instructor Randall Lake showed the painting to the Molens 15 years ago, he told them, "You can have it if you'd like, but it's not finished."

"That's OK," Norma responded with tears in her eyes. "Steven's life wasn't finished."

Her youngest child, a gifted writer with a bright future, was shot to death in 1992 in a girlfriend's dorm room, a few months before he would have graduated from Indiana University.

Five years earlier, Steven had posed for Lake in his tattered raincoat while tagging along with a friend for an art class one day.

"He stood out in a quiet way," says Ron, a retired architect who now paints landscapes with Norma in a sunny studio off the kitchen of their Salt Lake home. The Molens recently joined me for a Free Lunch of turkey sandwiches and tomato soup, hoping to draw attention to the escalating problem of gun violence in our country.

"A German would never have gotten a gun in his own country — the German kids are safe," says Ron, 78. "But American kids are not. Steven was a really interesting human being who had much to contribute. The world is certainly poorer for him being gone."

Steven Molen was killed trying to protect his friend Susan Clements from an old boyfriend who had been stalking her for months. Andreas Drexler, a troubled 28-year-old graduate student at Stanford University, showed up at Susan's dorm room one night, determined that she go home with him.

Steven wrestled Andreas to the floor but was persuaded to let him go by a dorm supervisor who'd heard the commotion. As the intruder turned to leave, he pulled a pistol out of his backpack and shot Steven in the groin with an exploding bullet, then shot Susan several times in the face before killing himself. Steven died five days later at an Indiana hospital.

For more than a year his parents grieved, shocked that their gentle-natured son was killed in such a violent way. They kept thinking about the boy who wouldn't join the rest of his friends in shooting BB guns because he didn't want to kill squirrels and birds, only admire them. For months, Norma would only read books about near-death experiences and angels because nothing else eased her pain.

Then, the year after Steven's murder, the Molens got angry. Why was Andreas Drexler allowed to wander around campus with a handgun and a bag full of ammunition?

When they learned that more than 30,000 people are killed by guns in the United States every year, they decided to take action. In 1994, they started the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah in the hope of getting some of the state's gun laws changed.

"We've been absolutely unsuccessful," says Ron, "but we're not giving up. Other states have banned assault weapons and exploding bullets, so why not Utah? And let's get concealed weapons off the campus, for crying out loud. How many more kids have to die before we get the message?"

It's unacceptable, say the Molens, that their son would have been better off living in any other advanced nation besides the United States. Every day, they shake their heads as they read yet another story about a gang shooting, a suicide, a disturbed student reloading on a college campus.

"So many lives are shattered when somebody dies from gun violence," says Norma, who helps organize a tulip bulb planting every year to remember Utahns killed by guns. She gazes at her son's portrait and becomes silent. "He had much to offer," she says finally. "There is much he could have done with his incredible life."

Why Would Anyone Need to CCW?

Robb over at Sharp as a Marble posted a link to this video yesterday, and I think it clearly illustrates a very convincing argument for CCW. In it, an ex-con walks up to an off duty corrections officer outside his home and starts shooting. The victim gets shot in the ankle, but manages to get his own gun out and fires three shots at the perp, two of which hit him, and he goes down permanently. By having a concealed handgun, the victim managed to turn the tables on the bad guy and save not only himself, but his female friend as well. Have a look at the video and see for yourself.

Hey Laura...

Pry this from my cold, dead, hands...

Yuri Orlov and his Mosin Nagant M91/30, sans bayonet.

Made in 1938 at the Izhevsk Arsenal, it still shoots as good as when it was new. It's perfectly suited for dispatching Nazi's and Tyrant's of every stripe, then and now.

I urge everyone to visit the following two sites:

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2007/09/people_of_the_gun.html

http://www.peopleofthegun.com