Here we go again with this tired old claim.

From the Daily Herald, "Now that Wilmette and Morton Grove have repealed their handgun bans, people around the state might be rushing to buy guns in the name of protecting their families.

 

Sort of......

This from the Washington Post, "A 66-year-old security guard whose lawsuit overturned the District's handgun ban is now officially authorized to keep a revolver in his Capitol Hill home.

Common sense making a comeback in Texas.

 

This from the Star Telegram, " When classes start Aug. 25 in the tiny Harrold school district, there will be one distinct difference from years prior: Some of the teachers may have guns.

To deter and protect against school shootings, trustees have altered district policy to allow employees to carry concealed weapons if they have a state permit and permission from the administration. The 110-student district lies 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth on the eastern end of Wilbarger County, near the Oklahoma border.

More than a dozen state legislatures have considered making it legal to carry guns on college campuses, but experts and officials contacted by the Star-Telegram say the move is unheard of in elementary or secondary schools.

Superintendent David Thweatt said a main concern was that the small community is a 30-minute drive from the sheriff’s office, leaving students and teachers without protection.

‘To be prepared’

The district’s lone campus sits 500 feet from heavily trafficked U.S. 287, which could make it a target, Thweatt said.

Other security measures are in place, including one-way access to enter the school, state-of-the-art surveillance cameras and electric locks on doors. But after the Virginia Tech massacre and the Amish school shooting in Pennsylvania, Thweatt felt he had to take further action, he said.

“When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that’s when all of these shootings started,” Thweatt said. “Why would you put it out there that a group of people can’t defend themselves? That’s like saying ’sic ’em’ to a dog.”

Horrible, tragic.

This from CNN, "The chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party died Wednesday, hours after a shooting at the party's headquarters, police said.

Chairman Bill Gwatney died at 3:59 Wednesday afternoon after a gunman entered his Little Rock office and shot him several times in the upper body, Little Rock Police Lt. Terry Hastings said.

Authorities confirmed the news shortly after former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton released a statement expressing their condolences.

"We are deeply saddened by the news that Bill Gwatney has passed away," the former governor and first lady of Arkansas said. "His leadership and commitment to Arkansas and this country have always inspired us and those who had the opportunity to know him."

The shooting suspect, a white male, also died Wednesday afternoon after a police chase ended in gunfire, Hastings said.

Authorities are working to confirm his identity, but Hastings said there was no indication that he was a former employee. He said police were investigating for possible motives, as well as why the suspect went into the Arkansas Baptist State Convention brandishing a gun.

The suspect walked into the downtown headquarters, near the state Capitol building, before noon.

The gunman said he was interested in volunteering, said Sam Higginbotham, a 17-year-old volunteer at the headquarters, The Associated Press reported.

"That was obviously a lie," Higginbotham said, the AP reported.

He said the man pushed his way past an employee to reach Gwatney's office, according to the AP.

A woman in a nearby business told CNN affiliate KTHV that Gwatney's assistant came in and asked her to call police. Watch witnesses describe the incident »

"I thought maybe someone had gotten hit by a car," said Sarah Lee, who works at a florist's shop. "She was just shaking really bad." But then the woman said that Gwatney had been shot and that three shots had been fired, Lee said.

"She said she was waiting on the gentleman. He wanted to see the chairman. She tried to give him Democratic Party stuff," Lee told KTHV. "Evidently, he walked on around her and went in the office and started shooting."

A vehicle description was provided to police, Hastings said, and officers found it. A chase involving Little Rock police, Arkansas State Police and the Grant County Sheriff's Office ended about 20 miles south of Little Rock, where the suspect was shot and taken into custody, he said. See a map of where the suspect was shot »

Police said the suspect drove into a ditch and around a set of spike strips in an attempt to evade police.

Authorities from Grant County said they used a "precision mobilization technique" to hit the vehicle from behind and ram it into another unit.

The man then got out of his vehicle and began shooting at officers, who returned fire.

In Sheridan, Arkansas, where the chase ended, a crowd gathered near the suspect's blue pickup as police cordoned off the area with yellow crime-scene tape. What appeared to be bullet holes could be seen in the truck's windshield.

