Yes, believe it or not.

This from the Telegraph UK, "Home owners and “have-a go-heroes” have for the first time been given the legal right to defend themselves against burglars and muggers free from fear of prosecution…

Under new laws police and prosecutors will have to assess a person’s actions based on the person’s situation “as they saw it at the time” even if in hindsight it could be seen as unreasonable.

For example, homeowners would be able stab or shoot a burglar if confronted or tackle them and use force to detain them until police arrive. Muggers could be legally punched and beaten in the street or have their own weapons used against them…

In practice, householders are seldom prosecuted if they harm or even kill an intruder but the Act will give them greater legal protection."

Needless to say, there’s a big difference between having a right to self-defense that can only be asserted in front of a jury when you’re on trial for murder and a right that can be asserted pre-trial as an argument for dropping the case. For some background check out this piece from 2004 about the slow decline into madness that has plagued Britain.

Washinton D.C.'s compliance with the Heller decision doesn't seem to comply with the intent of the ruling. In fact it seems to have changed very little. They simply placed bureacratic hurddles in place of the legal ones.

This from DCist, "Mayor Adrian Fenty and the D.C. Council, along with Attorney General Peter Nickles and Police Chief Cathy Lanier, announced the details of early legislation that will regulate the registration and storage of handguns in post-Heller D.C.

“We continue to take every step we can to minimize handgun violence in the District,” said Mayor Fenty. “We must prevent handguns from falling into the wrong hands or being misused, while allowing District residents to exercise their Second Amendment rights under the Heller ruling.”

Public Safety Committee Chairman Phil Mendelson released a statement saying that these proposed rules are just a first step.

“Moving forward, the Council’s open and public deliberations on this important issue will give the residents of the District of Columbia as well as subject matter experts an opportunity to weigh in and help shape our new policies," Mendelson said.

Here's what they're proposing:

• Allowing an exception for handgun ownership for self-defense use inside the home.
• If you want to keep a handgun in your home, the MPD will have to perform ballistic testing on it before it can be legally registered.
• There will be a limit to one handgun per person for the first 90 days after the legislation becomes law.
• Firearms in the home must be stored unloaded and disassembled, and secured with either a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device. The new law will allow an exception for a firearm while it is being used against an intruder in the home.
• Residents who legally register handguns in the District will not be required to have licenses to carry them inside their own homes."

So in effect you still cannot have a firearm in the home ready to be employed as a weapon against an intruder, it still is in all reality a functional firearms ban.

More from Glenn Reynolds, "This is bad faith, pure and simple, on the part of the D.C. government. It's just more reason why Congress needs to take a hand in protecting D.C. residents' rights. I hope the proposed legislation on that front moves ahead.

UPDATE: Proposed D.C. Gun Law Violates D.C. [Disability] Law.

Plus this: "Hey, here’s an idea: let’s require the cops to keep their guns disassembled and locked away at all times too, with an exemption allowed only while it’s being fired wildly at some perp during the commission of a crime. After all, if it’s really safety we’re concerned about here, what’s good for the citizenry at large ought to be good for them, too."

This from the SCOUTUS BLOG, "On Friday, the National Rifle Association filed five lawsuits, seeking to apply the Constitution’s Second Amendment to block gun control laws adopted by local governments in California and Illinois.  This blog provided a link to the California complaint as part of a post that can be found here.

In El Dorado.

This from My Eyewitness news, "A woman shot and killed her husband at their home outside of El Dorado, and the Union County sheriff says the slaying was in self-defense.

Sheriff Ken Jones said the incident happened around 10:30 p.m. Saturday, when deputies found 47 year-old Roger Gates dead inside the home. Jones says 37 year-old Kimberly Gates told him that her husband had attacked her and that she was afraid for her life and her baby's. Officials say she was able to get away from her husband, get a gun from the bathroom, and shoot him.

Jones said the case is still under investigation and that the results will be given to a prosecutor, who will determine if charges should be filed."

Hilarious. The ACLU is blasted by it's own members for it's refusal to admit  the Second Amendment is an individual right.

This from WND, "The American Civil Liberties Union is getting blasted on its own blog site for holding onto the belief that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes a collective right for militias to have weapons, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the right applies to individuals.

"Sorry ACLU you lost me," wrote SuperNaut. "I just took the money I had slated to re-up my lapsed ACLU membership and used it to re-up my NRA membership."

Hundreds of comments have been posted in just the first few days of July, almost uniformly condemning the ACLU's explanation of its position on gun rights, which is that individuals don't have them.

"The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller," the page started. "While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized."

The fine print said, "We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability."

Then it specifically asked that comments endorsing or opposing specific political candidates not be posted.

It seems as if posters could hardly wait to punch the "submit" button.

"So pretty much, your policy went from 'we agree with the decision in US v Miller that gun ownership is not a constitutional right' to 'we disagree with DC V Heller and still believe that gun ownership is not a constitutional right,' meaning that despite whatever ruling is laid down, the ACLU will be against the individual right of private gun ownership," said DJ Rick in launching the long list of several hundred comments.

"I was really hoping that the ACLU would at least reconsider its stance, now invalidated by the SCOTUS, and come around to the popularly accepted and now legally accepted view than an amendment in the bill of rights (whether it be the Firs (sic), Second, Third or whichever) actually protects an individual's right," he said.

"Q. How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10? A. 1, 3, 4, 5…," he wrote.

"The ACLU's position was wrong before Heller; to maintain it now is absurd. Not one of the justices in Heller endorsed the 'collective rights' viewpoint. If the ACLU believes that it is the best public policy that individuals should not own guns, it should campaign for the removal of the 2nd Amendment from the Constitution," wrote Posey.

"Does that mean that I can interpret the constitution as not providing for a right to privacy? … Does the ACLU only defend civil liberties it agrees with?" wrote NotSurprised.

WND reported when the Supreme Court decided in the D.C. vs. Heller case that the Second Amendment actually provides an individual right to own firearms, not just the right for states to form armed militias.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said in the majority opinion.

"We are very pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling today. This is a win for all Americans, and it vindicates the individual's right to keep and bear arms," Rachel Parsons, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, told WND then. "We are now going to go after other cities' laws that unlawfully ban gun ownership by law-abiding people."

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in dissent, said the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

And Scalia said the ruling should not "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

Scalia was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Joining Stevens in dissent were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

The amendment, ratified in 1791, 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."

The ACLU had maintained, and still holds, that the "right of the people" designates a collective belief in an armed militia, not having guns in homes.

There was no relenting on the part of forum posters, however.

