Acidman is on vacation and his guest hosts are going "cat-crazy" on his blog. It's absolutely hilarious! I love it!

So I guess this ends another edition of Alphecca. As usual, I try to take weekends off. I expect to be back Monday morning with my "Weekly Check on the Bias" and until then, I thank all of you for your emails, your links, your support, and mostly, just for stopping by! Have a great weekend!

Considering that gun control measures have proven to be poison to Democrats seeking elected office, it's hard to believe that they would support a simple measure that might, as it did in 2000 for Al Bore, hurt their chances for re-election. But here's the story from Reuters about it:

A little-noticed amendment in a $375 billion catchall federal spending bill may well constitute the opening shot in an election-year fight over gun policy, lobbyists and congressional aides said on Thursday.

The amendment, backed by the National Rifle Association, requires gun purchase records destroyed in 24 hours, instead of the current 90 days, if someone passes the background check required for some gun purchases.

The House passed the spending bill including the gun measure. The Senate is to take it up next week.

Several groups promoting tougher gun laws say the measure proposed by U.S. Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican, would make it harder to track guns used in crimes, investigate shady gun dealers, or even track down someone plotting a terror attack who might buy guns in the United States.

They say it would also make it much harder for victims of gun violence to file civil lawsuits because they would not be able to get access to firearms sales records and gun trace data.

I discussed this bill a few weeks ago in my "Weekly Report" and -- comparing it to a driver's license -- I said:

But driver license information isn't the same. A license can last for 3-4 years and is a "permission" by the state to drive a car. Buying a firearm shouldn't be a permission. It's guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and is reinforced by many state constitutions. For those states that misguidedly do require firearms licenses, yes, those records need to be kept on file if for no other reason then to insure that if a citizen is questioned on his possession of a gun, the state has a record showing that he's "entitled."

The simple act of buying a gun should be subject to the instant Brady check, but if the person "passes" and the transaction is completed, then there is no reason to retain that record at a national level. Someone get's ID'd at a liquar store, they pass and buy the bottle, end of transaction. Why does a record of such need to be kept?

This can all be argued either way but my worry is that 90 days (retention) can easily become a year's retention, or a forever retention. The start of a list that could be used in the future to confiscate all legally held firearms should Democrats get control of Congress and the Whitehouse. In the end, I believe the records should be destroyed as quickly as possible.

And why are such records dangerous? Via KABA comes, from Australia, this story:

Local police are cracking down on gun ownership and over the next few months every firearm licensee will be asked to prove they are allowed have weapons in their home.

There are thousands of registered names on the Mid-North Coast Local Area Command firearms database and every single person will be visited and questioned by police. If their licences don't match the registered guns in their homes then they will be penalised.

"It is effective in accounting for where firearms are," said Port Macquarie licensing sergeant Senior Constable John Lawrie.

"Obviously people detected with unsafe storage or who are unlicensed will face action."

Now remember that as I mentioned five months ago, Australia passed all sorts of laws and confiscated almost all handguns, and here were the results from their own government showing skyrocketing crime. And NOW they're using those "records," you know, records of registration and purchases to go after honest law-abiding "subjects" of their country.

Folks, any sort of "list" or "record" of a gun purchase or a gun owner is the first and vital step for the gun-grabbers. If this measure -- amendment if you will -- to a spending bill is holding up the works, I say well and good. The liberals and other Democrats just don't get it. We do. And we have to keep fighting against it until we're blue-in-the-face to try and defeat it.

Any list of law-abiding citizens who have exercised their Second Amendment rights is evil and wrong and the start of disarmament. And as history has shown in so many parts of this planet, not to mention our own great country's history, disarming the citizens is the end of democracy. And remember THIS: The First Amendment (and most of the others) only exists because the Second Amendment still survives!

Another anti-gunner tries out the sport of shooting and takes a half-step towards not hating guns anymore. From -- of all places -- the LA Times:

Guns are bad. All my life, it's been that simple. At my son's preschool, if a child pointed a banana and said "bang," he was admonished to "use the banana in a happier way." As far as I was concerned, the 2nd Amendment gave us the right to protect ourselves against invading armies, not the right to buy a gun and keep it under our beds.

So what would make someone like me change my mind? I met this gun enthusiast. As research for my new novel, I asked him many questions, all the while voicing my disgust. My character might use a gun, but I never would. "Come to the range," the gun guy said. "I'll teach you to shoot."

I expected a dungeon full of men missing teeth and wearing T-shirts decorated with Confederate flags. Instead, I found a sunny, wood-paneled lobby and guys who looked like lawyers on their lunch break.