Before the pursuit, Hastings said, witnesses reported that the suspect entered a nearby Arkansas Baptist State Convention after the shooting and pointed a gun at an employee.

The man was "white as a sheet," convention official Dan Jordan said.

"I've heard he said something do to about losing a job. ... He didn't threaten anyone." The man left through the front door shortly afterward, he said.

Police did not confirm Gwatney's identity until he died, but the Clintons released a statement earlier Wednesday that suggested Gwatney was involved.

"We are stunned and shaken by today's shooting at the Arkansas Democratic Party where our good friend and fellow Democrat Bill Gwatney was critically wounded," they said.

"Bill is not only a strong chairman of Arkansas' Democratic Party, but he is also a cherished friend and confidante. Our thoughts and prayers are with Bill and his family today and we wish him a quick recovery," they said.

The Democratic National Committee also issued a statement Wednesday that identified Gwatney.

"This senseless tragedy comes as a shock to all of us," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said in a written statement. "Our thoughts and prayers go out to Chairman Gwatney and his family and we pray for his full and speedy recovery."

Our thoughts go out to his family.

This means parking lots, unloading zones, in the baggage claim and areas in the airport before the security check points. Had a red eye flight did you? Walking out to that empty car parking lot all alone? Well soon you may not even be able to have a gun in your car or on airport property at all.

Add another killing spree zone to the list............    

 

This from USA Today, "The Transportation Security Administration may allow airports to ban firearms from terminals, parking lots, roads and other airport areas where many states currently allow passengers to carry lethal weapons.

Airport officials and lawmakers are watching closely as the TSA weighs a request by Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport to modify its security program to impose an airportwide ban on guns. It is the first such request to TSA from an airport.

"Any decisions we make that affect (Atlanta) could affect every other airport in the country," TSA spokesman Christopher White said Thursday.

Federal law bars passengers from bringing weapons to or past airport checkpoints. But in many airports, state law allows passengers to carry guns and knives in unsecured areas such as a main terminal — often to airport officials' dismay.

"I don't really like the idea of people coming here with weapons and carrying them into terminals, but that's their right as citizens of the state of Texas," said Alan Black, public safety chief at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.

In Atlanta, the issue arose last month after the state passed a law to allow Georgia residents with gun licenses to carry firearms onto public transportation, including subways, buses and airports. When the city-owned airport vowed to maintain its longstanding firearms ban, GeorgiaCarry.org, a gun rights group, sued.

On July 17, after the lawsuit was filed, the request from Hartsfield officials asked the TSA to amend its airport security program to include a gun ban. Each of the nation's 450 commercial airports has a detailed written security program that can be changed only with TSA approval.

Hartsfield's effort is backed by airport groups and House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who plans hearings next month on airport efforts to ban guns. "If airports think (guns) should not be allowed, they should have the right to modify their security plan to reflect that," he said.

The Airports Council International said in a recent letter to Hartsfield, "There is no justification for permitting firearms at any airport." Policies vary from state to state and from airport to airport. Some bar guns fully, others allow them, sometimes in areas such as a parking lot, said Charles Chambers, the council's security chief.

Hartsfield spokesman Herschel Grangent said that someone firing a gun in the airport would force a massive evacuation that could disrupt flights nationwide. Hartsfield, with 89 million passengers in 2007, is the world's busiest airport.

GeorgiaCarry.org lawyer John Monroe said the airport gun ban jeopardizes personal safety: "You might like to have a gun in your car because you come home on an 11:30 p.m. flight."

The TSA is "trying to work through some complex legal issues," said spokesman White. He gave no timetable for a decision. Courts may ultimately decide whether an airport can override state law and prohibit guns by adding a ban to its security program, Chambers said."

 

Less guns will equal less crime ? C,mon. At this point is is widely known as fact that the opposite is true, more guns in the hands of the law abiding is a deterrent to crime. We've only had CCW laws on the books now for what 30 + years, in some states longer than that. When will these people give up this tired lie ?

 

It sure looks like it, at least for now anyway.

 

This from Market Watch, "WASHINGTON, Aug 08, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Can the local government of Washington, D.C. thumb its nose at a constitutional decision of the United States Supreme Court and get away with it?