"I don't know why this [is] the only consitutional (sic) right the ACLU doesn't defend. The Bill of Rights protects the rights of INDIVIDUALS, so the idea that the Bill of Rights protects a 'collective right' is absolutely preposterous," wrote TexasCivilLibertarian. "The ACLU needs to change its position on the Second Amendment from the politically correct orthodox liberal position to the truly civil libertarian position. We cannot pick and choose which rights are worthy of more protection than others."

"If the ACLU wants to maintain its credibility as the defender of the bill of rights then it must endorse the 2nd amendment as an individual right, and not maintain its pathetic stance claiming it disagrees with the SCOTUS. The fat lady has sung. Get with the program," said John Fredrickson.

"I don't want to hear any more about the ACLU prevaricating on how they 'disagree' with this individual right protected by the Bill of Rights. What I (and many other members) now want is for the ACLU to step to the forefront of protecting our Second Amendment rights so that the d----- NRA will stop being the only place liberal gunowners can turn to," wrote Samuel. "Will you just get with the program? Numerous polls show [about] 75% of US voters know the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and [about] 65% of registered DEMOCRATS agree with that position. We need you to show some leadership and embrace our rights, not leave the Second Amendment neglected for the NRA to continue to wrap in right-wing rhetoric.

"Doesn’t your sense of decency demand you treat all of our Constitutional rights equally?" he wrote.

"We now have the ACLU explicitly denying what the Supreme courts (sic) calls a specific enumerated right. This is even more egregious than the KKK demanding segregated bus seating, water fountains, and restrooms since the Constitution doesn't enumerate the right for integration of public and private accommodations," said Joe Huffman.

"It's a pity really, when bigotry, prejudice and cognitive dissonnance (sic) so easily brushes aside a fundamental human right, and the clear historical facts that support the establishment of that right, when it doesn't suit one's taste," wrote Norasfolks.

"I thought the ACLU's purpose was to uphold the rights of American citizens, as dictated by the Supreme Court. Am I missing something?" questioned Jay Rascoe.

"What about the First Amendment? It talks about freedom of the press, and 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble.' That's the same 'the people' as in the Second Amendment, which you've asserted is a 'collective right.' Maybe we should limit freedom of speech to registered press members (who will, of course, be required to store theiri typewriters in a disassembled and locked state, so that they are not able to exercise that collective right at a moment's notice)." wrote Mark Jaquith. "We'll take their fingerprints, run a background check, and make them demonstrate competency at composing headlines. Of course, no press will be allowed to operate within Washington D.C. – to keep illegal typewriters off the streets."

Other comments:

• From Luis Leon: "Your arguments are incredibly lame."
  
  
• From Steve: "Why would I give money to a group that … wants to deny me one of the most basic [of civil liberties]."
  
  
• From Novus: "I am disgusted and repulsed."
  
  
• From WLC: "If there was any coubt that the ACLU is pushing a left wing political agenda, that argument is over."
  
  
• From Brad: "Perhaps ACLU really stands for the 'Anti-Civil Liberties Union'!"
  
  
• From A Pennsylvanian: "Are you for real?"

Wow, what a hypocrite.

This from Knoxville News, "So, how does one lawfully get guns into DC? Even after Heller takes effect, it's a tough issue due to zoning: Washington has no federally licensed gun stores, so nowhere in the city can residents buy a handgun legally. Not true, really. There is one licensed firearms dealer in the city. One Josh Sugarmann of the anti-gun shill group the Violence Policy Center.

They can be reached at:

Violence Policy Center
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Suite 1014
Washington, DC 20036

phone (202) 822 8200

Ask them what they're charging for transfers. If they say they don't do them, remind them that, thanks in part to their kind's lobbying efforts, it is typically viewed a violation of federal law to hold an FFL and not be in the business of dealing firearms."

Thanks to Clinton, FFL holders have to show "regular business hours" and be "in the business of buying selling guns" to have an FFL, if not they are in violation of federal laws. Laws the VPC once championed to, "get rid of, "kitchen table dealers."

Please note that he needs a DC dealer license as well. And if he doesn't have one, presumably, his federal license should be revoked as he is in violation of local regs.

Relevant section of the DC Code is §7-2504.01 to §7-2504.09

This also means that Josh was exempt from the Washington D.C. handgun ban that they were defending at the Supreme Court last week.

Awesome. They also filed suit in Chicago.

This from Fox News, "The National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco on Friday to overturn its handgun ban in public housing, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in the nation's capital.

The legal action follows a similar lawsuit against the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, filed within hours of Thursday's high court ruling.

In San Francisco, the NRA was joined by the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a gun owner who lives in the city's Valencia Gardens housing project as plaintiffs.

The gun owner, who is gay, says he keeps the weapon to defend himself from "sexual orientation hate crimes." He was not identified in the complaint because he said he fears retaliation.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city will "vigorously fight the NRA" and defended the city's ban as good for public safety.

"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said. "I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority."

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the Supreme Court ruling didn't address gun bans on government property and that he was "confident that our local gun control measures are on sound legal footing and will survive legal challenges."

San Francisco also requires residents to keep guns in lockboxes or equip them with triggerlocks. That law, passed by the county supervisors last year, wasn't challenged in Friday's lawsuit.

A state appeals court has overturned a broader citywide gun ban passed by voters in 2005.

The Chicago lawsuit challenges its 1982 ordinance that makes it illegal to possess or sell handguns in the city.

NRA lawyer C.D. Michel said both lawsuits were necessary to expand the Supreme Court's ruling beyond Washington, a federal district, to states and cities.

"The Supreme Court decisions was very encouraging," Michel said. "But it is just a start."

Newsom admits that the public-housing gun ban has failed to keep guns out of public housing.  And then what does Newsom do? Does he defend the victims?  The law-abiding citizens of San Francisco?  No, Newsom girds himself for legal battle to defend the “rights” of the government agency that runs public housing.  I’m certain that the founding fathers of this nation didn’t include the 2nd Amendment to protect government against the citizens, but the other way around.

Outstanding ruling today from the Supreme Court. The Devil is in the details, gun owners couldn't have asked for a better opinion in this case.

The opinion by Justice Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Second Amendment, is available here.

Quoting from the syllabus of the decision, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

More from the SCOUTUS Blog, "Answering a 217-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession.  Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Examining the words of the Amendment, the Court concluded “we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weaons in case of confrontation” — in other words, for self-defense. “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” it added.

The individual right interpretation, the Court said, ”is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment,” going back to 17th Century England, as well as by gun rights laws in the states before and immediately after the Amendment was put into the U.S. Constitution.

What Congress did in drafting the Amendment, the Court said, was “to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.”

Justice Scalia’s opinion stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.

