No Way Out

In my last posting I discussed the war on whites being conducted by a certain segment of the black population. Today I present a very important piece by Juan Williams, a journalist who often annoys me with his left-wing views and excuses, but who sometimes speaks truth to power in surprising ways. Some may remember that he was fired by PBS for admitting that he felt frightened when he noticed Muslims getting on an airplane with him.

In my view, Williams’ essay, excerpted below, is another example of how America has been ruined by the welfare policies put in place by President Lyndon Johnson and his “Great Society”. Until we change these policies, our society will continue to disintegrate.  The work rules put in place during the Clinton Presidency may actually have worsened the situation.

Juan Williams: Race and the Gun Debate

The No. 1 cause of death for African-American men between the ages of 15 and 34: being murdered with a gun.

By JUAN WILLIAMS March 26, 2013 Wall St Journal (Excerpt)

This week much of the talk about gun control concerns New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's $12 million ad campaign to put pressure on senators in key states to support legislation that he backs. Or the talk is about the National Rifle Association's pushback against the Bloomberg campaign. Then there was last week's mini-tempest over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision not to include Sen. Dianne Feinstein's assault-weapon ban in a comprehensive gun-control bill the Senate will take up next month.

One thing you don't hear much about in the discussions of guns: race.

That is an astonishing omission, because race ought to be an inescapable part of the debate. Gun-related violence and murders are concentrated among blacks and Latinos in big cities. Murders with guns are the No. 1 cause of death for African-American men between the ages of 15 and 34. But talking about race in the context of guns would also mean taking on a subject that can't be addressed by passing a law: the family-breakdown issues that lead too many minority children to find social status and power in guns.

The statistics are staggering. In 2009, for example, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 54% of all murders committed, overwhelmingly with guns, are murders of black people. Black people are about 13% of the population.

The Justice Department reports that between 1980 and 2008, "blacks were six times more likely than whites to be homicide victims and seven times more likely than whites to commit homicide."…

President Obama, a hero in black America as the first black president, has been remarkably quiet on this issue until recently. It was only in December, after the mass killing of mostly white school children in Newtown, Conn., by a white man, that the president took the political risk of backing new gun-control legislation.

Young blacks' violent deaths from handguns hadn't moved him to such action. The president spoke publicly about that matter only after the recent gun murder of a 15-year-old girl from his hometown of Chicago who had performed at his second inaugural. "Last year there were 443 murders with firearms in this city and 65 were people under 18," Mr. Obama said. "That's the equivalent of a Newtown every four months. This is not just a gun issue. It is also an issue of the communities that we are building."

In speaking about social breakdown in those minority communities, the president put the gun issue in the context of high rates of out-of-wedlock births that lead to high rates of childhood poverty. "I wish I had a father who was around and involved," the president said, in words that echoed loudly through black and Latino neighborhoods nationally because he revealed a pain so common, yet so rarely confessed, among young people of color.

 

The shame and silence is enforced by civil-rights leaders who speak in support of gun control but never about a dysfunctional gangster-rap culture that glorifies promiscuity, drug dealers and the power of the gun.

 

"Loving, supporting parents . . . [are] the single most important thing," the president told his audience of young, mostly minority children at Hyde Park Academy High School in Chicago. He made the case for parents as the key to giving children a sense of self-esteem beyond the barrel of a gun.

Almost 50 years ago, when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, the national out-of-wedlock birthrate was 7%. Today it is over 40%. According to the CDC, the out-of-wedlock birthrate for white children was just 2% in the 1960s. Today it is 30%. Among black children, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has skyrocketed from 20% in the 1960s to a heartbreaking 72% today. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock rate, which has been measured for a much shorter period, was below 40% in 1990 and stands at more than 50% as of the 2010 census.

When President Obama tried to speak to this crippling dynamic in 2008, he was basically told to shut up by Rev. Jesse Jackson. The Chicago-based activist said: "Barack was talking down to black people," then he added a vulgar threat about what he wanted to do in response. The moment revealed the high cost of speaking honestly about social breakdown in black America.

I support gun control. But speaking honestly about the combustible mix of race and guns may be more important to stopping the slaughter in minority communities than any new gun-control laws.” Wall St Journal

Mr. Williams is a political analyst for Fox News and a columnist for the Hill.

New York's New Gun Law Not All Bad

Although there is much to ridicule in New York’s new gun laws, some provisions actually make sense and may help to reduce shootings by people who are obviously mentally ill. The law will also prevent the outrageous and dangerous behavior of a media outlet from publishing the names and locations of legal gun owners, as was done recently, if those owners choose to remove their names from public scrutiny.

All the guns that were banned have in common some feature that conveys a military use, like a bayonet mount.

Some fear that directing mental health professionals to report certain behaviors and admissions may make mentally ill persons less likely to seek help or be honest with their therapists. This does not seem to me to be reason enough not to take these obvious steps to keep guns away from persons with mental defects.

Now I hope that the ACLU will be defeated in its attempts to sabotage those aspects of this new law. Without these mental-health provisions, this new law is just smoke and mirrors and worthless in preventing terrible incidents like Aurora or Sandy Hook, while trampling on the rights of honest citizens.

New York Has Gun Deal, With Focus on Mental Ills

January 14, 2013 NY Times

ALBANY — Gov.Andrew M. Cuomo and lawmakers agreed on Monday to a broad package of changes to gun laws that would expand the state’s ban on assault weapons and would include new measures to keep guns away from people with mental illnesses.

The state Senate, controlled by a coalition of Republicans and a handful of Democrats, approved the legislative package just after 11 p.m. by a lopsided vote of 43 to 18. The Assembly, where Democrats who have been strongly supportive of gun control have an overwhelming majority, planned to vote on the measure Tuesday.

Approval of the legislation would make New York the first state to act in response to the mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., last month.

Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, had pressed lawmakers to move quickly in response to Newtown, saying, “the people of this state are crying out for help.” And the Legislature proceeded with unusual haste: Monday was the first full day of this year’s legislative session.

“We don’t need another tragedy to point out the problems in the system,” Mr. Cuomo said at a news conference.

“Enough people have lost their lives,” he added. “Let’s act.”

The expanded ban on assault weapons would broaden the definition of such weapons, banning semiautomatic pistols and rifles with detachable magazines and one military-style feature, as well as semiautomatic shotguns with one military-style feature. New Yorkers who already own such guns could keep them but would be required to register them with the state.

“The message out there is so clear after Newtown,” said the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, a Democrat from Manhattan. “To basically eradicate assault weapons from our streets in New York as quickly as possible is something the people of this state want.”

In an acknowledgment that many people have suggested that part of the solution to gun violence is a better government response to mental illness, the legislation includes not only new restrictions on gun ownership, but also efforts to limit access to guns by the mentally ill.

The most significant new proposal would require mental health professionals to report to local mental health officials when they believe that patients are likely to harm themselves or others. Law enforcement would then be authorized to confiscate any firearm owned by a dangerous patient; therapists would not be sanctioned for a failure to report such patients if they acted “in good faith.”

“People who have mental health issues should not have guns,” Mr. Cuomo told reporters. “They could hurt themselves, they could hurt other people.”

But such a requirement “represents a major change in the presumption of confidentiality that has been inherent in mental health treatment,” said Dr. Paul S. Appelbaum, the director of the Division of Law, Ethics, and Psychiatry at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, who said the Legislature should hold hearings on possible consequences of the proposal.

“The prospect of being reported to the local authorities, even if they do not have weapons, may be enough to discourage patients with suicidal or homicidal thoughts from seeking treatment or from being honest about their impulses,” he said.

The legislation would extend and expand Kendra’s Law, which empowers judges to order mentally ill patients to receive outpatient treatment.

And it would require gun owners to keep weapons inaccessible in homes where a resident has been involuntarily committed, convicted of a crime or is the subject of an order of protection.

The legislative package, which Mr. Cuomo said he believed would be “the most comprehensive package in the nation,” would ban any gun magazine that can hold over 7 rounds of ammunition — the current limit is 10 rounds. It would also require background checks of ammunition buyers and automated alerts to law enforcement of high-volume purchases.

The legislation would increase penalties for multiple crimes committed with guns, would require background checks for most private gun sales, and create a statewide gun-registration database.

Senator Jeffrey D. Klein of the Bronx, the leader of an independent faction of Democrats who have allied with the Republicans to control the Senate, said the measure met the goals of many lawmakers.

“Republicans, it’s very clear, wanted harsher criminal penalties for illegal guns, which is something I agree with,” Mr. Klein added, “but on the other hand we’re also going to ban assault weapons and limit the number of rounds in a magazine. So I think putting those two things together makes it a better bill.”