So now we are taking police action on people who have not commited a crime yet? What happened to the Constitution? The right to own property ? The right to unreasonable searches and seizures? The burden of proof? The Second Amendment?

This from WND, "A new report to the Connecticut state legislature shows police have used the state's unique gun seizure law to confiscate more than 1,700 firearms from citizens based on suspicion that the gun owners might harm themselves or others.

The state's law permits police to seek a warrant for seizing a citizen's guns based on suspicion of the gun owner's intentions, before any act of violence or lawbreaking is actually committed.

The law was first proposed in 1998, following a mass shooting at the Connecticut Lottery Corporation that left five dead, including the gunman. Since the law went into effect Oct. 1, 1999, according to new Office of Legislative Research report, police have made more than 200 documented requests for warrants to seize firearms from citizens, and only two of the requests have been denied.

The law has remained hotly debated since its passage, as some point to possible murders and suicides it may have prevented, and others worry that police would abuse the law.

"It certainly has not been abused. It may be underutilized," Ron Pinciaro, co-executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, told the Waterbury Republican American. "The bottom line from our perspective is, it may very well have saved lives."

Attorney Ralph D. Sherman, who has represented several of the gun owners whose firearms were confiscated under the law, disagrees.

"In every case I was involved in I thought it was an abuse," he told the newspaper. "The overriding concern is anybody can report anybody with or without substantiation, and I don't think that is the American way."

Joe Graborz, executive director of the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union, an affiliate of the ACLU, told WND the law "continues to invest unusual and far-reaching powers in police authority that does not belong there" by requiring "police to act as psychologists in trying to predict and interpret behavior."

"What is the standard of proof on this?" he asked. "The way this law is written, it can and will be easily abused by police."

Rush has always been a great voice for gun rights.

This from Sandy Froman, "The First and Second Amendments of the Constitution are twin pillars of America’s unique form of self-government. Having spent two decades defending one of those pillars, I am grateful to Rush Limbaugh for defending the other on a scale few can equal.

The First Amendment protects freedom of conscience. It guarantees we can worship according to the dictates of our conscience. It gives us the right to speak our mind on any issue, to freely declare ideas for our fellow citizens to hear and judge. When our leaders have done wrong, the First Amendment says we can petition our government to set matters right. And it empowers us to communicate collectively as the media to inform America and the world about events and ideas.

Before Rush Limbaugh, the falsely-labeled Fairness Doctrine was an affront to that freedom. For decades a federal regulation required that if broadcast media gave time to one side of an issue, it must grant equal time to opposing views. The Fairness Doctrine perversely shackled speech by interfering with free competition among ideas – it sanctioned government control of speech. President Ronald Reagan understood this, and so abolished the Fairness Doctrine. Reagan’s FCC eliminated the regulation, freeing the airwaves for private expression. The Far Left, fearful of truly free speech, passed a bill in the Democrat-controlled Congress to restore the Fairness Doctrine. But President Reagan vetoed the bill, and Democrats failed to override the veto. The Fairness Doctrine was dead, and free speech was again free.

No one showed better the mighty power of this freedom than Rush Limbaugh. In the final year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, Rush went on the air, and America discovered a new phenomenon that today we call talk radio. For hours every day Rush would tell his listeners exactly what the Left did not want them to hear.

Rush, and those who followed to create modern talk radio, became freedom’s voice. They proved that when conservative ideas are given voice, they win. Talk radio changed the political landscape by advancing conservative principles and ensuring that ordinary Americans hear the truth about what is going on in America and around the world. Conservative victories in the elections of 1994, 2000, 2002 and 2004 would not have been possible without freedom’s voice.

First Amendment freedom is so important to preserving Second Amendment freedom that the National Rifle Association hosted Rush Limbaugh as keynote speaker at our 1993 Annual Meeting in Nashville. Our member’s banquet sold out, drawing the largest crowd in NRA history ever to hear a banquet speaker – a record that stands today. As Rush stood at the podium, I could see on his face astonishment at the thunderous applause from our members – some of whom had traveled over 4,000 miles from Alaska to see in person a man whose voice we heard every day.