The Court took no position on whether the Second Amendment right restricts only federal government powers, or also curbs the power of states to regulate guns.  In a footnote, Scalia said that the issue of “incorporating” the Second into the Fourteenth Amendment, thus applying it to the states, was “a question not presented by this case.” But the footnote said decisions in 1886 and 1894 had reaffirmed that the Amendment “applies only to the Federal Government.”  Whether the Court will reopen that issue thus will depend upon future cases.

The Court in essence demolished the most recent precedent on the Second Amendment — the ruling in U.S. v. Miller in 1939, relied upon heavily by advocates of gun control (and by the dissenting Justices on Thursday). The opinion tartly remarked: “It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.”

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place.  The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed.  It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violation of denying any access to a handgun.

While the declaration of the individual right was clear-cut, as was the decision’s nullification of key parts of the Washington, D.C., law, the Court did not lay down a standard for judging the constitutionality of any other federal laws — an omission that the dissenters attacked strongly. Even so, the opinion made it clear that, whatever ultimate test emerge, it probably would be a tough one to meet, at least when self-defense is at issue.   As Justice Scalia put it, whatever remains for “future evaluation” about the strength of the right, “it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

Justice Scalia’s recitation from the bench of the majority’s reasoning continued for 16 minutes.  Justice John Paul Stevens followed, for seven minutes, summarizing the reasons for two dissenting opinions — his and one written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer.

The decision was the final one of the Term and, after issuing it, the Court recessed for the summer, to return on Monday, Oct. 6.  Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., said that concluding orders on pending cases will be released by the Court Clerk at 10 a.m. Friday."

So much for the argument that the right to bear arms belongs to militias.

More from Breitbart, " The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense in their homes, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms restrictions intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

White House reaction was restrained. "We're pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290."

So what does all this mean ? This goes much farther than the minimum. Not only is their an explicit right to own guns for self-defense (not just hunting or military exercises, and not just for the purposes of the militia) it explicitly mentions that this right extends to handguns.

And it’s not just that self-defense is a subsidiary right to the common defense, it’s (page 26) “the central component of the right itself.”

And not just self-defense in the sense of immediate threat to life: it’s for the defense of life, family, and property (p.54)

The SCOTUS blog gives us a basic breakdown on what this will mean for other state regulation, "Individuals have a constitutional right to possess a basic firearm (the line drawn is unclear, but is basically those weapons in general lawful use and does not extend to automatic weapons) and to use that firearm in self-defense.  The government can prohibit possession of firearms by, for example, felons and the mentally ill.  And it can also regulate the sale of firearms, presumably through background checks.  The Court leaves open the constitutionality of a licensing requirement.

Another insane idea. Besides the obvious technological hurdles associated with this idea wouldn't this pretty much amount to a defacto gun registry?

 This from the Tallahassee, " I have been around men and women exercising the right to bear arms ever since I was a child. I grew up going to the shooting range with my father, and I was taught weapon safety from a very young age. Guns were always locked in safes, and the only time we handled them in the home was when my father was cleaning our checked and safety-locked weapons.

Having experienced the gun show and the coming-of-age purchasing of weapons (against my advice) by friends, I am concerned that there is no regulated method of tracking the arms trade in this nation, where gun-related incidents are on the rise.

Earlier this month, for example, a man shot himself in the abdomen while twirling a loaded .22 caliber firearm. In the last few weeks, there have been multiple reports of armed robberies and shootings, and our community has witnessed multiple tragedies from the mishandling of firearms.

Unfortunately, after such occurrences, we sit and fume over the generally negative effects that guns have been known to have, but very little has been done to pro-actively generate any long-term effective method for reducing gun violence.

Realistically, I understand that we cannot just ask everyone to pack up and dispose of their weapons, and though I do not own a personal firearm, I know many people who keep them for respectable purposes.

Of those I know who are responsible with their weapons, I could guarantee that not a single one would be opposed to a simple proposal using GPS tracking chips, which are incredibly small and have become rather inexpensive to manufacture.

Would it be such a terrible idea to ask members of our society to have a simple chip attached to their weapons?

If this were a requirement, not only would we be able to trace the trade and location of weapons more thoroughly but we also could enforce more rigid repercussions for those in possession of unregistered weaponry.

Of course, the database and tracking system would take a bit of time to implement, but wouldn't it be worth it to have this substantial resource at hand?

When weapons are stolen, we could track them down more easily, and in the incident of a violent act, we would be able to more reliably piece together the chain of events leading up to the gunfire.

As one who is capable of handling a firearm responsibly, I would love for others to be able to see weapons in a different light. I am not afraid of guns; we have only to fear the people who choose to use them inappropriately.

I don't know which gives me the biggest chill up my spine, the fact that someday we would be forced to have GPS devices on our firearms or that some government hack was monitoring a program that had the names, addresses, Social Security Numbers and the GPS coordinate of every gun owner in the country.

I remember when S&W did something similar, to this day I won't buy a S&W product. I might be adding Kimber to that list.

This from the JPFO, "For those of us who make the transition from gun owner and shooter to Second Amendment activist, the most disillusioning phenomenon we have to face is that not everyone we might expect to be an ally in the fight for the right to own and carry weapons can actually be relied on.

When I first became involved in this historical struggle, Smith & Wesson, that quintessentially American revolver manufacturer was actually owned by a British holding company that didn't give a rap about the Second Amendment, was much more concerned with the company's sales to police departments across the country, and was inclined to go along with any regulatory scheme politicians and bureaucrats came up with.

Similarly, the late Bill Ruger, the head Sturm Ruger & Company, never seemed to understand the Second Amendment. Paternalist and aristocrat that he appeared to fancy himself, he actually volunteered advice to the government concerning what he believed ought to be legal (whatever his company manufactured) and what should be outlawed. We have Ruger mostly to thank for the ten-round limit that was imposed during the ill-conceived Clinton-Dole Ugly Gun and Adequate Magazine Ban.

Some gun companies and their executives care only about the bottom line. Hired away from soft drink or underwear manufacturers, the men at the top don't really have any moral or sentimental attachment to the product itself. They don't love what they do. They might as well be manufacturing faucet washers. I don't suppose there's anything wrong with that, as far as it goes -- I'm a big fan of capitalism, myself -- but other companies are like the historic makers of fine musical instruments -- violins and guitars. Money is important chiefly in that it keeps the company and its employees going. What really counts is the quality of their product and the satisfaction of their customers.

Wildey J. Moore, inventor of magnum automatic pistols comes to mind. He actually ran for office in his home state as a libertarian and Second Amendment advocate. Ronnie Barrett stoutly refuses to sell his famous .50 caliber rifles to agencies of gun-banning governments, and he won't service the ones they already have. STI International won't sell their nifty 1911s to California police agencies because of the bizarre, insane microstamping scheme passed by that state's legislature.