And at the end of the commentary the author Diana Wagman says:

I confess, I don't know exactly how to solve the problem, but at least now I know I don't know. Firing guns as a sport is great fun. Having a gun because it makes you feel safer seems understandable. Changing the way people behave? If you thought gun control was a distant dream Š it could take centuries.

Meanwhile, my 15-year-old has asked me to take him shooting. And I've agreed.

If every leftist anti-gunner would just keep an open mind (What am I saying? That will never happen...) maybe some of them would realize what the sport is all about and maybe a smaller percentage of them would at least respect OUR position on gun ownership rights. Maybe it's up to us to try to make some converts. To reach out to them. I'd love to hear any such experiences from readers.

In my First Amendment opinion, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton is one of the stupidest, anti-constitutional, anti-American judges to ever warm a bench. He obviously has no idea of the real meaning of the Second Amendment, and probably not any of the others either. In my opinion he is incompetent and if there is a legal way to remove him from the bench it should be pursued.

You ask, "Who is this schmuck that has Jeff all hot-and-bothered?"

From the AP:

A federal judge on Wednesday upheld the District of Columbia's gun control law that prohibits ownership of handguns, rejecting a legal challenge by a group of citizens backed by the National Rifle Association.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed the lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the 28-year-old law violated their Second Amendment right to own guns. The D.C. law prohibits ownership or possession of handguns and requires that others, such as shotguns, be kept unloaded, disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Walton ruled that the Second Amendment is not a broad-based right of gun ownership.

"The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias," Walton wrote.

He went on to say that the amendment was designed to protect the citizens against a potentially oppressive federal government.

He also ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it was intended to protect state citizens, and the district is not a state.

Let's take this idiot's last statement first. Here's the text of the Second Amendment:

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.

Well, it's true that Washington DC is not a state, but it is part of the United States. By his logic then, residents of DC are not entitled to the protections provided by the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

Sorry, no speedy trials by jury... How about the Eleventh Amendment?

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Does this mean that --let's say -- Maine can't sue the EPA because it resides in DC? How about Amendment 14? Here's the first part of it:

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

Are residents of the District of Columbia NOT entitled to due process? This is so ridiculous! Amendment 15: We CAN deny DC citizens the right to vote? Amendment 16: If you live in DC you can't be taxed? (For a complete wrap-up and text of the Bill of Rights see my post here.) What Walton is saying is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights DON'T apply to anyone living in Washington DC. In my First Amendment opinion, he is certifiably insane and needs to be relieved of his duties before he does further harm to the United States of America and especially to people living in DC.

His first statement that:

"The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias," Walton wrote.

What can I say about such stupidity? Every legitimate scholar (even Tribe) realizes that if ALL OF THE OTHER AMENDMENTS REFER TO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, THE WRITERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS SURELY INTENDED THE SECOND ONE TO AS WELL!!!

In addition, every single shred of "collateral writings" -- things written during the same period the Bill of Rights was written -- by the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights supports the theory -- fact as it were -- that the Second Amendment was a personal right. Obviously (in my opinion) Walton knows nothing about or hasn't studied anything about American History.

Since DC is not a state and according to his ruling, the United States only consists of the fifty states and not the District of Columbia, does "Judge" Walton feel that the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery NOT apply in our nation's capital?

In my First Amendment opinion, he is woefully ignorant of the actual rights and freedoms granted by the founding fathers. I hope he falls into a ditch. And I hope that everytime someone in Washington is mugged, raped, killed, that their ghost and memory haunt his very sleep and being until he hopefully commits... Well... He should bear the blame and guilt for anyone murdered in the District of Columbia for not allowing them their right to defend themselves and their families because HE has no valid idea of what the documents he's ruling on actually mean.

---

Update 1/16 reader comment:

I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately a lot of people feel the way Judge Walton does. For some reason making the 2nd ammendment an exception in the constitution makes perfect sense to them.

free speech to everyone... due process to everyone... firearms?? Oh heck no. Those are only for Federally sponsored groups like the National Guard.

I have friend going into politics that firmly belives this. He has no problems whatsoever with the opinons of people like judge Walton.

It really boggle my mind. All of this.

-- Andy

Thanks Andy! And remember, Walton was appointed by GW Bush. I guess that was a big mistake. The Democrats in Congress didn't block him the way they have others such as Charles Pickering, who Bush finally had to recess appoint after two years of opposition.