Rush said he came to talk about two things, freedom and the pursuit of excellence. He said he could think of no better place to discuss freedom than before the National Rifle Association. He talked about how liberals read the Constitution – inventing rights where none exist and ignoring rights that are plainly there – and observed that if liberals read the rest of the Constitution the way they read the Second Amendment, gun ownership in America would be mandatory.

Rush understood that the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment is America’s second pillar of liberty, the one right that protects all the others. Since the NRA was founded in 1871, it has fought to protect that right. Fifteen years after Rush urged us to never stop fighting for the Second Amendment, the United States Supreme Court in D.C. vs. Heller held that the Second Amendment does indeed protect the right of individual Americans to keep and bear their private arms for self-defense.

I’ve often thought of liberty as a lion and if so, then the First Amendment is its roar. It is the voice of hundreds of millions of Americans, freely expressing their beliefs, making sure people know what our leaders are doing and holding them accountable.

And if liberty is a lion, then the Second Amendment is its teeth. The Second Amendment guarantees that no government can ever silence the people seeking to hold it accountable, and thus guards against the oppression experienced by other nations where those who dare speak the truth are silenced or worse.

The lion of liberty stands proud in America today. Government of, by and for the people endures. The American experiment in freedom continues, in no small part thanks to Rush Limbaugh whose reverence for the Constitution and commitment to excellence make him a lion of a man."

They asked for it.............

This from the Buckeye Firearms Association, "In a very foolish move, the City of Washington D.C. has put itself back in the position of being sued by the same man for the same reasons, in just over a month. Dick Heller was victorious on June 26th, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the historic judgment striking down the city’s thirty-two year old handgun ban, but in a rather stupid move, the city of Washington D.C. decided to only barely modify their handgun law to squeak by. Some of the provisions kept are clearly at odds with the Supreme Court ruling.

The city said they would allow registration of revolvers but kept their ban on semiautomatic firearms capable of accepting a 12 shot magazine, which they define as a machine gun. As any magazine manufacturer can fabricate such an item, this rule effectively outlaws all semiautomatic firearms in the city. The District of Columbia recognizes this fact and has told the citizens if they bring in a semiautomatic pistol it will be confiscated and they will eventually be prosecuted for possessing a 'machine gun.'

The Court said “The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, 27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” would fail constitutional muster.“

So, according to the court, if a firearm is in common use by the American people, it is protected. Since 73% of all handgun sales last year was of semiautomatic pistols, it would be hard to argue they are not in common use in the United States.

The city also kept their ridiculous provision that the firearm must be locked, disassembled or in some way rendered inoperable, until the owner felt “impending danger.” Again this in defiance of the very comments made by the Supreme Court concerning this issue, saying “We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

When Dick Heller tried to register his Colt 1911 semiautomatic pistol, in mid-July, he was told no. This despite the fact the very wording of the Supreme Court was that the city must allow Mr. Heller to “register his handgun”:

“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. “

Mayor Adrian Fenty, was questioned about what happened to Mr. Heller, and he told the Washington Post that if the people did not like the new law, they could sue him. For his arrogance and stupidity he has gotten himself, what he asked for, another lawsuit. Really, this comes as no surprise, as he has left Dick Heller no other recourse, and since the Supreme Court ruling, the city government of DC has practically begged to be sued again. Mr. Heller has been joined by Absalom F. Jordan, Jr. , and Amy McVey, as plaintiffs in the case.

As many of the points of contention were really addressed by the Supreme Court in June, I expect the plaintiffs to prevail. In fact, I suspect the District Court will take a dim view of the contemptuous behavior of Fenty and his minions since the June 26th ruling.

Mayor Adrian Fenty has reduced himself to something comic on the pathetic scale. He has in my eyes become something akin to the Knight who blocks Arthur’s passage, in the Monty Python film “The Holy Grail.” The knight, having been struck down and lost both legs and arms to Arthur’s sword, does not see the futility of his position as a limbless stump, and declares, “Tis only a flesh wound”.

Looking quite ridiculous when clearly beat. Mayor Fenty, though he does not see it, clearly is in the same position. I think he will come to regret his intransigence, as it is very clear to me, the courts will slap him down hard this time for his defiance. It was in my view, based on my experience from having lived in the D.C. metro area, difficult for anyone to have been a worse Mayor for Washington D.C. than Marion Barry. But I do think Adrian Fenty has crossed that low threshold with his incompetence."