Among the other elements of the proposed legislation were a so-called Webster provision, named for the shooting deaths of two firefighters in Webster, near Rochester, just before Christmas. The provision would mandate a life sentence without parole for anyone who murders a first responder.

And, in response to a controversy that erupted after The Journal News, a daily newspaper, published the names and addresses of handgun permit holders in Westchester and Rockland Counties, the legislation would prohibit disclosure of the names in the new statewide gun-registration database, and would allow individuals to exempt their own names and addresses from being disclosed by counties that have such databases.

The guns package was negotiated privately by the governor and legislative leaders over the last several weeks, but was only completed late Monday; rank-and-file Senators had only a few minutes to read the legislation before voting on it. Mr. Cuomo, saying, “If there is an issue that fits the definition of necessity, I believe it’s gun violence,” waived the normal three-day waiting period between introduction of new legislation and a vote.

The minority leader in the Assembly, Brian M. Kolb, a Republican from Canandaigua, objected to the move to expedite the process, saying, “I don’t think we should be rushing things just for the sake of headlines.”

By the time the Senate began to discuss the bill late Monday night, the galleries that overlook the chamber were mostly empty of spectators. A parade of Democrats, who have long pressed for new gun laws, rose to praise the bill as they explained their votes.

Senator Malcolm A. Smith, an independent Democrat from Queens, said provisions of the measure could be dedicated to the family members of New Yorkers who had been victims of gun violence.

“I think today we are setting the mark for the rest of the country,” he said.

Most of the senators who voted against the bill did not speak. One who did, Senator Kathleen A. Marchione, a Republican from Saratoga County, praised some parts of the measure, like the expansion of Kendra’s Law. But she said the new restrictions on guns would not get at the problem of gun violence.

“I truly believe that the Second Amendment constitutional freedoms of every New Yorker tonight has been weakened,” she said, adding, “Law-abiding citizens who own guns are not our problem. Law-abiding citizens understand and know how to take care of their guns, not to be a danger to others.”

Terrible Incident Affirms NRA Position

Unfortunately, while liberal politicians and pundits were lambasting the recent speech by Wayne Lapierre of the NRA, a terrible incident in a small town in New York completely justified the positions that Lapierre took. An ex-con, possessing illegal weapons (ex-felons cannot legally own firearms) murdered firemen and policemen in a trap he set for them. Another policeman shot at him, and stopped the carnage.

Gun control? Useless

Mentally ill? Obviously

A bad man with a gun stopped by a good man with a gun. Absolutely, just as Lapierre said.

Instead of ridicule, perhaps the leftists should listen a little to some common sense.

Firefighters Ambushed

December 25, 2012 AP (Excerpt)

WEBSTER, N.Y. — "An ex-con set a car and a house ablaze in his lakeside neighborhood to lure firefighters, then opened fire on them, killing two, engaging in a shootout with police and committing suicide while several homes burned. Authorities used an armored vehicle to evacuate the area.

The gunman fired at the four firefighters when they arrived shortly after 5:30 a.m. at the blaze in Webster, a suburb of Rochester on Lake Ontario, town Police Chief Gerald Pickering said. The first police officer who arrived chased the suspect and exchanged gunfire, authorities said.

Police say he lay in wait outdoors for the firefighters’ arrival, then opened fire probably with a rifle and from atop an earthen berm, Pickering said.

“It does appear it was a trap,” he said.

The gunman, William Spengler, had served more than 17 years in prison for beating his 92-year-old grandmother to death with a hammer in 1980 at the house next to where Monday’s attack happened, Pickering said at an afternoon news conference. Spengler, 62, was paroled in 1998 and had led a quiet life since, authorities said. Convicted felons are not allowed to possess weapons.

Two firefighters, one of whom was also a town police lieutenant, died at the scene, and two others were hospitalized. A fifth man who was passing by was also injured. The police officer who exchanged gunfire with Spengler “in all likelihood saved many lives,” Pickering said."

Let Them Have the AR 15

The horrendous shootings of so many children at Newtown, Connecticut will certainly give fresh ammunition to the gun control movement, and no logical and factual argument may be able to contend with the tremendous outrage this incident has rightfully caused.

Compare Rate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People

In the United States, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2009: 2.985
2008: 3.12
2007: 3.36
2006: 3.42
2005: 3.43
2004: 3.20
2003: 3.37
2002: 3.2511
2001: 3.12
1999: 2.976
1998: 3.37
1993: 7.071
Alpers, Philip and Marcus Wilson. 2012. Guns in the United States: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law. Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney.

The spurt in 1993 reflects a sharp rise in gang violence in the 1990’s, which has since diminished greatly.

It will be no use to point out that gun deaths in the US actually appear to be diminishing since the gang wars of the 1990’s calmed down.

It will also be no use to point out that the Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech and, now, this latest atrocity were committed by crazed individuals, and that no gun control laws will have any effect on the supply of millions of firearms that are out there in America. It will also have no effect to point out that states that passed concealed-carry laws have all seen a decrease in violent crime since their passing.

Typical comments after Newtown are shown below:

“Friday’s horrific scenes and reports hit especially hard because the victims reportedly included 20 children between the ages of 5 and 10, innocent kids gunned during during a shooter’s cold-blooded rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in the normally quiet town of Newtown, Conn.

But aspects of the latest massacre seemed to fit into a nightmarish pattern, a scenario that has shocked Americans again and again. A mentally disturbed young man gains access to an arsenal of guns, walks into a public place and proceeds to shoot multiple people. Perhaps he has a twisted reason for lashing out but most, if not all, of the victims are blameless bystanders.

“As a country, we have been through this too many times,” an emotional President Barack Obama said Friday. “Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago -- these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children……

Will Friday’s mass murder of children at a Connecticut school end up following the past pattern and result in zero action? There were early signs that the atrocity might at least shock some officials into trying to do something.

“As a country, we don’t need more debate, no more excuses. The time for action is now,” said Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, in a statement after Friday’s shootings……

In his emotional statement Friday, Obama said, “We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.” The president cancelled a scheduled appearance Saturday in Maine, and some administration officials that he might at least propose steps that aim to avert such massacres in the future.

David Chipman, who spent 25 years as a special agent at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, told the New York Times that the shooting may prove to be “a game changer.”” St Louis Beacon

Above excerpts from St Louis Beacon

In my opinion, as a gun owner and long-time NRA member, we would be foolish to assume that this time will be like the others, and that the push for some gun control laws will again fade away. I believe that gun owners need to do three things: 1. we need to increase our support for the NRA financially and by recruiting more members, since that organization will come under tremendous pressure to back off from opposing new measures, 2. we should support banning the AR 15 and any firearm that can be converted to full automatic fire fairly easily. Even though these weapons were not used, there is no good argument for their availability, and 3. we should support banning high capacity magazines, which have been a factor in some of these mass shootings.

If we do not support reasonable measures, we may get some very unreasonable ones from the politicians now in power.

A Gun Enthusiast Wants Some Limits

As someone who supports and belongs to the NRA, who holds a Concealed-Carry Permit in Florida, and who constantly demands respect for the Second Amendment, let me say that I strongly support the bill introduced by the Democrat, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, to limit magazines to 10 rounds. Unfortunately, unless it gains support from a lot more people like me, it looks like it is going nowhere.

One of the common denominators of recent mass shootings was the use of high capacity magazines or clips allowing the shooters to fire at least 30 rounds before having to reload. This was true of James Holmes at Aurora, of Jared Loughner at Tucson (where Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was so brutally maimed), of Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, and, to some extent, also of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold at Columbine.

I am a shooter; I visit the range in Florida at least once a year, but I can see no reason why limiting the size of magazines to 10 rounds would interfere with my pleasure or my attempts to maintain my proficiency. If there are gun enthusiasts who enjoy activities that involve the use of magazines with capacities of 33 rounds or 100 rounds, I say forcing you to reload once in a while is a small price to pay to save some lives. After all, Jared Loughner was only stopped when he paused to reload. It is truly unfortunate that he had already gotten off 30 rounds, and the damage was done.

I am well aware that there are countless numbers of high-capacity magazines out there already, but making their sale and transfer illegal will put a large dent in their availability to people with mental disorders.

NBC: No Apology to George Zimmerman

There is little question that people are going to die because of the violence exhorted by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, aided and abetted by ABC, NBC and the NY Times, who yesterday called the unfortunate death of Trayvon Martin, murder. It will almost certainly be innocent white people who are killed because African-Americans are nearly 3.7 times more likely to kill a white than a white to kill a black, and because it is mainly African-Americans who are being driven by this anti-Zimmerman madness before all the facts are known.