The only thing I can think of in a situation like this is that "liberals" traditionally feel for the mutant criminals with blather such as, "Oh, he was a victim of bla, bla, bla" and "he isn't responsible for murdering or robbing or raping bla, bla, bla..." And of course, those of us like you, Andy, and myself who think that people actually ARE responsible for their actions and crimes, WELL, we certainly shouldn't be allowed to defend ourselves from these criminally inclined victims. And besides, while these liberals, with their giant gas-guzzling SUVs with "conservation plates" kill more people each year on our highways than guns do anywhere... I don't want to go into a full-fledged rant right now...

---

Update 1/17 another great comment:

I agree with your basic conclusion - Walton's ruling is idiotic, and the part about D.C. residents not being "people" is ultra-idiotic. Two nits, however, regarding your counter-examples:

The Eleventh Amendment restricts certain law uits brought against states. It has no application at all against suits brought *by* states. Thus, it says absolutely nothing about whether or not Maine could sue the EPA. My guess is that it couldn't, but for reasons having nothing to do with the Eleventh Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment does, by its terms apply to the states only. That doesn't mean the federal government is at liberty to deprive its citizens of due process, however. See Amendment 5.

-- Xrlq
from damnum absque injuria

Oh, okay fine... These people who know more than me (that would be almost everybody) are SUCH sticklers for detail and are really getting on my nerves... ;-} But I still hope Walton falls into a ditch.

I'm actually surprised no one has proposed this before... Ryan at SoundFury is hoping to start a radio show reporting on the blogosphere. He has the ability and he's hoping for your help in getting it started. Here's a quote from his proposal:

I say a real fusion of online content and AM talk radio is long overdue.

Through my contacts, I can buy time at a couple of local AM stations pretty cheap. I would have access to excellent production and promotion. Best of all, both stations offer online streaming, so I could offer a global market.

Think of it. A show featuring quality online commentary and analysis -- TCS, Instapundit, Power Line, Tacitus. And there wouldn¹t be a liberal lockout -- Michael Totten and Winds of Change, among others, deserve their say as well.

...And of course the sparkling commentary of Alphecca... Cool idea and with your assistance he might pull it off. Check it out.

A special thanks for a "heads-up" from loyal Alphecca friend Ted Clark who pointed me to these items about the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act. (HR 2403) Here's the summery:

Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act of 2003 - Directs the Attorney General to prescribe regulations governing the design, manufacture, and performance of, and commerce in, firearm products in order to reduce or prevent unreasonable risk of injury.

Authorizes individuals to petition the Attorney General to issue or revise product regulations or to require the recall, repair, or replacement of, or the provision of refunds regarding, a firearm product. Authorizes the Attorney General to: (1) take such action; (2) prohibit the manufacture, sale, or transfer of firearm products made, imported, transferred, or distributed in violation of regulations; (3) prohibit the manufacture, importation, transfer, distribution, or export of unreasonably risky firearm products; and (4) conduct inspections.

Sets forth prohibitions against a manufacturer: (1) transferring, distributing, or exporting a firearm product that the manufacturer has not tested and certified as conforming to such regulations or that is not appropriately labeled; (2) producing a new type of firearm product without providing notice to the Attorney General; or (3) failing to maintain records and supply information to the Attorney General. Prohibits any person from: (1) importing or exporting a firearm product that has not been so certified; or (2) manufacturing, purchasing, or importing products before regulations take effect at a greater rate than before enactment of this Act.

Sets forth provisions regarding civil and criminal penalties for violations of this Act. Authorizes: (1) injunctive enforcement and condemnation and seizure of qualified firearm products; (2) actions to restrain the manufacture or distribution of imminently hazardous products; and (3) private actions by persons aggrieved by violations of this Act or to enforce this Act.

Directs the Attorney General : (1) in cooperation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to collect and share with other appropriate agencies circumstances of death and injury associated with firearms and to conduct continuing studies and investigations of economic costs and losses resulting from firearm-related deaths and injuries; (2) maintain firearms production and sales figures for licensed manufacturers; and (3) conduct research on firearm product safety and develop safety testing methods and devices.