Interesting.

This from the AP, "In 1981, this quiet northern Chicago suburb made history by becoming the first municipality in the nation to ban the possession of handguns.

Twenty-seven years later, Morton Grove has repealed its law, bowing to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that affirmed homeowners' right to keep guns for self-defense.

It's one of several Illinois communities — reluctant to spend money on legal fights — rushing to repeal their gun bans after the court struck down a Washington, D.C., ban, even as cities such as Chicago and San Francisco stand firm.

Mayor Richard Krier acknowledges Morton Grove's place in history, but said that didn't affect the village board's 5-1 decision Monday to amend its ordinance to allow the possession of handguns. The village still bans the sale of guns.

"There hasn't been any pressure" to keep the ban, Krier said, noting that the village's ordinance has been under scrutiny since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Washington case. He also pointed out that the mostly residential village has never had a big problem with gun crime.

Though Morton Grove's gun ban is five years younger than Washington's, it's considered the first in the country because the village is a municipality, whereas D.C. is a federal district.

Gun rights advocates hailed the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision affirming that individuals have a right to own guns and keep them in their homes for self-defense.

The National Rifle Association and others carried their enthusiasm straight to federal court, suing the city of Chicago and Mayor Richard Daley, a vocal supporter of gun control, and the Chicago suburbs of Morton Grove, Evanston and Oak Park.

Wilmette, another northern Chicago suburb, voted to repeal its ban. Officials there said they believe they weren't sued by the NRA because the village stopped enforcing its 1989 ban after the high court ruling.

"In my mind we had to repeal," said Wilmette Village President Chris Canning, who is also a lawyer. "I knew that our ordinance would not survive constitutional scrutiny."

Todd Vandermyde, an NRA lobbyist in Illinois, said communities working to repeal their gun bans simply see the writing on the wall.

"Some communities are truly seeing what is contained in the Supreme Court decision and they're reacting appropriately," Vandermyde said.

"Others want to spend taxpayer money on some Don Quixote-type quest," he said, referring to Chicago, whose lawyers insist the city's ban will withstand any legal challenges.

"We have no plans to amend our ordinance at this time," said Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for Chicago's law department, noting that the ordinance has survived three previous court challenges. "We're prepared to take this fight to the Supreme Court if necessary."

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said last month that his city would "vigorously fight the NRA" and defended the ban as good for public safety.

Even Washington, D.C., has remained defiant, quickly enacting gun regulations that advocates say are still among the strictest in the country.

Gun control advocates say communities should not rush into repealing gun bans, arguing that if Chicago and San Francisco win in court, bans elsewhere would be protected.

"We went through a lot 27 years ago," said Don Sneider, one of four trustees who voted for Morton Grove's gun ban in 1981. He's upset that the current board voted to repeal it.

"There was tremendous pressure from the NRA and from citizens," he said. "We got threatening letters, letters swearing at us. ... I didn't feel that they had to rush into repealing it."

Patrick Kansoer, a hunter who is a plaintiff in the lawsuit against Morton Grove, said he was pleased with the board's vote but hasn't decided whether to drop the suit because of a possible provision outlawing shotguns.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said he was disappointed to see communities' gun bans disappear because of financial concerns.

"The pressure that Morton Grove is feeling is because the NRA and the gun-lobby lawyers are pushing these issues, basically forcing them to make a decision on where to spend their money," Helmke said.

He said he is hopeful that Morton Grove and other communities will quickly write new gun regulations, like Washington has.

For his part, Krier, Morton Grove's mayor, said he is relieved that the Supreme Court has handed down a decision, leading the way for the village to act on what ultimately isn't a big issue in a place recently voted by Family Circle magazine as a "Best Town for Families."

"I don't blame Mayor Daley and the mayors... they want every tool available to them to stop the violence," Krier said. "If they believe that it has helped one homicide, then it's a good reason to fight it, but we don't have that issue here in Morton Grove."

This is what happens when doctors try to operate outside their field.

This from Press of Atlantic City, "The recent Supreme Court decision legalizing gun ownership in all Washington, D.C., homes was greeted with joy by all advocates of National Rifle Association policies, and of course, by all gun sellers.