The reason they, the mainstream media, are doing this is simple: it fits their left-wing belief in gun control, regardless of the facts that states that issue permits-to-carry always experience reduced violent crime rates, and permit holders are far less likely to engage in gun incidents than the general population. Like so many other issues in life, liberal beliefs are based on feel-good, faith based responses, rather than on actual data. Liberals are hoping to use this case to rev up anti-gun-permit sentiment. It may end up having just the opposite effect.

NBC: No Apology to George Zimmerman

April 4, 2012 Breitbart.com

In September 2004, shortly before the November presidential elections pitting George W. Bush against John Kerry, CBS Evening News anchor and managing editor Dan Rather presented a falsified document to the public that purported to show that Bush had gone AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. As it turned out, the papers were forgeries. Rather retired under heavy pressure.

This month, NBC News broadcast a heavily edited tape of George Zimmerman’s 911 call in the Trayvon Martin case. The tape itself was fully available. And NBC News, as we’ve reported, cut the relevant portion of the tape deliberately in order to make Zimmerman look like a racist. Here’s the transcript of the original recording:

ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

DISPATCHER: OK, and this guy – is he black, white or Hispanic?

ZIMMERMAN: He looks black.

Here’s the transcript of the edited recording:

ZIMMERMAN: This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black.

The point is obvious. The unedited version shows Zimmerman offering the race of the suspect only when prompted, and doing so hesitantly. The edited version shows Zimmerman eagerly linking somebody being “up to no good” and somebody being “black.” The edited tape was broadcast on “Today” on March 27. NBC’s Ron Allen was the reporter on the scene – and, not coincidentally, he remained the reporter for NBC Nightly News as well. Matt Lauer was part of the report. So was Rachel Maddow. The entire staff was associated with this doctored recording.

Now NBC News has released an apology for the edited video:

During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers.

The network did not, however, apologize to George Zimmerman. And this certainly is not an “error” in the production process. A very specific set of words was cut. It was not random. And it was not a mistake.

So the question becomes: whose head should roll?

The answer is obvious: Brian Williams.

Williams has been, since 2004, the managing editor of NBC News. And this was no mistake. It was a purposeful attempt to drive the narrative against Zimmerman. It is Williams’ job to see that the facts are reported rather than skewed. And the buck stops with him.

This is no isolated incident for Williams. He’s an ardent leftist who began his career by interning for Jimmy Carter. When Williams moderated a Republican debate in September 2011, he asked Rick Perry how he could sleep at night while implementing the death penalty as governor of Texas. After September 11, he implied that America’s “military swagger” provided the impetus for the attacks. He compared the bombing of Iraq to the U.S. military bombing of Japan in its indiscriminateness.

Williams once explained, “[NBC News has an] inordinate number of editors. Every word I write, before it goes on air, goes through all kinds of traps and filters, and it’s read by all kind of different people who point out bias.” He’s at the top of that food chain. And it’s his news department that helped ratchet up the Trayvon Martin story to the point of violence.

Conflicting Stories in Trayvon Martin's Death

As a holder of a Concealed Carry Permit, I cringed when I first heard of Trayvon Martin's death and the manner in which it supposedly happened. It is true that the legal requirements placed on permit holders have recently been loosened, but the initial reports did not seem to fit the circumstances under which a permit holder may use deadly force.

Until today all news reports indicated that Zimmerman chased Martin and then shot him. That is murder.

Now we have an entirely different story that has just come out. Hopefully we will get to the truth of the matter before someone else is hurt. A local branch of the Black Panthers has been reported to place a bounty on the kidnapping of Mr. Zimmerman, and rabble-rousers, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, are stirring up a whirlwind they will not be able to control.

Trayvon Martin Killing: George Zimmerman's Attorney and Friend Speak Out

By DAVID MUIR and OLIVIA KATRANDJIAN March 25, 2012 ABC News

The attorney counseling George Zimmerman, who shot unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin as he was walking home from the store with a bag of Skittles, says if charges are filed, Zimmerman will argue that he acted in self-defense and that Florida's stand-your-ground law applies.

Attorney Craig Sonner said the public is only hearing part of the story, and when all the facts come out, it will be clear that Zimmerman acted in self defense. A grand jury is scheduled to begin hearing the case April 10.

"George Zimmerman suffered a broken nose, and had an injury to the back of his head, he was attacked by Trayvon Martin on that evening," Sonner said. "This was a case of self defense."

When asked why Zimmerman went after Martin, even though a 911 dispatcher told him not to, Sonner said: "Those are questions that will be answered."

Trayvon Martin Case: Timeline of Events

Sonner said the so-called stand-your-ground law, under which a person who feels threatened is not required to retreat and can "meet force with force" if attacked, will be applicable in the case.

Sonner insisted that Zimmerman is not a racist, pointing out that he and his wife mentored for two black children for free.

"When I asked this mother [of the mentees], who trusted [Zimmerman and his wife], and she's an African-American, if she trusted George Zimmerman, she said she did, and I asked her if there was anything that caused her to believe that she was a racist, and she said, 'Absolutely not.' And I said, went further, 'Did you ever hear him use racial slurs in any time that you'd been around him?' And she said, 'no' as well," Sonner said.

Joe Oliver, a family friend of Zimmerman's who spoke with him this weekend, told ABC News that as a volunteer community watch commander, Zimmerman had to look out for suspicious-looking people.

"There are people who have accused George of profiling, well, I would think as a watch commander you are keeping an eye out for people you don't recognize in your neighborhood," Oliver said.

"The reason why he was following this suspicious person that he saw was because the neighborhood had a rash of break-ins," he said. "George had no intention of taking anyone's life. He cried for days after."

Oliver said the headlines have taken a toll on Zimmerman, his wife, and his family.
"He's moved, they've disconnected their phone numbers, they're in hiding, they're fearful," Oliver said.

The Zimmerman family friend also denied that a word the watchman is heard blurting out on one of the 911 tapes is the racial slur, "coon." Oliver said the word he hears Zimmerman saying is "goon."

"As far as, I mean as far as George being racist, I didn't take it as a racist term.

I heard 'goon' and talking to my teenage daughter, apparently goon is a term of endearment in high school these days," he said.

"He wasn't talking to Trayvon when that comment was made. He was speaking a generality in that this suspicious person was someone who he – lumped in -- as always getting away -- goon, coon. I mean, the bottom line, he thought he needed to keep an eye on this individual for whatever reason," Oliver said.

Oliver said he believes the voice screaming for help on the 911 tape is Zimmerman's.
After talking with Zimmerman, Oliver says he's convinced that it came down to a final life-or-death moment: "At that point, either George or Trayvon was going to die."

Regarding Firearms, Personal Protection and Safety

Anyone who thinks through the implications of having a firearm available in the event of a serious threat soon realizes that compromises have to be made between protection and safety.

I have talked with several NRA certified instructors, and they all believed that a loaded revolver, kept handy, was the only way to go: loaded, because an unloaded handgun is useless, and a revolver, because of its reliability and simplicity. Nevertheless, I have made different choices because I believe that an accident with a handgun is much more likely than its use as intended.

I had a license to carry in Massachusetts for 30 years, and now that I am a Florida resident, I have one here. Not once have I ever had to use or even show a firearm in all that time. I have chosen to own two semiautomatic .380 pistols, a Walther PPK and a Kel-tec P3. I chose a .380 caliber because that is the smallest round that will stop an attacker if a non-lethal spot is hit.

My biggest fear with handguns has always been that a child would gain access to one and have a terrible accident. I chose pistols over revolvers because you can keep the chamber empty until a threat is perceived, and many pistols have external safety switches as well, which revolvers do not. You can also keep the clip separate from the pistol. The NRA instructors scoff at this, maintaining that, in the heat of the moment, the average person will fumble getting the pistol ready to shoot. I decided that I would just have to live with that. Pistols are also easier to carry on your person because they are flatter and smaller than the typical revolver.

I bought the Walther PPK many years ago. It has every feature one could want and is a marvel of design and workmanship. It is both single and double-action and has an external safety switch. It is very accurate and reliable, and it has a pin that sticks out when a round is in the chamber. Its only disadvantage is that it is a little heavy to carry. That is why I also bought the Kel-tec P3 to carry, which is very light and so small, it looks like a child’s cap gun. You could keep it comfortably in your pocket. The Kel-tec’s grip and lower body is made of plastic; the frame is aluminum, and the firing mechanism, the barrel and the slide are hardened steel. Even though there is little danger of an accidental firing because the hammer is recessed, and there is a trigger safety, I still carry it without a round in the chamber.

Another thing I like about both the Walther and the Kel-tec, having originally learned how to shoot and clean a Colt 1911 A1 (which are a bitch to clean without taking someone’s eye out with the recoil spring), is that they are both easy to disassemble, clean and reassemble.