And guess who sponsored this? Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] of course. Here are some of the co-sponsors:

Rep Blumenauer, Earl - 6/17/2003 [OR-3]
Rep Frank, Barney - 6/10/2003 [MA-4]
Rep Holt, Rush D. - 6/17/2003 [NJ-12]
Rep Langevin, James R. - 6/10/2003 [RI-2]
Rep Lantos, Tom - 6/10/2003 [CA-12]
Rep Meehan, Martin T. - 6/10/2003 [MA-5]
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 6/10/2003 [DC]
Rep Solis, Hilda L. - 6/10/2003 [CA-32]
Rep Towns, Edolphus - 6/10/2003 [NY-10]
Rep Van Hollen, Chris - 6/10/2003 [MD-8]
Rep Wexler, Robert - 6/17/2003 [FL-19]

El Jerkoff Sen Corzine, Jon [D-NJ] sponsored the Senate version. The co-sponsors there were Sen Durbin, Richard J. - 11/11/2003 [D-IL] and Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 6/10/2003 [illegally elected D-NJ].

You know, the usual suspects.

Dave Kopel and Tim Wheeler have the details in this column at NRO:

The bill is premised on the gun-control activists' claim that guns are an unregulated consumer product. Teddy bears, they preach, are more heavily regulated than guns; though anyone who has tried to buy a gun lately would probably disagree. For example, there is no federal agency like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) that licenses teddy-bear manufacturers, wholesalers, and vendors. Teddy-bear stores do not have to keep permanent records on all their customers, and make those records available for government inspection.

You don't need permission from the FBI to buy a teddy bear, but you do if you want to buy a gun. No other consumer product requires federal-government approval for every single retail transaction.

The Supreme Court accurately characterizes the gun trade as a "pervasively regulated business" (United States v. Biswell, 1972). Thus gun stores, but not teddy-bear stores, are subject to warrant-less inspection by federal agents, notwithstanding the Fourth Amendment requirement that searches are only allowed with a warrant based upon probable cause.

See, these mutant, anti-American, anti-Bill of Rights lawmakers will try anything to accomplish their goal of total gun-control. They will try every end-around they can think of. But the simple fact of the matter is that time and the mood of the majority of this country have passed the politics of "the Barney Society" by. Gun control is death as a position for most politicians except those in the nanny-states these sheep represent. (Well, maybe not Oregon...)

Frankly, as long as John Ashcroft is AG, I wouldn't worry so much but of course, we could always wind-up with another Janet Reno at some point. So I worry. I shouldn't, really, since this bill has no chance of passage during the current make-up of Congress. And if the elections in November go as I predict, I don't expect much of a change.

Anyway, read the whole NRO article and stay alert. Email or write your representatives anyway. Just to be safe. And to be allowed to keep yourself safe.

---

Update 1/15 comment from another friend of Alphecca:

As good as his article is, you don't even need Dave Kopel to learn why to oppose the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act, or to discover why "gun control" groups really like it so much.

You just need to read this article in support of the legislation by Josh Sugarmann, Director of the Violence Policy Center, the well-known "gun control" group.

Sugarmann admist that the Treasury Department would then have the authority to ban all handguns, an says that "any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

(The Kennedy-Torricelli bill has become the identical Kennedy-Corzine bill.)

Here's a quote from the editorial:

New York Times:
Laws That Can't Stop a Bullet
By Josh Sugarmann - Editorial Desk
November 4, 1999, Thursday

The public is way ahead of the politicians in understanding that incremental regulation won't control handgun violence. Polls show that in the past year up to half of Americans have supported a ban on handguns.

A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.

Real gun control will take courage. In the long run, half-measures and compromises only sacrifice lives.

You can read the entire article here. It shows the real agenda of the gun-grabbers.

Thanks to Jay Fishman for sending this comment and article link to me.

I used to be a heavy gamer, almost living on Battle.net and wrapped up in StarCraft, Diablo, WarCraft and such. When I started this blog in 2002 I lost that free time. I miss those days but life is full of choices and I do like blogging A LOT. Anyway, one of the good friends to Alphecca is the RPG site Battle Royale. I just thought I'd mention that because they've moved off of Bug*Splat and into their new digs here. Venture if you dare...

---

There are some new folks on my (mutual admiration) blogroll. The Greywulf Chronicles is literally just days old. I discovered the link while "Googling" myself. Yes, I know, the nuns warned me about that... So drop by and encourage him into this dangerous blogging culture.

Another is Black As My Soul which is strange indeed but I like eerieness...

Undercaffeinated is a few-months-old political commentary blog that has also been kind enough to include me in his blogroll. Ghod I'm easy...

I only check about once a week but for those who are morbidly interested, here's my Technorati... There are many bloggers who mention me but don't actually email me to let me know that... This is the only means I have to find out.

My blogson Eric posts about trolls haunting a specific blogger. The vacationing Acidman is constantly beset by them. And now Dean Esmay is being threatened with a lawsuit by one of his.