The decision has strengthened similar lawsuits in all individual states that still hold possession illegal. If there is no change, then the nation is heading toward universal gun ownership, surely unique on the world scene.

But consider: Firearms are the leading cause of death in teenagers. Planned suicides have a high failure rate, except for death by firearms. The easy availability of guns may make all the difference.

Also, are there children in the house or likely to visit the house?

Should you keep the firearm loaded, ready to fire, or unloaded?

Should the gun and ammunition be locked away, and who would hold the key?

Most important, are there any depressed people in the house, including children?

At present, individuals most conversant with the answer to these questions are police officers.

Dr. JOSEPH LINSK

Atlantic City "

Someone ought to tell the doctor that the number one killer of 13 - 19 year-olds is automobile accidents (39,266 from 1999 - 2005), firearm deaths are less than half that at 19,037 over the same period.

 Have you made your comment yet? Click on the icon next to 'Add Comments'.

This from WPSD, "A controversial topic is brewing in Washington, D.C., and could affect your next family trip.  The debate centers on the second amendment and where the government draws the line.  At issue is your opportunity to carry a concealed weapon into a national park.

It's a change the National Rifle Association has been pushing for years, and has mixed reaction in our area.

We caught up with Beverly Bain as she pushed her youngest daughter on the swing at their neighborhood park.  Growing up around guns herself, she has no worries about what many fellow gun owners want.

If passed, the change would affect parks near our area like Trail of Tears, the Great Smoky Mountains of Tenn., St. Louis Arch, Mammoth Caves in Ky., and Abraham Lincoln's birthplace.

Several park rangers are against the plan.  They say guns are already a problem in the parks to some degree, not much for violence but illegal hunting.  Those rangers feel a rule as old as the park system has no need to change.

Dan David's not much of a hunter, but firmly believes in the right to bear arms.

"The federal park rangers say federal parks are usually a pretty low-crime area, but people thought the mall in Chicago was a low-crime area or Virginia Tech was a low-crime area until it happened," David said.  "Why take the chance?"

Supporting David, Bain says for one: a conceal carry license requires a clean record, and two: it's just a matter of self defense.

"Criminals are going to break the law and carry weapons if they want to anyway," she said.  "Law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves if they want to."

This possible law change only applies to national parks.  It does not affect national forests or places like Crab Orchard Wildlife Refuge.  Illinois and Wisconsin are still the only two states that do not allow you to carry a concealed weapon.

The National Park Service is giving the public until August 8th to give their opinions on the matter."

You might remember the plight of David Olofson, the one the ATF railroaded and sent to prison based on the premise that a malfunctioning firearm can qualify as a "machine gun."

If not here is the back story. 

This from Westen Rifle Shooting Association, "I appreciate, and accept with great gratitude, your support and every prayer you have for my family and I. I knew that by choosing to accept the moral obligation our Creator instructed us to that the path would be long and arduous. But I see no other options, as any capitulation with the evil we have allowed to exist around us is out of the question for me.

While I can handle any kind and amount of punishment they give me knowing of my innocence, I am greatly pained by the suffering they have brought to my family. Despite that, you will find that I am more resolute in my stand now than I was before. The lies, the fabricated evidence, and threats and paid-off witnesses have not shaken me. There is but one path we can follow -- that of the truth.

I have no doubt that this will be resolved. How long it takes is yet to be determined. The victory in this will not be mine, but one of and for all freedom-loving Americans.

But it can not stop there. I am not the first, and I will not be the last innocent they go after with ulterior motives. Even as I write this they have stepped up their attacks on Len Savage in an attempt to put him out of business and quell any further testimony from him. I also have no doubt that they are waiting to see if they can get this as a precedent to use on any gun owner who merely crosses paths with any government agent at any level.

This is something I can not allow. I will continue to put myself in harm's way however futile the effort may be, in an attempt to keep such a perverse and planned miscarriage of justice from befalling any other person. When facing this much evil it can not be done alone, and will require the help of many. I can only hope that many others can follow my lead. If not, then our Republic is lost.

All my best to you, and thanks again,

David R. Olofson"

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 g