I carry the Kel-tec and keep the Walther in my nightstand, and I made a small change in my handling of the Walther; I decided later in life to move a bit toward protection and away from safety. In the movies you always see someone who hears a noise in the night call out, “Who’s there?”. In real life this is the last thing you want to do. In real life you want to surprise the intruder, not the other way around. You want to approach in complete silence until you understand the situation; therefore you do not want to pull back the slide on your pistol. That makes a very loud sound in the middle of the night. Since there is virtually no chance of a child being in my condo now (when grandchildren visit I lock up my guns), I do keep a round in the chamber of the Walther, and I keep the safety on.

When I was a younger man with children in the house I kept my firearms secret and locked up at all times. There are two schools of thought on this. One is to teach your children all about guns and how to handle and to shoot them. The other theory is the one I followed. There were always so many children, stepchildren and playmates in and out of my house that I felt I had to keep the guns secure, out of sight and out of mind.

Senate Democrats Defeat Needed Self-Defense Bill

One of my key desires in the area of citizen guns rights went down the drain the other day, although I honestly did not think it would even get even this far. There is now a federal law referred to as the “peaceful journey law” that requires every state to allow the legal owner of a handgun to transport that handgun from a person’s home to another home or to his place of business.

Of course, if you have a carry permit, you can only transport the weapon loaded and ready for use in self-defense if the state you are traveling through honors your permit from your home state. Otherwise, as is true in most states (and particularly in states along the Mid-Atlantic and New England), you have to lock the gun unloaded in the trunk of your car, where it is useless as a defensive device, and you cannot linger in a pass-through state.

The legislation described below would have required each state to honor the carry permit of every other state, so that law-abiding citizens could travel in safety.

Senate rejects concealed weapons bill

July 22, 2009

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Senate narrowly rejected a controversial measure to allow people to carry concealed weapons from state to state Wednesday.

The vote was 58 to 39. The amendment needed 60 votes to pass.

The measure would have required each of the 48 states that currently allow concealed firearms to honor permits issued in other states.

It was the first significant defeat this year for the gun lobby, after a series of unexpected setbacks since the start of the Obama administration.

In May, President Barack Obama signed a credit card bill that included a provision allowing people to carry guns in national parks. Another bill that would have given the District of Columbia's representative in Congress full voting rights stalled earlier in the year after Senate Republicans attached a provision that would have eased tight gun controls in the district.

The concealed weapons proposal was an amendment to a larger defense appropriations bill, introduced by Sen. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican.

Senator Thune said later that because of the closeness of the vote, he may try again to pass this needed legislation; while Senator Schumer made the idiotic comment that Americans were safer because the bill was defeated. Only a liberal could ignore the overwhelming statistics in favor of state carry laws and say something so stupid.

Ammunition Shortages and Gun Control

This video is breaking news that became available as I was preparing to publish this article. Obviously all liberals, including RINO's, have to be watched carefully on this issue.

If this video doesn’t load go here.

There are many articles these days about the shortage of ammunition and explanations for the shortage. To my mind it is the result of three factors:

1. Fear of actions by Obama to limit the supply of ammunition. Hints that this would be an easy way to control guns floated out of the Obama campaign all last year.

2. Fear of a general and widespread eruption of violence when resistance to Obama’s socialist ideas destroys his presidency.

3. Fear of a large increase in violent crime as the recession deepens and lengthens.

Like so many others, I went out a bought a large amount of ammunition to stock without having a specific reason to do so. I just felt it to be a prudent thing to do. Obviously, millions of other Americans reached the same conclusion.

Gun ammunition a tough find these days

May 13, 2009 Charlotte Sun (Excerpt)

"Fred Wolf can't keep his store shelves stocked with ammunition.
People, it seems, are hoarding bullets.

The buying frenzy started months ago, amid the economic and political anxiety. Even now, finding certain calibers can be an exercise in futility.

At shows, ammo is one of the first items to sell out, said Wolf, owner of Wolf Gunworks in Charlotte Harbor.

But the problem stretches well beyond Southwest Florida.

Online distributors are backlogged with requests for handgun and rifle cartridges. Some manufacturers are operating at full capacity to keep pace, according to officials.

"The demand has gone through the roof," Wolf said. "When people do find (ammo) now, they're buying 10 times the amount of what they need."
The surge didn't happen overnight.

Officials point to the economy as an underlying factor in the overall increase in gun sales.

Yet the mass exodus of ammunition from retail shelves is another story, one many say followed comments made by President Barack Obama.

"We believe this increase in sales of guns and ammo is the direct result of the current administration," said Alexa Fritts, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association in Fairfax, Va. "If you look at the administration's views, they appear to point toward regulation. We're very concerned."

The rumblings surfaced during the presidential election, when Obama voiced support about making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent."

>

Secret Moves to Ban Guns Under Way

When Barack Obama said he supported the Supreme Court decision upholding the Constitutionality of the Second Amendment and the private ownership of guns, we knew he was lying – just as he lied about public financing of his campaign, earmarks, and not hiring lobbyists. It was just part of his campaign to fool everyone into thinking that he was a moderate.

It hasn’t taken long, but already steps are being taken to restrict gun ownership; some steps are secret and sneaky; some are out in the open.

Guns on a plane

March 17, 2009 Washington Times (Excerpt)

"After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.

Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.

The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.

This looks like completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots. The 12,000 Federal Flight Deck Officers, the pilots who have been approved to carry guns, are reported to have the best behavior of any federal law enforcement agency. There are no cases where any of them has improperly brandished or used a gun. There are just a few cases where officers have improperly used their IDs.

Fewer than one percent of the officers have any administrative actions brought against them and, we are told, virtually all of those cases “are trumped up.”

Take a case against one flight officer who had visited the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles within the last few weeks. While there, the pilot noticed that federal law enforcement officers can, with the approval of a superior, obtain a license plate that cannot be traced, a key safety feature for law enforcement personnel. So the pilot asked if, as a member of the federal program, he was eligible. The DMV staffer checked and said “no.” The next day administrative actions were brought against the pilot for “misrepresenting himself.” These are the kinds of cases that President Obama wants to investigate.

Since Mr. Obama's election, pilots have told us that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes slowed significantly. Last week the problem went from bad to worse. Federal Flight Deck Officers - the pilots who have been approved to car - indicate that the approval process has stalled out."

*****************

Pro-gun Democrats oppose new assault weapon ban

JIM ABRAMS ASSOCIATED PRESS March 18, 2009 (Excerpt)

WASHINGTON (AP) – “Sixty-five House Democrats said Wednesday that they would oppose any attempt by the Obama administration to revive a ban on military-style weapons that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1994 and President George W. Bush let expire….

The letters came after Holder, during a news conference to announce the arrest of Mexican drug dealers, said the drug cartels were obtaining high-powered weapons like the AK-47 from U.S. gun stores and said the Obama administration supported reinstituting the ban on the sale of assault-style weapons.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has said she plans to introduce legislation to bring back the weapons ban. Feinstein was an author of the 1994 bill, which banned 19 types of semiautomatic, military-style guns. The law expired under the Bush administration in 2004. Another long-term goal is requiring that all gun shows conduct background checks before selling firearms.”

The left are very skillful at anti-gun propaganda, but the facts are these:

Nationally, gun-rights advocates have been on the defensive since the early '90s. But in the states, where the fight against crime is won or lost, they're winning the debate. That's because they have the facts on their side.

Thirty-one states now let citizens carry concealed weapons -- up from just nine states in '86. Have these "right-to-carry" laws made the public safer, or have they caused a sharp drop in public safety, as opponents warned?

The standard argument against "concealed carry" laws is that there is no good reason for the average Joe to carry a gun. But federal courts have ruled that police aren t obliged to protect individuals from crime. That means citizens are ultimately responsible for their own defense.

But do concealed weapons deter crime? Criminals commit 10 million violent crimes a year. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck found that victims use handguns about 1.9 million times in self-defense.

Criminals weigh the costs of the crime against the benefits. You don t have to be a criminal mastermind to know that the possibility of a concealed weapon tilts the odds in the victim's favor. Research shows that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to be injured as those who don't.

A recent study by John Lott and David Mustard of the University of Chicago published in the Journal of Legal Studies bears this out. They found that concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5% and severe assault by 7% from 1977 to '92. Had "right-to-carry" laws been in effect throughout the country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders and 60,000 fewer assaults every year.

Vermont has long had the least restrictive firearms-carry laws. Citizens there can carry guns either openly or concealed without any permit. Perhaps in part because of its liberal gun policies, Vermont has among the lowest violent crime numbers in the country.