I've been relatively lucky here in AlpheccaLand. I think most of it is because I don't have a "comments" function enabled for my posts where everyone and anyone can post all sorts of creepy stuff. Oddly enough though, I wish I did, but I don't know how to program for it and since Alphecca is a sub-domain of my main (unused domain) many of the PHP functions to run a comment section aren't available. I think. I don't know since I can't figure out Hosting Matters' allowable programming stuff. Anyway, that's all besides the point.

Typically my "rants" are directed at public media writers who really are fair game for criticism. I rarely go after private individuals other than to maybe passingly refer to them as "jerks" for something or other, usually gun-control related.

I guess I'm just lucky, or unread...

By the way, Eric has the perfect solution to the problem of gay (and other) marriage.

---

There are plenty of things wrong with President Bush's immigration reform:

...Fulfill a mandate for compassion by guaranteeing the rights and legitimacy of illegal workers. Employers would have to pay them the minimum wage and their Social Security taxes.

See, here's my problem. If the plan says these illegals can only work in our great country for three years, but they are entitled to Social Security benefits which are drawn at retirement... Well, you get the idea. We'll be stuck with these interlopers forever and they will drain the retirement funds of real Americans just so Bush can gather a few extra votes. What a travesty!

You know what? I had a really shitty post here I wrote while enraged. I apologize and I've deleted it.

I was re-watching Forbidden Planet yesterday and of course it has that freaky electronic soundtrack including the sound of the "foot prints" being made by the monster from the id. And I was wondering... I went to the JPL website and could find no mention that the Mars Rovers had something on board as simple as a microphone.

That kind of surprises me because there IS "air" on Mars, albeit very thin, but I presume that sound would still carry. Secondly, a microphone is about as inexpensive as can be. Thirdly, while scientists might not think there's anything to hear on Mars, how can they be so sure?

1) Sending back audio from the Red Planet would use little transmission bandwidth and could also just be done "on demand."

2) A microphone could detect any sounds, wind, subterranean, or -- of life! We don't know if there's anything making noise on Mars.

3) A sound feed would help NASA diagnose any problems the Rover Spirit, et al might encounter. They could hear if the wheel motors sound right, or it could add to analyzing the composition of the soil as the wheels "crunch" over the ground during travel, or even help the science as the drill-bit grinds into an interesting rock.

4) Audio from Mars would (even just the wind blowing) add another dimension of fascination as ordinary folks watch the pictures coming back. We are, after all, creatures with at least five senses, why not have two senses (at least) reported back?

Anyway, that's my deep thoughts for the day... Next mission, include audio. Let us hear Mars!

---

Update 1/12 7PM Comment from the Alphecca Science Advisor:

Proof that some concerns transcend multiple cultural barriers, because this was a topic of lunch bunch conversation last Friday! -- which bunch is wall-to-wall straight WASP evangelicals. I think most of 'em shoot, though

Putting a microphone on Mars isn't a new idea; Sagan suggested it many years back. It's the kind of thing that ought to be done a lot more often, and would be if "customer experience" were prioritized a little higher during requirements sessions for space probes.

The air's thin (6-7 millibars of pressure, about like 120,000 feet on Earth), but the wind at the Pathfinder landing site was 60 mph at times, so it's reasonable to expect a microphone to pick it up. And there's always the sounds made by the lander and rover itself.

Anyway, this report says there's one in development for the NetLander probes, which are to land on Mars in 2007, but the NetLander site doesn't mention it -- or any timeframe for the mission. No status update in almost 3 years at the Mars Microphone site, either.

Another page, here, hasn't been updated since August of '01. I suspect this project is in abeyance.

There was a microphone on Mars Polar Lander, which was lost on Dec 3, 1999. :( And I'm not finding any mention of another one. Geez.

--Jay Manifold

While I'm still waiting for more blogsons and blogdaughters to announce themselves, I have absolutely no problem (Ghod, I've embarrassed him enough with my past praise) elevating Jay of A Voyage To Arcturus to the status of BlogScientist for Alphecca. Thanks, Jay!

Once again, it's that time of the week to take a look at some of the stories (and bias) shown on the Yahoo Gun Control Debate page. I also report on stories mentioned elsewhere.

As I write this intro, the Democratic candidates are in their final debate in Iowa and it inspired me to use a cap gun for the graphic this week. After all, if most of them had their way, that's probably the only handgun any of us would be allowed to own...

First up, from the AP was this story out of Ohio that the state legislature has passed a revised bill to allow concealed carry and Governor Taft has said he will sign it. That's great news and makes Ohio the -- I think -- 35th state to allow concealed carry. Thugs beware! Here's a quote:

Those who apply for the permits would have to pay a fee, undergo background checks and be trained in the use of a weapon.