Regrettably, another famous maker of 1911s, Kimber Manufacturing, seems to have trouble separating the goodguys from the badguys. According to an article by Ken Hanson, Esq., circulated on the Web by the Buckeye Firearms Association, and appearing on U.S. Concealed Carry Magazine's website, Kimber has acquired a bad habit: kissing up disgustingly to the destroyers of individual liberty by creating weapons especially dedicated to various California police agencies. In Hanson's words, these guns were specifically "designed for a local government committed to stripping civilians of the right to own this same gun."

Emphasis added.

See: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5674

Hanson urges his readers to "educate" Kimber with regard to what a terrible idea this is. It's exactly as if Jewish tailors in the 1930s had taken pride in making uniforms for the Nazi S.S. There is no moral distinction. The author suggests a number of actions that concerned gun owners might take. chiefly calling or writing to the company at 914-964-0771x324, or via US mail at Kimber, 2590 Hwy 35, Kalispell, MT 59901.

Although Hanson wants you to warn Kimber and its dealers of a possible boycott of their products by shooters concerned with their rights, he suggests your communication remain "polite, professional yet firm". I would make no such suggestion. This is a major breach of an implicit moral bond between a gunmaker and its clients, it is the rankest, most repulsive kind of hypocrisy, and it must be dealt with no less promptly and harshly than I urged in my 2000 essay "S&W Must Die".

See: http://www.jpfo.org/alerts/alert20000406.htm

The worldwide boycott which that essay helped to start broke S&W and sent them plunging -- repeatedly -- into bankruptcy. (Much the same thing happened to K-Mart when they foolishly hired the slavering, hysterical anti-gunner Rosie O'Donnell as their spokeswoman.) It is a story of which no firearms manufacturer today can possibly still be ignorant.

In short, we must ask shooters to kick the Kimber habit.

I agree with Hanson about the need for gun owners to react to Kimber's suicidal stupidity, but I would suggest also dealing with the problem at the other end. Why not a written pledge, to be taken and signed by individual police officers, that they will never attempt to confiscate weapons from civilians, whether it's during disasters like Hurricane Katrina, or as a result of local, state, or federal legislation.

If it's unconstitutional, it's automatically null and void.

That pledge can be archived by an organization like JPFO, and openly displayed online, making it easier to see who the goodguys and the badguys are. We could probably even design and make a nice little embroidered patch -- it might say "BILL OF RIGHTS ENFORCER" -- for the pledge-making police officers to sew on their uniforms. Until their superiors, veins standing out on their foreheads and little gobbets of spit blasting from their lips as they scream, order them to take it off.

Of course that, in itself, will teach cops everywhere a valuable lesson, and even make them ask themselves an important question, "Why am I helping to destroy The Bill of Rights", and the Kimber Kiss-ups should ask themselves the same question.

Visit JPFO.org, and learn how you can obtain a Springfield Armory pistol for just a few hundred dollars."

Oh joy, I can't tell you how happy I am that this man is the Republican nominee (sarcasm) !

This from Buckeye Firearms Association, "From signing onto an amicus brief in support of the individual right to own firearms to attending the NRA Annual Meetings, Republican presidential nominee John McCain is doing everything he can to help America's gun owners forget his past decade of work opposing gun rights.

He glosses over McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" legislation, once referred to by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre as "the dirtiest, stinkingest assault on freedom I've ever seen" by saying "I can assure you that my motivation in this effort was directed at these out-of-control amounts of 'soft money' that seeped into federal campaigns — not a desire to restrict the ability of gun owners or any other group of citizens from making their voices heard in the legislative process." (as though being an unintended consequence somehow makes the loss of our free-speech rights any less of an issue).

He glosses over McCain-Leiberman legislation aimed at closing the non-existent gun show "loophole" by saying "I also oppose efforts to require federal regulation of all private sales such as a transfer between a father and son or husband and wife." (yes, this is code-speak for 'I still support efforts that would end private sale of guns at guns shows and likely lead to the end of gun shows altogether').

And now, even as he attempted to gloss over prior statements that he could support an assault weapons ban, depending on the details, he has repeated his belief that there may be a way an assault weapons ban could be drawn that could win his support!

From an Outdoor Life magazine:

OL: The Assault Weapons Ban-- you voted against it. But you also said you might be open to voting for an assault weapons ban, depending on the details. Do you know any details that would support that argument?

McCain: No, because a lot of these are weapons that people use for sport, for practice and for enjoyment- outdoor enjoyment. So no, I don't see a scenario where that would be the case. I'm sure maybe we could draw one. But the danger of an assault weapons ban spilling into weapons that people would use for everyday hunting is, I think, the challenge.

"No, I don't see a scenario where [I could support an assault weapons ban]" but "I'm sure maybe we could draw one."

Glad we cleared that one up."

Sigh.

Wow, how do you like that ? The supposed free thinking, open minded colleges of the day are now suppressing free speech when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. I guarantee if this was a pro abortion rally or some PETA demonstration their props wouldn't be taken away.

This from The Torch, "As we reported in today's press release, Tarrant County College (TCC) in Fort Worth, Texas, has banned students from wearing empty gun holsters as part of a protest against regulations and laws that prevent concealed carry license holders from carrying their guns on campus. Meant as a powerful metaphor for what these students see as being left defenseless under these regulations, this form of protest took place on campuses across the country this April. According to the organization that coordinated the event, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, the protest involved 3,800 students from 600 campuses nationwide.

TCC appears to be one of the few campuses where administrators interfered with this protest, and the method of the interference was more than a little suspect. As can be seen in Vice President for Student Development Juan Garcia's e-mail to student organizer Brett Poulos, Garcia says that he has "granted" their request to be able to protest, but goes right on to say that "you and other protestors may not wear empty gun holsters on campus, including the Free Speech Zone during the protest, or at any other time." (Emphasis was in the original.) Wait—they can hold an "empty holster protest," but aren't allowed to wear empty holsters? The only way you could call this "granting" a request is by using logic only a college administrator could love.

So why the prohibition on holsters? An empty holster is merely a piece of leather. By itself, it is likely to be dangerous only if you were to hit someone with it. Other articles of clothing or personal items that college students are likely have on their person, such as books or backpacks, are inherently far more dangerous. Therefore, the objection to the holsters cannot be based in a real concern for safety; rather, it is based on what ideal administrators believe the empty holsters are meant to represent. This is the meat of the problem—TCC's restriction on wearing the empty holsters can only be based on the viewpoint that TCC administrators believe that the protestors mean to communicate—and that's unconstitutional. There is simply no reasonable way to look at the empty holster protest as it has been described and read into it some motivation that would allow the college to silence that form of expression. TCC may not like the message, but it has no justification for censoring it.