In 1980, when murders and robberies in the U.S. had soared to 10 and 251 per 100,000 people, respectively, Vermont's murder rate was 22% of the national average and its robbery rate was 15%.

In 1996, Vermont s crime rates were among the lowest in the country: 25% of the national murder rate, 8% of the national robbery rate.

Another objection to concealed-carry laws is that they'll boost impulse killings -- fostering a "wild West" mentality with more shootings and deaths as people vent their anger with pistols instead of fists. Yet FBI data show that killings stemming from arguments are falling as a share of all homicides.

In fact, concealed-weapon permit holders are involved in fewer incidents than off-duty police officers.

Consider also:
Dade County, Fla., kept detailed records for six years. Of 21,000 carry permit holders, there was no reported incident of a permit holder injuring an innocent person.

Virginia issued more than 50,000 permits since it passed a right-to-carry law in '95. In that time, not one permit holder has been convicted of a crime, and violent crime has dropped.

Opponents are left to argue that concealed-carry laws will put guns in untrained hands and accidents will go up.

But there has been no rise in accidental shootings in counties with right-to-carry laws. Nationwide, there are about 1,400 accidental firearms deaths annually -- a figure far lower than the number of deaths blamed on medical errors or car accidents.

And data show that civilians are even more careful with firearms than police officers are. There are only about 30 mistaken civilian shootings in the U.S. each year. The police commit more than three times as many mistaken killings as civilians.

In fact, the death rate from firearms has dropped in the last 20 years even as gun ownership has more than doubled and 22 states have passed right-to-carry laws.

The fatal firearm accident rate has dropped more than 19% in the last decade, and the number of gun-related accidents among children fell to an all-time low of 185 in '94 -- down 64% since '75.

Keeping honest, law-abiding people unarmed and at the mercy of armed and violent criminals was never a good idea. In the gun policy debate, gun-rights advocates can argue honestly that a general concealed-carry law is sound public policy. Gun Facts
LATE BREAKING NEWS:

Court decision blocks guns in national parks

March 20, 2009 MSNBC (Excerpt)

WASHINGTON - "A judge on Thursday blocked a federal rule allowing people to carry concealed, loaded guns in U.S. national parks and wildlife refuges….

The rule, which took effect Jan. 11, and allowed visitors to carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge as long as the person had a permit for a concealed weapon and the state where the park or refuge was located allowed concealed firearms. Previously, guns in parks had been severely restricted.” MSNBC

I wonder if the Obama Administration will try to overturn this decision (satire).

Washington DC to Supreme Court on Guns, Drop Dead

It’s easy to see that the extreme, left-wing liberals who have run Washington, D.C. into the ground and established it as the murder capital of the country have no intention of following the letter and the spirit of the 2nd Amendment that was recently upheld by the Supreme Court.

On June 10, 2008 I published a piece where I said, "It is wonderful that the decision by the Supreme Court has opened up opportunities for the NRA and other groups to challenge many existing gun laws, but it doesn't mean that the gun-control proponents have given up. They will just get even more sneaky."

Well, they have now imposed new restrictions on gun ownership that will prevent all but the most persistent to be able to have some protection in their own homes from thugs and murderers. These restrictions are a sham and a disgrace, and D.C. continues to join Massachusetts and Chicago as places where only criminals are allowed to have firearms, because criminals don’t care about laws.

In particular, read closely the experience of Heller, who filed the original complaint that led to the Supreme Court ruling.

New DC Gun Laws Remain Strict

July 16, 2008 USAToday.com ((Excerpts)

WASHINGTON — "The District of Columbia Council approved new firearms legislation Tuesday that will allow residents to begin applying for handgun permits this week.

The council's unanimous vote comes as officials try to comply with last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down the city's 32-year-old ban on handguns.

The emergency legislation will allow handguns to be kept in the home if they are used only for self-defense and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.

Handguns, as well as other legal firearms such as rifles and shotguns, also must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks — unless there is a "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm" in the home….

Gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, said at least some of the new regulations will likely be challenged.” USA Today

In addition to the absurd requirements for a permit-to-own, any person with some firearm experience knows that a locked or unloaded and dissembled weapon in the home is worse than having no weapon at all, because a normal, decent person will most likely have that weapon taken away from him as he struggles to load or unlock it. If there are children in the home or may possibly visit, the intelligent gun-owner will, of course, secure the firearm.

Heller Denied D.C. Gun Permit

July 18, 2008 OutsidetheBeltway.com

Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court decision that overturned Washington, D.C.’s 32-year-old ban on handguns and established that the 2nd Amendment provided an individual right to own guns, was denied a handgun permit by the District yesterday.

He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit. But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.

I suppose gun-control advocates will applaud the clearly illegal actions of the DC Police, but this is a nation of laws, not men. Below is a picture of Heller’s firearm. I recognize it as a Keltec .380, a firearm I also happen to own. It measures about 4”deep by 5” long, and is 5/8” thick. In no way can it be mistaken for a machine gun, which have been illegal throughout the U.S. for many years. The comments of the DC Police are ridiculous and deceitful.

A silver bullet for Obama?

I disagree completely with Jacoby's point here that Obama has changed his mind about gun-control, and that the recent 2nd Amendment ruling by the Supreme Court makes it easier to vote Democrat. Obama has reversed himself dozens of times in this past year when confronted by evidence that his original positions were untenable. This doesn't mean that, in his mind, he has really changed his beliefs, and his economic program is still a repeat of the disastrous Carter years.

As far as voting Democrat is concerned, those wishing to exercise their rights usually find that, in Democrat-controlled states (like Massachusetts and Rhode Island), an informal system has been put in place to stop you, even if the law is on your side. In Massachusetts you must get a permit to have a firearm in your own home, but no-one ever seems to know where the forms are, and officials routinely miss appointments to meet with you to discuss firearms permits.

I had a permit to carry in Massachusetts for over 30 years (issued before the gun-control people took over completely) with no incidents. I had to give it up because I now live in Florida and in Rhode Island. I easily gained a carry permit in Florida , but in RI, after passing all the tests and other requirements, I was denied because I couldn't "demonstrate a need according to the statute".

It is wonderful that the decision by the Supreme Court has opened up opportunities for the NRA and other groups to challenge many existing gun laws, but it doesn't mean that the gun-control proponents have given up. They will just get even more sneaky.

A silver bullet for Obama?
By Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe June 29, 2008

WHEN IT comes to gun control, the Democratic Party is a house divided against itself. That helps explain Barack Obama's dizzyingly inconsistent positions on District of Columbia v. Heller, the landmark Second Amendment case decided by the Supreme Court last week.

As a candidate for the Illinois Legislature in the 1990s, Obama had supported legislation to "ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns," so it wasn't surprising that he endorsed the gun ban being challenged in Heller while campaigning for president. In November, for example, his campaign told the Chicago Tribune that "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." In February, when a questioner during a televised forum said, "You support the D.C. handgun ban," Obama readily agreed: "Right."

By March, however, his spokesman would no longer say whether Obama considered the gun ban constitutional, and when the senator was asked about it in April, he refused to give a clear answer on the grounds that "I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence." Still, when the court issued its 5-4 ruling last Thursday, Obama claimed that his views had been vindicated. "I have always believed," his statement began, "that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms." Then again, reported the Associated Press, "the campaign would not answer directly . . . when asked whether the candidate agreed with the court."

This is not just the customary political choreography whereby Democratic presidential candidates dance to the left during the primary election season, then pirouette back to the center for the general election. (Republicans twirl the other way.) Guns are a particularly thorny issue for Democrats, who have long been the party of gun control, and whose strong left wing detests firearms and looks down on the "gun nuts" who enjoy them. Liberal Democrats have generally seen the Second Amendment as an embarrassing constitutional anachronism. And they nurse a singular loathing for the National Rifle Association.

The problem for Democrats is that such views are well beyond the American mainstream. There are as many as 283 million privately owned firearms in the United States, and nearly half of all US households own at least one gun. Even before the Supreme Court ruling, a large majority of Americans - 73 percent, according to Gallup - believed the Second Amendment guaranteed the right of private citizens to own guns. Nearly 7 in 10 opposed any law making handgun possession illegal.

Given such widespread pro-gun sentiment, a political party inclined to demonize guns can expect to alienate many voters. In 1994, within months of enacting a ban on assault weapons, Democrats lost their majorities in both houses of Congress. Their "inability to consistently win elections in places where gun shops outnumber Starbucks," the respected political analyst Charlie Cook wrote in National Journal during their long exile, "is a big reason the party controls neither the House nor the Senate."