The bill also makes the names of permit holders available to reporters. Taft's insistence on this provision had derailed the bill late last year.

The Senate vote was 25-8, and the House vote was 69-24.

Taft, a Republican, said in a statement that the bill was a reasonable compromise that "balances the Second Amendment rights I have strongly supported with public safety and public records concerns."

Back in early December when Taft threatened to veto an earlier version of the bill I said:

...Would Taft rather that folks just strap-on a gun-belt like in the old western days? And why should it be any business of my neighbor's whether I have a permit or not? Is it their business if I have a computer? How large my mortgage is? What magazines I subscribe to? Are they entitled to know my medical history, that I suffer from Gout? That my daughter had an abortion?

The decision to apply for and receive a permit for concealed carry is a personal one. Not everyone desires to take their protection into their own hands. What would a neighbor do with that info? Move away if they're opposed to guns?

I'm not sure why reporters should need to know who's packing heat but I guess Taft considers this a good compromise. Publicola reports that The Cleveland Plain Dealer is planning to publish the names of all permit holders. Hopefully you folks in Ohio who support the right to concealed carry will let that rag paper know that you will never purchase another copy if they do. The Smallest Minority reports on another newspaper's predictions of doom.

In any event, the end result of the law is what counts here and those people and families that choose to do so can now exercise some control over their personal protection. I wonder how the trigger-happy police in Cincinnati feel about this?

Of course, the AP story found the obligatory Democrat to criticize the bill, moaning that supporters of the law would soon "chip away" at requirements for the background check and the public nature of the records of permit-holders. Overall though, a good, no-nonsense story.

Last week I mentioned the article in the Christian Science Monitor about senior citizens totin' guns. Here's a quote from the Monitor story:

Reversing longstanding patterns in the US, residents ages 65 and up are now the mostly likely of all citizens to own a gun. "Personal gun ownership used to be highest among the middle-aged, but in our 2000 and 2002 survey, it was highest among the 65-plus age group. So there is a shift upwards in gun ownership," says Tom Smith, director of the General Social Survey, which is part of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.

In Arizona alone, the state's Department of Public Safety reports that more than 31,000 residents between the ages of 50 and 69 - including 6,200 women - have concealed-weapons permits. It's easy to understand why, says Mr. Batory. "Just read the papers. Older people are getting tired of being picked on by savages."

The article then mentions that the fear older people experience is mis-guided since crime is actually way down. As Glenn Reynolds asks:

That's certainly true, though I wonder why people are feeling this way now, when crime is actually down considerably? I suspect that there's a post-9/11 cultural shift underway here, not just a response to specific risks.

The fact remains that almost 170 thousand persons age 65 and over are the victims of violent crime each year. That's the population of a small city. And the simple fact remains that cops don't prevent crime; they clean up after it occurs. Also, most people, and that would include the elderly, know of someone who's been victimized. And when you are often alone, as many seniors are, the presence of a firearm can be quite a comfort.

The Monitor couldn't help themselves bringing up the fact that some liberals are worried about the elderly packing heat when they might also be suffering from diminished mental powers. Alzheimer's Disease is mentioned no less than six times in two paragraphs. Talk about "fear mongering!"

In the end though, I like the closing paragraph of this article:

In the end, "the best insurance seniors can have against violent crime is a well-armed citizenry," says Van Vibber, gripping his pistol. "Besides, it's a God-given right."

And not just for seniors!

Speaking of concealed-carry, some common sense from the New Mexico Supreme Court. From the AP:

The state Supreme Court on Monday let stand a new law that allows New Mexicans to be licensed to carry loaded, concealed handguns.

The five-member court rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the law filed by a children's advocacy group and a physician.

You might think I'd classify this short news story as a positive but it reeks of the same "fear mongering" of the previous story. Here's a quote:

"I think this will be a more dangerous place for children and other living beings," David Campbell, the lawyer representing New Mexico Voices for Children, said after the ruling.

As I said last week, this is flat-out wrong. Children and "other living beings" (in Roswell perhaps?) will be safer now that their parents are able to better protect them from the mutant predators out there.

A couple of weeks ago I reported the story of a man who heard an intruder in his home and dialed "911" to summon the police. In the intervening time, he was shot by the thug. At that time, I said:

The police can't be everywhere and frankly, we shouldn't want them everywhere. Their job is to clean up the mess and summon the coroner after the fact. Even in Merry Old England, where police have installed over 2000 cameras on light poles to monitor the public streets, crime has climbed to the highest rates in their history.