The 1969 Supreme Court case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District is the seminal ruling on this kind of symbolic student expression. In that case, the Court determined that high school students were free to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War because administrators showed no reason why such a protest would create substantial interference with discipline. And since a public high school is a far more regulated environment than a public college, TCC administrators accordingly have even less justification to interfere with peaceful symbolic protests.

TCC's free speech zone is also a shameful abomination when it comes to free speech rights. Poulos describes the South Campus free speech zone as an elevated, circular concrete platform about 12 feet across. Sounds more like a free speech cage to me. It's certainly not a meaningful space in which to hold a protest, and what's the point, anyway, when you aren't even allowed to express yourself fully there? Further, Tarrant County College is in Texas, home to the legally-struck-down "free speech gazebo" of Texas Tech. Maintaining a similar free speech zone in the very same state is certainly unwise from a legal standpoint, to say the least.

TCC has no real choice—it must recognize the right of its students to protest its policies and state laws in a peaceful manner—even if this involves empty gun holsters. Hopefully, the sunlight of public exposure will be enough to convince the school that its duty is to defend free speech, not restrict or quarantine it."

First you take away the Second Amendment, the rest will fall like dominoes behind it.

UPDATE - Well it's not an update to this story but it's definately related. check out this story from the North County Gazette entitled, "Are Students Canaries In Free Speech Coal Mine?"

Not like this is news to any of us gun rights supporters, McCain has dug his heels into the face of gun owners more than once. Personally I don't understand why anyone could support this guy. Given that, he is definately better than the alternatives, what's a conservative to do ?!?!?!

This from Buckeye Firearms Association, "The warm-up man for McCain was (snore) Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnel. In a second attempt to get the crowd warmed up before McCain came out, the NRA's big screens played a campaign video featuring decades-old photos and stressing McCain's history as a war hero. The campaign might want to rethink that video, because it felt a bit like watching Top Gun as a warm-up to a model airplane show. McCain received polite applause on entrance, but nothing like when Ollie North got a rock star welcome earlier in the day.

He received polite applause when he asked for recognition of earlier speakers, our service men & women, etc. etc., but he didn't ever get 'em hootin' & hollerin' for him. It would've been a plain old snoozer except you had to pay attention since you knew he was trying to pull one over on you.

McCain's angle on guns can be summarized like this: we're supposed to love him for all the stuff he did in ancient days, and be fooled into forgetting the war he has declared on us in recent years by lines like "I oppose efforts to require federal regulation of all private sales, such as a transfer between a father and a son." (I guess we're not supposed to realize that is actually McCain reiterating his support for legislation to close the non-existent "gun show loophole")

Before the speech, I had taken the opportunity to move to the back of the hall, so I had a great vantage point to notice as people began to trickle out. It became more and more steady. By the time McCain was half-way through his speech, people were streaming down the aisles, and there were literally lines at the exits.

I went outside the auditorium to try and take a photo to capture the moment - McCain's strained face on the big screen background, and hundreds of exiting NRA members in the foreground - but given the light conditions, my camera couldn't begin do it justice.

My fellow Buckeye Firearms Association companions and I guestimated upwards of 15-20% had left by the time we had did - and McCain still wasn't done talking.

The whole event was surreal, because at NRA Annual Meetings just a few short years ago, the name John McCain was synonymous with Ted Kennedy or Chuck Schumer. And for good reason.

In 2001, the NRA was righteously indignant about legislation called McCain-Feingold, which the grassroots Second Amendment group knew would effectively shut the NRA out of the political system by not allowing independent groups from buying TV or radio ads 60 days before a general election.

At the Annual Meetings that year in Kansas City, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre noted the fact that for decades McCain has been a supporter of the NRA. "But I gotta tell you, I don't know what's happening to John McCain," LaPierre observed."

There's much more at the link, this is what we get for nominating McCain.

But you don't need to pack heat in national parks for protection do you........

This from the Fox News, "A large animal attacked a 5-year-old boy hiking with his family, seriously injuring him with puncture wounds to the head, neck and back, authorities said.

Jose Salazar Jr. was hiking near Sandia Peak east of Albuquerque and had run ahead of his parents on Saturday evening when they heard a scream, Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White said.

The boy's parents, Jose and Charlotte Salazar, saw the animal emerge from the brush and start dragging their son, White said. The father tried to jump on the animal's back, and it let go of the boy and fled.

The state Game and Fish Department said in a news release Monday that the child and his father identified the animal as a mountain lion from pictures shown to them.

Game and fish spokesman Ross Morgan, however, said dogs trained to track mountain lions picked up no scent in the area Saturday night or Sunday. The dogs were brought in again Monday.

"We're not going to rule out a small bear, cougar and bobcat at this point," Morgan said.

The U.S. Forest Service closed the Balsam Glade trail and campground while the investigation continues. The area is known to have mountain lions, bobcats, bears, coyotes and feral dogs.

The boy was hospitalized in serious condition Saturday, White said. On Monday the Game and Fish Department said the child was in satisfactory condition. A hospital spokeswoman said Monday the family declined to make the boy's condition public.

Attacks by bears and mountain lions on humans are rare. In New Mexico, a mountain lion attacked and killed an 8-year-old boy in 1974 in Espanola. A bear killed a 93-year-old Mora County woman in her home in August 2001."

Remember the story I brought you on the guy who was harrased by the ATF for a gun malfunction ? He was sentenced to 30 months in prison.

 This from Guns Magazine, "At 2:15 PM on January 8 of this year, the Milwaukee jury in the trial of United States vs. David R. Olofson convened. Forty minutes later they emerged, returning a unanimous verdict against the veteran and National Guardsman: “Guilty.”

Olofson, you see, had loaned one of his rifles, and it malfunctioned at a range, firing off short bursts before jamming. This was called to the attention of local authorities who seized the rifle, an Olympic Arms AR-15. They in turn called BATFE, who decided to make a federal case out of it, charging Olofson with illegally transferring a machinegun.

Enter Len Savage (See “Failing the Test,” July 2005), President of Historic Arms, LLC, brought in by Olofson’s defense to testify the automatic fire was not by design or intent, but rather by mechanical failure, and that the firearm in question was simply a semiautomatic rifle that needed to be repaired.

The opposition would have none of that. Savage was not permitted to personally examine the rifle — not even to touch it. He was required to observe as the ATF officer opened it for inspection. His professional credentials were challenged by the prosecution, who wanted his testimony excluded, even though Savage is a firearm designer by profession, and the government’s expert witness received all of his training in the 2-1/2 years he’d been with the bureau. Then the prosecution reneged on its pledge not to sequester witnesses, and had Savage removed from the courtroom so he could not hear the government’s testimony.

So in the end, it didn’t matter this was merely a case of a “hammer follow.”