Some Democrats have worked to shed the image as the party of gun-haters. Running for president in 2004, Senator John F. Kerry made a point of donning orange and hoisting a shotgun for a very public day of duck hunting in southern Ohio. When Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana ran for reelection two years later, their TV ads depicted them using guns. More than 60 Democrats were endorsed by the NRA in the midterm election of 2006 - the election, perhaps not coincidentally, in which their party regained control of Congress.

Still, for many Democratic liberals, the antigun animus is reflexive. Senators Ted Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein wasted no time deploring the court's ruling in Heller last week; Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago denounced it as "very frightening." Over the years, such attitudes have been a political boon to Republicans, helping them paint Democrats as out-of-step elitists who hate something millions of Americans love. John McCain's statement hailing the decision pointedly referred to Obama's infamous statement that Middle Americans "cling to guns or religion" when "they get bitter."

Ironically, the impact of last week's decision may be to deprive the GOP of a valuable political weapon. By ending the debate over whether the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns, the justices have just made it safer for gun owners to vote Democratic. McCain cheered the court's ruling, but Obama may prove the biggest winner of all.

The Strange Conflict Over Gun Rights in Bush Camp

D.C.'s Gun Ban Gets Day in Court
Justices' Decision May Set Precedent In Interpreting the 2nd Amendment
By Robert Barnes,Washington Post March 16, 2008 (Excerpt)

“Despite mountains of scholarly research, enough books to fill a library shelf and decades of political battles about gun control, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity this week that is almost unique for a modern court when it examines whether the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.

The nine justices, none of whom has ever ruled directly on the amendment's meaning, will consider a part of the Bill of Rights that has existed without a definitive interpretation for more than 200 years.”

Earlier this year I published a post (What Is Bush Thinking? Ask Fred on 2nd Amend. Rights) that revealed that the Justice Department of the Bush Administration had applied a “friend of the court” request to the Washington, DC gun control case that had been taken up by the Supreme Court. For years, DC had banned gun ownership (leading to its position as the murder capitol of the USA), but a federal appeals court finally threw out the ban. The case was appealed by DC to the Supreme Court, and gun owners have been hoping and expecting that our 2nd Amendment rights would finally be clarified and affirmed for all time. The request by the Justice Department so muddied the waters on this issue that supporters of President Bush have been both perplexed and angered by the move. Now comes this story of conflict between Bush and his own Attorney General. What is going on?

The Administration's Gun Battle
By Robert Novak, March 13, 2008 RealClearPolitics

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Preparing to hear oral arguments Tuesday on the extent of gun rights guaranteed by the Constitution's Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has before it a brief signed by Vice President Cheney opposing the Bush administration's stance. Even more remarkably, Cheney is faithfully reflecting the views of President George W. Bush.

The government position filed with the Supreme Court by U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement stunned gun advocates by opposing the breadth of an appellate court affirmation of individual ownership rights. The Justice Department, not the vice president, is out of order. But if Bush agrees with Cheney, why did the president not simply order Clement to revise his brief? The answers: disorganization and weakness in the eighth year of his presidency.

Consequently, a Republican administration finds itself aligned against the most popular tenet of social conservatism: gun rights that enjoy much wider support than opposition to abortion or gay marriage. Promises in two presidential elections are abandoned, and Bush finds himself left of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

The 1976 District of Columbia statute prohibiting ownership of all functional firearms a year ago was called unconstitutional in violation of the Second Amendment in an opinion by Senior Judge Laurence Silberman, a conservative who has served on the D.C. Circuit Court for 22 years. It was assumed Bush would fight Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty's appeal.

The president and his senior staff were stunned to learn, on the day it was issued, that Clement's petition called on the high court to return the case to the appeals court. The solicitor general argued that Silberman's opinion supporting individual gun rights was so broad that it would endanger existing federal gun control laws such as the bar on owning machine guns. The president could have ordered a revised brief by Clement. But under congressional Democratic pressure to keep hands off the Justice Department, Bush did not act.

Cheney did join 55 senators and 250 House members in signing a brief supporting the Silberman ruling. While this unprecedented vice presidential intervention was widely interpreted as a dramatic breakaway from the White House, longtime associates could not believe Cheney would defy the president. In fact, he did not. Bush approved what Cheney did in his constitutional legislative branch role as president of the Senate.

That has not lessened puzzlement over Clement, a 41-year-old conservative Washington lawyer who clerked for Silberman and later for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Clement has tried to explain his course to the White House by claiming he feared Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court's current swing vote, would join a liberal majority on gun rights if forced to rule on Silberman's opinion.

The more plausible explanation for Clement's stance is that he could not resist opposition to individual gun rights by career lawyers in the Justice Department's Criminal Division (who clashed with the Office of Legal Counsel in a heated internal struggle). Newly installed Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a neophyte at Justice, was unaware of the conflict and learned about Clement's position only after it had been locked in.

A majority of both houses in the Democratic-controlled Congress are on record against the District of Columbia's gun prohibition. So are 31 states, with only five (New York, Massachusetts Maryland, New Jersey and Hawaii) in support. Sen. Obama has weighed in against the D.C. law, asserting that the Constitution confers individual rights to bear arms -- not just collective authority to form militias.

This popular support for gun rights is not reflected by an advantage in Tuesday's oral arguments. Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, an old hand at arguing before the Supreme Court, will make the case for the gun prohibition. Opposing counsel Alan Gura, making his first high court appearance, does not have the confidence of gun-owner advocates (who tried to replace him with former Solicitor General Ted Olson).

The cause needs help from Clement in his 15 minute oral argument, but not if he reiterates his written brief. The word was passed in government circles this week that Clement would amend his position when he actually faces the justices -- an odd ending to bizarre behavior by the Justice Department.

Arizona Weighs Bill to Allow Guns on Campuses

This is not a good idea. My friends know that I possess a concealed-carry permit and own guns, and that I am a staunch defender of every law-abiding American’s 2nd Amendment rights, but the people who want permit-holders to carry guns on campus are not thinking clearly.

First, let me say that both extremes are wrong: designating gun-free zones in areas like a college campus obviously does not work and invites disaster. Data collected from every state that has moved to allow concealed-carry permits has shown a significant reduction in violent crimes, because citizens can now defend themselves, and criminals know it. This experience shows that there have to be armed personnel on campus close by to groups of students. Whether these are campus police or designated faculty and staff who volunteer for special training or a mix of the two is up to the college and the economics involved.

But allowing any person with a carry permit to carry a weapon in a school or college makes no sense either. Permit holders in most states do not receive much or any training, and the idea that an average civilian, without training, could step in and stop the shooter without endangering other parties makes little sense. Also, in both the shootings at Virginia Tech and at Northern Illinois the shooter was mentally defective, and committed suicide at the scene. They might have been stopped partway through the episode, but the presence of guns on campus would not have deterred them. It is unlikely that the Columbine shooters would have been deterred either.

Arizona Weighs Bill to Allow Guns on Campuses

By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD, March 5, 2008, New York Times
PHOENIX — Horrified by recent campus shootings, a state lawmaker here has come up with a proposal in keeping with the Taurus .22-caliber pistol tucked in her purse: Get more guns on campus.

The lawmaker, State Senator Karen S. Johnson, has sponsored a bill, which the Senate Judiciary Committee approved last week, that would allow people with a concealed weapons permit — limited to those 21 and older here — to carry their firearms at public colleges and universities. Concealed weapons are generally not permitted at most public establishments, including colleges.

Ms. Johnson, a Republican from Mesa, said she believed that the recent carnage at Northern Illinois University could have been prevented or limited if an armed student or professor had intercepted the gunman. The police, she said, respond too slowly to such incidents and, besides, who better than the people staring down the barrel to take action?

She initially wanted her bill to cover all public schools, kindergarten and up, but other lawmakers convinced her it stood a better chance of passing if it were limited to higher education.

“I feel like our kindergartners are sitting there like sitting ducks,” Ms. Johnson said last week when the bill passed the committee by a 4-to-3 vote.

This is a generally gun-friendly state, where people are allowed to carry a weapon on their hip without a permit as long as people can see it. Even so, Ms. Johnson acknowledges that her views come from the far right — she recently described herself, half-jokingly, she says, as a “right-wing wacko.”

Still, the proposal has troubled advocates of gun control here and elsewhere because it appears to be gaining popularity and has fed long-smoldering debates over restrictions on carrying firearms.

Since the Virginia Tech killings last April, other states have weighed similar legislation, to the disbelief of opponents, who note that the odds of lethal attacks are small, despite the publicity they attract.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a Washington nonprofit organization, said 15 states were considering legislation that would authorize or make it easier for people to carry guns on school or college campuses under certain conditions.