Now, also from Texas, comes this story from the Baytown Sun:

When Mendy McGhee arrived home two days before Christmas and found that someone had busted her door open, she immediately called 911 from outside her Highlands home.

With a 9-year-old, a 6-year-old and a baby on the way, McGhee did not want to put her children or herself in danger if someone was still inside her home. She gave the Harris County Sheriff's Department her address on Gray Road, but it could not locate her house on its Key Map.

"I gave her every cross road around here, and she still couldn¹t find it," McGhee said.

Finally, her father found a deputy in a grocery store parking lot. When the deputy arrived, he told McGhee the dispatch was directing someone to Gray Road in Houston.

Fortunately, the thief was long gone but what if he hadn't been? And what if she hadn't noticed something wrong and had entered her home while he was still there? The motto here is simple: You cannot rely on the police to protect you! If your state allows you to do so, protect yourself. That seems to be the theme of this week's report...

Even if the cops DO show up, well, here's a story from the Austin American-Statesman:

Authorities said Lufuma, who was unarmed, entered Hughson's house on Old Stagecoach Road, about five miles south of Kyle, and refused to leave. Hughson called 911, and two deputies from the Hays County sheriff's office went to the house. They tried to arrest Lufuma, but he attacked them, according to the sheriff's office.

Police in Raleigh told Lufuma's family that he reached for an officer's gun before he was shot, family members have said.

Hughson shot Lufuma once as he tangled with the deputies. He ran away from the house and died before paramedics arrived, authorities said.

If Hughson had not been armed, and Lufuma had been able to wrestle away the officer's gun, it could have been disasterous for both the cops and for Hughson. A Grand Jury has decided NOT to indict hughson (rightly of course) for any crime. Read the whole thing because Lufuma had a history of depression and violence. Good, fair reporting here! No wonder stories like this never appear in the New York Times and the Washington Post. That would go against their anti-gun agenda.

The Washington Post had a story about Howard Dean and his gun stance. Here's a quote:

As governor of Vermont -- a small, rural state whose gun laws are among the least restrictive in the country -- Dean earned a national reputation as an opponent of gun control and worked closely with the NRA, a requirement for survival in this state's politics.

But he also feuded with some of Vermont's most ardent gun rights advocates, who saw him as unwilling to take strong stands on firearms issues, attend their candidate forums or respond to their questionnaires. The Burlington Free Press recently described his support for gun rights while governor as "more platonic than passionate." That was enough to earn the NRA's backing -- and A rating -- in eight consecutive elections, but it disappointed other gun enthusiasts.

Now, as the gun-friendly front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Dean is again walking a fine line on firearms issues, staking out a position he hopes will be palatable to liberal primary voters while winning him support among conservatives as he looks to the general election.

This is actually an interesting article well worth a read if for no other reason than to find out why Vermont has so few gun laws. Here's some history:

Vermont has a centuries-old hunting heritage, almost no violent crime and a population (just over 600,000) smaller than that of most major cities. Its major gun laws are a ban on carrying weapons in schools and some government buildings and on shooting deer from a car. There are no licensing or registration requirements, there is no prohibition on carrying a concealed weapon, and no prominent gun-control groups operate in the state.

Both major political parties oppose gun control. In the last two election cycles, the NRA gave more money to Democrats here (though not directly to Dean's campaigns) than to Republicans, bucking its national trend. Vermont politicians know well the story of Rep. Peter Smith (R), who was voted out of office in 1990 after the NRA turned against him over his support of a bill that would have regulated assault weapons.

"Even liberal Democrats get perfect ratings from the NRA, including myself," said Peter Shumlin, a former state senator. "Howard was the same."

While lieutenant governor, Dean -- whose national reputation as a liberal Democrat belies his centrist reputation here -- backed a 1988 law that barred municipal governments from imposing gun laws stricter than the state's. In 1992, shortly after being elected governor, he wrote on an NRA questionnaire that he opposed restrictions on assault weapons. A 1996 gun-control bill never made it past the Vermont legislature.

But he now says that as president he would sign an extension to the "assault weapons" ban.

"He speaks out of both sides of his mouth on this stuff," said Sam Frank, former sheriff of Orange County, Vt. He and several other police officers across the country sued to prevent the government from requiring them to perform background checks on gun purchasers, as mandated by the Brady federal gun law. One case succeeded in the Supreme Court in 1997.