It didn’t matter the rifle in question had not been intentionally modified for select fire, or that it did not have an M16 bolt carrier or sear, that it did not show any signs of machining or drilling, or that that model had even been recalled a few years back.

It didn’t matter that, when asked if he’d test fired the gun, Savage testified “From my examination and from what I saw on the [ATF test] video I wouldn’t want to attempt it … the video shows the guy who was shooting it was so afraid to fire it from the shoulder he had to hold it out in front of him. So he knew it was dangerous.”

It didn’t matter the government had repeatedly failed to replicate automatic fire until they replaced the ammunition with a softer primer type. It didn’t even matter that the prosecution admitted it was not important to prove the gun would do it again if the test were conducted today.

What mattered was the government’s position that none of the above was relevant because “[T]here’s no indication it makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it’s a machine gun.”

No matter what the cause.

Think about if your semiauto ever malfunctions. Because that’s how close you could be to becoming a convicted “gun felon.”

You're all just one gun malfunction away from prison thanks to the runaway ATF !!! When the ATF couldn't, at first, recreate the malfunction that initially brought the firearm to their attention, they laboriously manipulated the variables until they made the gun fire (nominally) automatically. No one who owns a semi-automatic firearm can afford to sit on the sidelines for this one.

Next time, it may not be "someone else's problem."

Please support ATF reform in the form of HR 4900 which is currently before congress. And don't forget to contact your Representatives in Congress about this.

Get yours in before the deadline.

This from the Liberty Belles, "You can make a difference! The National Park Service is considering easing restrictions on carrying firearms in national parks to mirror existing state concealed carry laws. Under the proposed rule, if you possess a concealed carry weapons permit and your state allows you to carry your firearm in state parks, you would then also be allowed to carry in federal parks in your state. Of course, CCW reciprocity would also apply.

You can help get this rule passed by expressing your support to the National Park Service. But you must hurry because they are only accepting comments on the proposed rule until June 30, 2008. You can click here to submit your comments online. Please be advised that the information you provide online may be made publicly available at any time.

You can also mail comments to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 1024-AD70; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. Reference Docket ID: FWS-R9-NSR-2008-0062-0001.

There are a few tips to keep in mind when expressing your support. Remember to be respectful. Be brief and to the point.

You might say something like:

I urge the National Park Service to allow concealed carry in national parks as proposed under Docket ID FWS-R9-NSR-2008-0062-0001.

It has been statistically proven that crime is reduced when law abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed firearms. The presence and unpredictability of natural wildlife also increases my concern for self protection.

Millions of Americans lawfully carry concealed firearms, without incident, every day. Extending the ability for self protection in national parks would make me more likely to visit them.

You can read the proposed rule by clicking here.

Don't miss your chance to legalize firearms in national parks! Express your support today! Stand up and make a difference."

This from CBS, "The government will decide whether to ease-up on a ban on loaded handguns in national parks and one of those parks is Independence Hall, the very spot where the second amendment was created.

We're talking about possibly carrying a concealed weapon. The National Rifle Association and its friends have been pushing for this. Several retired Park Service leaders have been fighting it. Shotguns and rifles would remain banned but a handgun could be another matter.

"I mean there's no real reason to have a loaded weapon in a national park," Michelle Hoffman from King of Prussia said.

A King of Prussia woman in Valley Forge national park was surprised. When a fox is the biggest wild game and the place Washington camped is so peaceful she feels safe.

"I'm a believer in the second amendment," Charles Smith said.

Smith said 'yes' to guns in a controlled way if there is space.

"Some restrictive use or restrictive portion of the park that's reserved only for gun use," Smith said.

The Liberty Bell and Independence Hall are parts of a national park. People there were surprised by the idea that somebody someday may be carrying a gun

"I'd be nervous if I heard anyone was carrying a gun because of the world we live in today," Peggy Dolan of Port Richmond said.

The Interior Department wants to know how the public feels about bringing concealed weapons to national parks.

"We put it out for public comment," Jane Cowley with Park Service said.

"I believe people have the right to carry responsible people," James Colossi said.

Long time gun dealer James Colossi stresses though he favors restrictions and reason.

"Any place where there is wildlife and there is a danger people should have a right to protect themselves," Colossi said."

Of course not! After all, no one has ever been abducted, raped and/or murdered in a National Park!
 

This from the Wall Street Journal, "In words that he has come to regret, Barack Obama opined as to why he was having a hard time winning over many blue-collar voters: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
 
It was a throwaway line to a private audience at a San Francisco fund-raiser. And it was made public on a liberal Internet blog, not by right-wing commentators. But Mr. Obama's opponents seized on the quote. It was evidence, they claimed, that he is "elitist," caricaturing middle Americans as gun-toting, immigrant-despising, religious rednecks – who are also deeply unhappy people. And as a contrite Mr. Obama admitted, "I am the first to admit that some of the words I chose, I chose badly."
 
The comment may or may not be an indication of Mr. Obama's real views about those ordinary Americans who've not enjoyed the full fruits of economic growth over the past decades. Yet his casual portrayal no doubt had heads nodding vigorously in assent among his supporters, and probably among many others.
 
That anybody would find this portrayal realistic illustrates how little some Americans know about their neighbors. And nothing reveals the truth better than the data on guns.
 
According to the 2006 General Social Survey, which has tracked gun ownership since 1973, 34% of American homes have guns in them. This statistic is sure to surprise many people in cities like San Francisco – as it did me when I first encountered it. (Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who owned a gun.)
 
Who are all these gun owners? Are they the uneducated poor, left behind? It turns out they have the same level of formal education as nongun owners, on average. Furthermore, they earn 32% more per year than nonowners. Americans with guns are neither a small nor downtrodden group.
 
Nor are they "bitter." In 2006, 36% of gun owners said they were "very happy," while 9% were "not too happy." Meanwhile, only 30% of people without guns were very happy, and 16% were not too happy.
 
In 1996, gun owners spent about 15% less of their time than nonowners feeling "outraged at something somebody had done." It's easy enough in certain precincts to caricature armed Americans as an angry and miserable fringe group. But it just isn't true. The data say that the people in the approximately 40 million American households with guns are generally happier than those people in households that don't have guns.
 
The gun-owning happiness gap exists on both sides of the political aisle. Gun-owning Republicans are more likely than nonowning Republicans to be very happy (46% to 37%). Democrats with guns are slightly likelier than Democrats without guns to be very happy as well (32% to 29%). Similarly, holding income constant, one still finds that gun owners are happiest.
 
Why are gun owners so happy? One plausible reason is a sense of self-reliance, in terms of self-defense or even in terms of the ability to hunt their own dinner.
 
Many studies over the years have shown that a belief in one's control over the environment dramatically adds to happiness. Example: a famous study of elderly nursing home patients in the 1970s. It showed dramatic improvements in life satisfaction from elements of control as seemingly insignificant as being able to care for one's plants.
 