Those states include Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Virginia, according to the center, but it considers the Arizona proposal particularly egregious because it would not only allow students and faculty to carry such weapons, but staff members as well.

Utah, the organization said, is the only state with a law that expressly allows people with a concealed-weapon permit to carry guns on college campuses. That law, adopted in 2004 and upheld by Utah’s Supreme Court in 2006, arose out of concern that a state law allowing concealed weapons was not being enforced on college campuses.

The critics of such laws predict that they would cause more problems, including making it hard for the police to sort a dangerous gunman from a crowd of others with guns. They also argue that the guns would make it easier for people barely out of adolescence, or perhaps emotionally troubled, to respond lethally to typical campus frustrations like poor grades or failed romances.

Fred Boice, president of the Arizona Board of Regents, which oversees the state’s three public universities, said he sympathized with people concerned about campus safety. In October 2002, a nursing student at the University of Arizona in Tucson who was failing his classes shot and killed three professors before killing himself.

But Mr. Boice said he believed security and a system of alerting people about crises had been improved since then, and he worried that disputes best handled by campus security could quickly turn deadly with more guns on campus.

“I grew up in the country and a lot of people had guns,” Mr. Boice said. “But my father said never carry a gun unless you are prepared to kill somebody, and I believe that.”

Proponents concede the proposal could face a fight, even in this state’s Republican-controlled Legislature. The police chiefs at Arizona’s universities and several law enforcement groups have condemned the bill.

“This is a very polarizing issue,” said John Wentling, vice president of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group that has pushed for the bill.

Even if Ms. Johnson’s bill eventually passes both chambers, it will probably take some convincing for Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, to sign it. Ms. Napolitano rejected a bill a few years ago that would have lifted a prohibition on carrying loaded firearms into bars, restaurants and other places that serve alcohol.

Ms. Johnson’s proposal has gotten a mixed reception on the campuses.

Jason Lewis, 23, an aerospace engineering major at the University of Arizona, said he was mugged twice on campus last year, at knife point and at gunpoint. He now has a concealed-weapons permit and carries his gun everywhere he can.

“It would at least let me protect myself,” said Mr. Lewis, one of a few students to testify in support of the bill at a recent hearing. “If word gets out students are arming themselves, criminals will be, like, ‘Maybe we should back off.’ It will be a deterrent.”
But Cole Hickman, a student at Arizona State University in Tempe, said he had sought to rally opposition to the bill, concerned that, among other things, it would further jeopardize people during a mass shooting. Proponents of the bill, Mr. Hickman said, underestimate the difficulty in shooting a live target in a chaotic episode.

“If another student in the room or a teacher had a gun and opened fire they may hurt other students,” he said, “because unlike police officers, concealed-weapon permit holders are not necessarily well-trained in shooting in crowds and reacting to those kinds of situations.”

Ms. Johnson is not fazed by the skeptics.

“We are not the wild, wild West like people think we are,” she said. “But people are more independent thinkers here when it comes to security.”

Affirming Our Second Amendment Rights

It was interesting to me that at a recent birthday party, five of the eight men there discussed owning guns, and three of the five (including me) have concealed-carry permits. The other three men did not volunteer information, so they may or may not be gun owners. Some people, like liberal columnist, William Raspberry, famously excoriate gun-owners while reserving that right to themselves (as Democrat Senator Webb was also caught doing),

Gun owners and others who respect the Second Amendment should remember that both Clinton and Obama are anti the 2nd Amendment and have voted for every gun control measure put before them (source: Gunowners.org).

Rather than any more gun control legislation (except for constantly tightening ways to keep guns out of the hands of ex-felons and people with mental defects), what is needed is a federal law for carry-permit holders that recognizes the mobility of today’s society. There is now a federal law, referred to as the “peaceable journey” law, that enables any legal gun owner to carry an unloaded weapon across state lines while traveling. What is needed is a similar law that automatically gives reciprocity to a permit holder who is also on a “peaceable journey”, but wishes to retain the protection he has in his home state.

The same rules would apply as is the case now: one could only stop temporarily in a pass-through state, and the destination must be another residence or place of business. As it is now, I can protect myself through Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia, but before entering DC and Maryland I must empty my gun and lock it in a box in my trunk, and it must stay that way through New Jersey, Delaware, New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island until I reach my other home in RI.

The Second Amendment Wedge
by Jed Babbin, 11/26/2007, Human Events

Hillary calls them, “kitchen table issues,” the political questions Americans take seriously enough to talk about them privately, in their homes, among family and friends. Whether she likes it or not, one of those issues is gun control. Last week the Supreme Court decided to take on the biggest gun control case in almost seventy years: District of Columbia v. Heller. The Heller case is an appeal by the DC government from the US Circuit Court’s decision holding unconstitutional D.C.’s ban on privately-owned handguns and severe limits on other weapons.

The Heller appeal will be argued next spring and unless something very odd happens, it will be decided before the election. This is very bad news for the Democrats who -- like Hillary -- don’t believe that the Second Amendment grants to private citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

The DC handgun ban provides that an unlicensed private person may not carry a pistol even from room to room in his own home. Because DC -- as a matter of policy -- doesn’t grant handgun permits, the law effectively bans lawful handgun ownership.

It also requires that all other guns -- shotguns and rifles -- be registered and kept either unloaded and disassembled or locked with a trigger lock. In either case, the weapon is useless for self-defense because an assailant isn’t likely to stand by waiting patiently while you search for the key or put your shotgun together in order to protect yourself from him.

It’s been almost seventy years since the Supreme Court last ruled on the very basic principle embodied in the Second Amendment: the right to keep and bear arms. The 1939 decision in Miller v. US confused the law.

Reacting to the interstate gangs of the 1930s that preyed on the public (and their banks: think Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde and their ilk) Congress regulated private possession of the gangs’ favorite tools of mayhem: machine guns, suppressed (silenced) weapons and sawed-off shotguns. Miller and his co-defendant were convicted of crossing state lines with a sawed-off shotgun in violation of the new law.

In 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the Miller convictions were proper because the sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon that would be of use to a militiaman: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” But following that logic -- and given the armament most common among the modern militia, the National Guard, is the M-16 rifle which is capable of fully-automatic fire -- the Miller case is at best a limited guide for the Supreme Court in the DC v. Heller appeal.

Though you may as well reason that the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure applies only to homes that were built by 1781, the fact is that officers of some states’ militias were required to equip themselves with a brace of pistols.

The Heller case raises the precise issue that liberals fear most: the private rights of individuals. The DC Circuit’s opinion rejects the District of Columbia government’s argument that the Second Amendment grants only a collective right: that the states have the right to arm their militias, but no private citizen has a right to keep a firearm. It will be very tough to overcome the DC Circuit’s reasoning for two big reasons.

First, as the Supreme Court held in 1840, there’s not a surplus word in the Constitution. “Every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning…no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added.” The Second Amendment says, “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.” There are no useless words here. Every one is key to the force and effect of the Second Amendment. That Amendment, when it speaks of “the people” must be read in concert with the rest of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and their history.

No one contends that the other Amendments that preserve rights of “the people” -- the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth -- do not preserve individuals’ rights. The same must be true of the Second.

Moreover, the Federalist Papers -- as the DC Circuit analyzes -- reveal that the Founders believed in the right of the individual to keep his own firearms. Neither the Federalists nor the Anti-Federalists believed the federal government had the power to disarm the people.

The second reason the Heller case will be tough to overturn is in the Fourteenth Amendment which precludes states from passing laws that abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens granted under the Constitution. The courts haven’t yet decided that the Fourteenth Amendment precludes gun control laws such as the District of Columbia’s, but the Heller case may make that result unavoidable, thus overturning those laws around the nation.

If the Republicans seize this opportunity, they can make a “kitchen table” issue into a “wedge issue” in 2008: one that will decide the minds of voters. One Republican -- Mitt Romney -- has spoken on this precise point. In his interview with HUMAN EVENTS, Romney said his personal view was that the Second Amendment granted the right to keep and bear arms to individuals. No Democrat will say that.

In Hillary Clinton’s book, “Living History,” she writes about her outrage at Congress’ failure to, “…close the so-called gun-show loophole and to require child safety locks on guns.” She goes on talking about how Congress lacked the will to, “…buck the all-powerful gun lobby and pass sensible gun safety measures [which] made me think about what I might be able to do, as a senator, to pass common sense legislation. In an interview in May, I told CBS anchor Dan Rather that, if I ran for the Senate, it would be because of what I learned in places like Littleton -- and in spite of what I had lived through in Washington.”

Clinton never did anything about gun control as a senator. What would she do as president? Does she believe that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms, or does she favor confiscative laws such as the District of Columbia law the Supreme Court will rule on in the Heller case?