A bit of evidence that self-reliance is at work among gun owners comes from the General Social Survey. It asked whether one agrees with the statement, "Those in need have to take care of themselves." In 2004, gun owners were 10 percentage points more likely than nonowners to agree (60% to 50%).
 
That response is not evidence that gun owners only care about themselves, however. In 2002, they were more likely to give money to charity than people without guns (83% to 75%). This charity gap doesn't reflect their somewhat higher incomes. Gun owners were also more likely to give in other ways, such as donating blood. Are gun owners unsentimental? In 2004, they were more likely than those without guns to strongly agree that they would "endure all things" for the one they loved (45% to 37%).
 
None of this is to dictate what gun policy should be in our nation and its communities, let alone whether gun owners deserve to be happier than those of us without firearms. Guns are an important area of debate about freedom and security, not to mention constitutionality. What we do know, however, is that contrary to the implication of Mr. Obama's comments, for many Americans, happiness often does indeed involve a warm gun."

I acknowledge the media when they mess up but it's also important to praise them when they do a good job.

This from NewsBusters, "Friday's NBC Nightly News took a balanced look at the issue of whether colleges would be safer if students were allowed greater freedom to carry concealed weapons on campus. Though the report failed to delve into any supporting statistics, soundbites were featured from advocates on both sides of the issue, including Mike Guzman of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus: "This is where we see mass shootings occur, at gun-free zones, because these criminals have a government guarantee or a university guarantee that their intended victims will be unarmed and unable to defend themselves." (Transcript follows)

After the clip of Guzman, correspondent Janet Shamlian introduced a clip from Lori Haas, the mother of a school shooting victim, who "believes armed and well-intentioned students would be no match for a gunman like the one who shot her daughter." Haas: "He had two guns, he had the element of surprise. The fear that grips you when you're worried about your life is paralyzing."

Below is a complete transcript of the story from the Friday April 18 NBC Nightly News:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: NBC News "In Depth" tonight, guns on campus. As we reported earlier this week, Virginia Tech has just marked the one-year anniversary of that massacre on campus. That has opened a new debate over whether students should be able to carry weapons legally. Our report from NBC's Janet Shamlian.

JANET SHAMLIAN: There's no college credit for this class, unless you consider the concealed handgun license students like Lauren Nogle could earn when they pass.

LAUREN NOGLE, TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENT: In today's world, it's sad to say, but you need to have a gun for self-protection, even in school.

SHAMLIAN: And yet her school, Texas State University, like most, doesn't allow guns on campus, even with a license.

MIKE GUZMAN, STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS: This is where we see mass shootings occur, at gun-free zones, because these criminals have a government guarantee or a university guarantee that their intended victims will be unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

SHAMLIAN: Mike Guzman is part of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, an Internet-based group created after the deadly shootings at Virginia Tech. They claim more than 25,000 members, and they have one goal: for owners to be able to carry their weapons concealed from the dorm to the lecture hall and everywhere else on campus.

LORI HAAS, MOTHER OF VIRGINIA TECH SHOOTING VICTIM: Absolutely not. Unequivocally no.

SHAMLIAN: Lori Haas believes armed and well-intentioned students would be no match for a gunman like the one who shot her daughter, Emily, at Virginia Tech. Emily survived.

HAAS: He had two guns, he had the element of surprise. The fear that grips you when you're worried about your life is paralyzing.

SHAMLIAN: A year after the massacre, Virginia Tech now has one of the largest groups of the guns on campus movement. Only Utah allows permit holders to carry guns on all public university campuses, though eight states have legislation pending. One year later, 32 stones line a footpath at Virginia Tech, each marking a life lost, amidst a growing debate over whether allowing guns on campus might prevent further tragedy or cause more pain. Janet Shamlian, NBC News, Blacksburg, Virginia."

Following Boozman's lead.

This from the Salt Lake Tribune, "A bill introduced into Congress this week would force every state to recognize a concealed-weapons permit issued in another state, a move that would make Utah's permit even more of a prize nationwide.
    Utah has one of the more easily obtainable permits - an applicant need not even set foot in the state - and the permit is recognized in 32 other states. The Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement Act, dubbed the SAFE Act by supporters, would force the other 17 states to honor the Utah permit or another issued by a carrier's home state.
    The bill, introduced this week and co-sponsored by Utah GOP Rep. Chris Cannon, includes the caveat that the permit holder would have to abide by the state's laws on where the firearm can't be carried, such as churches or schools.
    Cannon backs the bill because he says the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to carry and own a weapon and that right doesn't end at the state line.
    "You no more give up that right leaving Utah than you give up your right to freely exercise your faith," Cannon says. "This legislation is an important effort to help make that clear - as a matter of federal law."
    As of the end of March, Utah has more than 112,000 valid permits registered, according to the Bureau of Criminal Identification. Of those, about 38,300 have been issued to out-of-state residents.
Utah's concealed-weapons permit has been referred to as a national permit because it can be issued to anyone - even foreign nationals - who passes certification and is not barred by law from obtaining a weapon. Other states have more restrictions on issuing such permits.
    Steve Gunn, a board member of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, says the bill would compromise the general concept of a state's ability to pass laws restricting concealed weapons. Several states, such as California and New Jersey, have a different burden for obtaining a concealed-firearm permit.
    "The bill would detract from the ability of a particular state to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons," Gunn says. "I don't see why Utah should be able to dictate to California whether a concealed weapon can be carried in that state."
    "It just sounds to me like a really bad idea," Gunn added.
    The SAFE Act faces a tough legislative road, however. Previous incarnations have made it as far as a House committee hearing, but never advanced to a full vote. And with Congress controlled by Democrats, the bill may not get a hearing this year.
    Larry Pratt, the executive director of the Virginia-based Gun Owners of America, the group pushing the SAFE bill, says the legislation should create some uniformity in the hodgepodge of state laws across the nation.
    The bill is similar to the constitutional protections for drivers who have a license issued in one state and who are traveling in another, Pratt says.
    "You don't have to take a driver's test when you go from Virginia to D.C.," he says."

My carry permit is the constitution.

Like we didn't expect this from these two.

This from CNS News, "Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, still scrapping for the Democratic presidential nomination, tried to reconcile their gun-control records with their professed campaign-trail support for gun ownership on Wednesday night.

Both candidates bowed to the nation's hunting culture -- yet insisted that "common sense" should prevail. Both candidates said they support and respect an individual's right to own guns, but the positions they endorsed -- an "assault weapons" ban, expanded police access to federal gun-trace data, and keeping guns out of the "wrong hands" -- are straight out of the gun-control play book.

The Democrats' comments on guns came in response to questions posed at a debate in Philadelphia -- their first in six weeks -- which comes one week before the crucial Pennsylvania primary.

Moderator Charlie Gibson of ABC News brought up the mass murder at Virginia Tech, saying the one-year anniversary of the shooting attack "makes this an appropriate time to talk about guns."

Noting that both Clinton and Obama have been "strong advocates" for gun licensing and gun registration, Gibson asked Clinton why she's backed off those positions while campaigning in Pennsylvania.

Clinton mentioned the soaring murder rate in Philadelphia and said that as president, she would put more police officers on the street.

"I will also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban," she said, referring to restrictions on semi-automatic weapons imposed during her husband's administration. Clinton said the semi-automatic weapons ban "really was an aid to our police officers, who are now, once again...being outgunned on our streets by these military-style weapons."

Second Amendment supporters strongly opposed the so-called "assault weapons ban" for a number of reasons, as Cybercast News Service has previously reported. (See earlier story)

Clinton also wants to expand cities' access to gun trace data collected by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

She said 80 percent of the weapons used in "gun crimes" are "in the hands of that criminal, that gang member, unfortunately people who are sometimes, you know, mentally challenged, because it got there illegally. And under the Republicans, that information was kept from local law enforcement."

Second Amendment supporters say anti-gun groups want to use gun trace data in frivolous civil lawsuits intended to bankrupt the firearms industry. (Current law allows ATF gun-trace data to be used in specific criminal investigations, but it explicitly prevents cities from requesting blanket gun-trace data for the purpose of building a case against gun dealers.

"I respect the Second Amendment," Clinton said. "I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns. But I also believe that most lawful gun owners, whom I have spoken with for many years across our country, also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of the wrong hands."

Clinton said as president, she would "try to bridge this divide, which I think has been polarizing and, frankly, doesn't reflect the common sense of the American people. So we will strike the right balance to protect the constitutional right but to give people the feeling and the reality that they will be protected from guns in the wrong hands."

The phrase "common sense" is often applied to gun control measures by people who do not support an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Individual right doesn't bar restrictions

Obama, asked about the District of Columbia's gun ban -- which the U.S. Supreme Court is now considering -- said he hadn't followed details of the case.

"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms," Obama said. "But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it."

Obama mentioned "two realities" when it comes to guns: "There's the reality of gun ownership and the tradition of gun ownership that's passed on from generation to generation. You know, when you listen to people who have hunted, and they talk about the fact that they went hunting with their fathers or their mothers, then that is something that is deeply important to them and, culturally, they care about deeply.

"But you also have the reality of what's happening here in Philadelphia and what's happening in Chicago."

Pressed on whether he still favors gun registration -- and whether he favors a ban on handguns, as he indicted in a 1996 questionnaire -- Obama said it wasn't his handwriting on that questionnaire.

"I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns," Obama said.

"What I think we can provide is common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns.

We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets."

Obama said the nation has to "get beyond the politics of this issue and figure out what, in fact, is working."

He mentioned public school children being shot to death in Chicago: "And I think that most law-abiding gun owners all across America would recognize that it is perfectly appropriate for local communities and states and the federal government to try to figure out, how do we stop that kind of killing?"

'Sensible regulation'

Clinton hedged on whether she supports the D.C. gun ban: "I want to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe," she said.

"What I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms."

She said a total gun ban "with no exceptions under any circumstances" might be found to be unconstitutional -- "but I don't know the facts," she said.

"But I don't think that should blow open a hole that says that D.C. or Philadelphia or anybody else cannot come up with sensible regulations to protect their people and keep, you know, machine guns and assault weapons out of the hands of folks who shouldn't have them."

Asked if she still favors the licensing and registration of handguns, Clinton said, "What I favor is what works in New York. You know, we have a set of rules in New York City, and we have a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana.

"So for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they're going to try to impose I think doesn't make sense."

Be sure to pay extra special attention to what Peter Hamm, the spokesman for the anti-gun Brady Campaign say's......

This from the Morning News, "Americans with state-issued concealed weapons permits would be allowed to carry guns wherever they travel in the country under a bill introduced Monday by 3rd District Rep. John Boozman, R-Rogers.

The measure would eliminate a mishmash of concealed weapons regulations that vary from state to state, Boozman contends. All states would be forced to recognize concealed handgun permits from elsewhere.

Gun control advocates oppose the bill. They say that gun permit standards in some states are so weak that other jurisdictions deserve the right to refuse those license holders.

Boozman said the bill ensures Second Amendment rights.

"I've always felt like you can have a gun, openly display it, and there not be a problem," he said. That some states reject licensed permits from other states "infringes on the Constitution."

Nearly 62,000 Arkansans have concealed gun permits.

Arkansas permit holders are allowed to carry a concealed weapon in 27 states, including every neighboring state.

Arkansas recognizes permits issued in 30 states.

Fourteen states do not recognize permits issued elsewhere.

"You have friends who are used to having a gun in their car and things like that, then inadvertently being over the state line or out of state and being concerned they were running afoul of state law," Boozman said.

Boozman's bill would require even Illinois and Wisconsin, which do not have right-to-carry laws, to recognize licenses issued in other states.

A bipartisan group of 33 House members are co-sponsors of the bill, Boozman said.

He acknowledged that it may be difficult to gain enough support for the legislation, and said there is anti-gun sentiment in the Democratic-led Congress. But he cited statistics that indicate crime decreases in states with concealed guns laws.

According to a study cited by the National Rifle Association, violent crime declined each year from 1977 to 1994 in jurisdictions where a concealed gun law was in effect.

Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said his organization is not anti-gun, but it opposes the bill because of its impact on states.

"There are already too many states that have too weak a system of approving people for concealed-carry permits," Hamm said. "I don't think the majority of states want to rely on the systems of other states to let someone carry a loaded, concealed handgun across state borders."

For instance, Florida's standards are so low that some death-row inmates there have permits, he said.

Arkansas at one time had minimum reciprocity requirements, said state police spokesman Bill Sadler. Those regulations mandated that other states' training standards must be equal to or stronger than Arkansas' minimum requirements for a permit holder.

The General Assembly since has stripped those requirements, Sadler said.

Sadler said he would not comment on the merits of Boozman's bill until he had seen the proposed legislation.

Boozman said he feels strongly that Americans should be allowed to carry guns.

"I grew up in Arkansas, and it was not uncommon to see people in high school with gun racks in the back of their trucks, who would go squirrel hunting after school was over," Boozman said. "To be honest, it's something I always felt like there wasn't any question we could do these things."

His 26-year-old daughter, Kristen Boozman, has an Arkansas concealed weapons permit, as do other family members, he said. The congressman himself does not."

Really ? Death row inmates ?