We know the answer. But it’s up to the Republican candidates to flush her out of the tall weeds. This is an important issue to a great majority of Americans across the map, in Blue States, not just Red ones. It could be the wedge issue that decides the 2008 election.

What Is Bush Thinking? Ask Fred on 2nd Amend. Rights

My readers all know that I am a strong supporter of President Bush even though he has sometimes taken actions that leave me baffled. I am talking about such things as signing the McCain-Feingold bill, pushing for the No Child Left Behind legislation and involving himself in the Terry Sciavo case. This week Fred Thompson made a statement about the upcoming Supreme Court review of the overturn of Washington D.C.’s outrageous gun control laws that also left me baffled until I looked into the matter.

What has happened is that the Bush Administration has, unbelievably, filed a brief in this case asking that it be returned to the lower court for “fact-finding”. What this really means is that the Bush Justice Dept. wants the lower court to reconsider its finding that D.C.’s gun bans are unconstitutional, and come up with a less definitive decision that attorneys, politicians and gun-control groups can use to find ways to finesse this affirmation of our basic rights.

It takes a little digging to figure out just what is going on here, but it made my Florida vote yesterday (we have early voting in Florida’s primary) for Fred Thompson even more fulfilling to realize that Fred figured out right away what this action meant, and immediately spoke out against it. In fact, I don’t believe any of the other Republican candidates have made statements or are even aware of this development.

I have posted below an excerpt from the RedState.com blog and also a statement from the NRA on this subject:

RedState.com
Gun rights advocates were understandably dismayed when the Bush Administration Justice Department submitted a brief in District of Columbia v. Heller, the big Second Amendment case to be argued later this term, calling for a remand of the case for reconsideration of D.C.'s gun laws under a less demanding constitutional standard. Given the Bush Administration's support for an "individual rights" view of the Second Amendment, many find it incomprehensible that the Administration would not support the D.C. Circuit decision holding D.C.'s draconian gun restrictions unconstitutional. The DoJ's brief is also a potentially unwelcome development in the Presidential race, as it could dampen gun owners' support of GOP candidates.

The Fred Thompson for President, South Carolina bus tour reached Spartanburg today, where the Law & Order TV star candidate fielded questions at Papa's Breakfast Nook from Charlotte, N.C.'s WBT-AM radio talk show host Jeff Katz.

Asked his opinion of the Second Amendment and the Solicitor General's request that the DC Circuit Court remand the appeal back to the trial court for "fact-finding", the lawyer turned Senator from Tennessee said the Bush Administration was "overlawyering" and stated that he opposed remand and that the case should move forward to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The DC District Court in an opinion written by Judge Silberman, struck down the DC ban on the possession of hand guns even in one's own home. Judge Silberman ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to protect one's home with arms that pre-dates the Constitution.

Statement of the National Rifle Association By Wayne LaPierre And Chris Cox On The Pending U.S. Supreme Court Case

Saturday, January 12, 2008

In the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.’s ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in law-abiding residents’ homes. The Court will first address the question of whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as embodied in the Bill of Rights, protects the rights of individuals or a right of the government. If the Court agrees that this is an individual right, they will then determine if D.C.’s self-defense and handgun bans are constitutional.

The position of the National Rifle Association is clear. The Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for any lawful purpose. Further, any law infringing this freedom, including a ban on self-defense and handgun ownership, is unconstitutional and provides no benefit to curbing crime. Rather, these types of restrictions only leave the law-abiding more susceptible to criminal attack.

The U.S. Government, through its Solicitor General, has filed an amicus brief in this case. We applaud the government’s recognition that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right that is “central to the preservation of liberty.” The brief also correctly recognizes that the D.C. statutes ban “a commonly-used and commonly-possessed firearm in a way that has no grounding in Framing-era practice,” the Second Amendment applies to the District of Columbia, is not restricted to service in a militia and secures the natural right of self-defense.

However, the government’s position is also that a “heightened” level of judicial scrutiny should be applied to these questions. The National Rifle Association believes that the Court should use the highest level of scrutiny in reviewing the D.C. gun ban. We further believe a complete ban on handgun ownership and self-defense in one’s own home does not pass ANY level of judicial scrutiny. Even the government agrees that “the greater the scope of the prohibition and its impact on private firearm possession, the more difficult it will be to defend under the Second Amendment.” A complete ban is the kind of infringement that is the greatest in scope. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit correctly ruled that D.C.’s statutes are unconstitutional. We strongly believe the ruling should be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The National Rifle Association will be filing an amicus brief in this case and will provide additional information to our members as this case moves through the legal process.

Please refer questions to NRA Grassroots at 1-800-392-8683.

A Nasty Fight Is Looming

Many of us are aware that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a second amendment case involving the overturning of a Washington, DC gun law that prohibited law-abiding citizens from owning and keeping a handgun for personal protection in their own homes. This case is of critical importance.

A recent New York Times editorial on the subject shows just what fair-minded people are going to be up against in this continuing battle, and that we have to be prepared for a fight that promises to become just as dirty and in the gutter as any recent abortion or anti-war dispute. Notice the language of the editorial and also what it does not say.

It uses the scare language of - “violent consequences of denying government broad room to regulate guns” – as if allowing law-abiding citizens the right to have protection in their homes has violent consequences .

In another place the editorial says, “A decision that upends needed gun controls currently in place around the country would imperil the lives of Americans.”

Nowhere does this article make reference to the significant reductions in violent crimes that have followed state decisions to grant concealed carry licenses to qualified, peaceful citizens. This has been the *experience in every one of the 36 states that have put in place concealed-carry laws since 1986. What does concealed carry have to do with laws that prevent the private ownership of any guns? Clearly, if the Washington, DC law is upheld, and the constitutional right to bear arms is overthrown, it will eventually affect everyone’s rights, and all concealed-carry licenses may become null and void.

The New York Times editorial also does not mention the fact that Washington, DC, with its prohibition of gun ownership, and where only criminals can own guns, is considered the murder capital of the world.

It is up to every citizen to fight against this development and up to every gun owner to speak out and to contribute generously to fight a fight that cannot be fought on the facts and the data alone. Since when have liberals been interested in facts and history? They will employ the same smears and the same character assassinations and distortions that they have used against President Bush, VP Cheney, and Justices Roberts and Alito. They will lie and distort and pretend not to understand when the facts are laid out.

New York Times Editorial, November 21, 2007
The Court and the Second Amendment
Correction Appended

By agreeing yesterday to rule on whether provisions of the District of Columbia’s stringent gun control law violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has inserted itself into a roiling public controversy with large ramifications for public safety. The court’s move sowed hope and fear among supporters of reasonable gun control, and it ratcheted up the suspense surrounding the court’s current term.

The hope, which we share, is that the court will rise above the hard-right ideology of some justices to render a decision respectful of the Constitution’s text and the violent consequences of denying government broad room to regulate guns. The fear is that it will not.

At issue is a 2-to-1 ruling last March by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that found unconstitutional a law barring handguns in homes and requiring that shotguns and rifles be stored with trigger locks or disassembled. The ruling upheld a radical decision by a federal trial judge, who struck down the 31-year-old gun control law on spurious grounds that conform with the agenda of the anti-gun control lobby but cry out for rejection by the Supreme Court.

Much hinges on how the justices interpret the Second Amendment, which says: “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.”

Opponents of gun control sometimes claim a constitutional prohibition on any serious regulation of individual gun ownership. The court last weighed in on the amendment in 1939, concluding, correctly in our view, that the only absolute right conferred on individuals is for the private ownership of guns that has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” The federal, state and local governments may impose restrictions on other uses — like the trigger guards — or outright bans on types of weapons. Appellate courts followed that interpretation, until last spring’s departure.

A lot has changed since the nation’s founding, when people kept muskets to be ready for militia service. What has not changed is the actual language of the Constitution. To get past the first limiting clauses of the Second Amendment to find an unalienable individual right to bear arms seems to require creative editing.

Beyond grappling with fairly esoteric arguments about the Second Amendment, the justices need to responsibly confront modern-day reality. A decision that upends needed gun controls currently in place around the country would imperil the lives of Americans.

Correction: November 23, 2007
An editorial on Wednesday about a Supreme Court gun control case incorrectly described a lower court’s decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the District Court and ruled Washington’s law on gun ownership unconstitutional. The District Court did not overturn the law.

*A recent study by John Lott and David Mustard of the University of Chicago published in the Journal of Legal Studies found that concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5% and severe assault by 7% from 1977 to '92. Had "right-to-carry" laws been in effect throughout the country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders and 60,000 fewer assaults every year.