"Even after we won, he was slow to stop the checks, and I had to write letters to the attorney general," Frank said. He and other gun rights activists say Dean avoided taking a public position on controversial gun issues. When the City Council in Montpelier, Vermont's capital, voted to ban the carrying of loaded weapons, gun rights advocates asked the governor to declare he would veto any bill that authorized the change.

In a March 2000 response, Dean wrote that he saw no need for new gun laws, saying, "I will keep your thoughts in mind if the legislation appears likely to make it to my desk." The proposal died in the legislature.

I wrote about this in my very second post here at Alphecca. By the way, Sheriff Frank (I live in Orange County) was fantastic. Any background checks sent to him went un-read and un-checked and he signed-off on them. He ran as both Republican and Democrat and was constantly re-elected in landslides. He has, unfortunately, moved South to warmer climes...

Getting back to Dean, I just don't know what he will cave in on as President other than what he's already stated about the aforementioned bill and closing the "gun show loop hole." I know that Democratic candidates tend to run to the "left" during the primaries and then return to the center during the general election. If he's not a firm Second Amendment supporter (and according to this article he isn't) then liberal senators and congressmen could exert a LOT of pressure on him to enact or sign bills limiting such.

He has a better record than anyone else in the primary race but he makes me nervous. (Granted, Clark has NO record but he's gone on record as supporting a ton of gun control. I will not vote for someone who will compromise the Second Amendment. I just won't.

Meanwhile, the Brady Bunch has issued their "report cards" on all 50 states. Here's their "press release." I quote:

Unfortunately, 31 states received grades of D or F in this year's report cards. Not surprisingly, many of these states have child and teen firearm death rates that are higher than the national average. For example, the average firearms death rate of youth in the eight states that received an F grade was 33% higher than the average firearms death rate for the 10 states that received an A or a B.

"In some states, real progress is being made in passing laws that will help stem the tide of gun violence in America - but unfortunately, many American states don't make the grade," said Michael Barnes, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence United with the Million Mom March. "At the federal and the state level, there's a lot more that must be done."

Well let's just take a look at some of these bad, bad pupils...

Naturally I'll checkout Vermont first:

Vermont gun laws again received a D- because its laws are among the worst in the country at protecting children from gun violence. Gun violence in the state could increase because the federal assault weapon ban will expire this year if Congress does not reauthorize it and Vermont has no state law restricting assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition magazines. Vermont does not hold adults responsible for leaving loaded guns around children, does not require child-safety locks to be sold with guns, and does not have any handgun safety standards. Vermont also forces police to let 16 year olds carry hidden handguns in public and does not require background checks at gun shows. On a positive note, Vermont does limit sale or possession of handguns by children under 15. In 2001, the most recent year for which data is available, 3 children and teenagers in Vermont died from gunfire. Vermont's firearm death rate for youth is higher than the rate in its neighboring states of Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, which have much stronger gun laws.

Gee I don't know, Alpecca gives Vermont an "A." Now New Hampshire:

New Hampshire was downgraded to a D- and the state was put in the Time-Out Chair for passing laws that give immunity to the gun industry and preempt town and cities from passing sensible gun laws. Gun violence in the state could increase because the federal assault weapon ban will expire this year if Congress does not reauthorize it and New Hampshire has no state law restricting assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition magazines. New Hampshire does not regulate possession of guns by kids, does not require child-safety locks to be sold with guns and has no safety standards for handguns. Furthermore, New Hampshire forces police to let people carry hidden handguns in public and does not require background checks at gun shows. On a positive note, New Hampshire does hold adults responsible for leaving loaded guns around children 16 and under. In 2001, the most recent year for which data is available, 8 children and teenagers in New Hampshire died from gunfire.

"Put in the Time-Out Chair?" What is the kindergarten mentality of these jerks? Alphecca gives New Hampshire an "A." Okay, now Maine:

Maine's grade improved from an F to a D-, and the state gun laws received a ³Sensible Safety Star² for good conduct for enacting new laws to restrict the transfer of handguns to juveniles and strengthen the prohibition against domestic abusers having firearms. But gun violence in the state could increase because the federal assault weapon ban will expire this year if Congress does not reauthorize it and Maine has no state law restricting assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition magazines. Despite recent poling that showed 83.5 percent of Mainers support prohibiting the sale of assault weapons, the Legislative Council refused to even admit a state assault weapons ban into the coming session. The state still does not regulate the possession of guns by kids, does not require child-safety locks to be sold with guns, does little to hold adults responsible for leaving loaded guns around children and has no safety standards for handguns. Furthermore, Maine forces police to let people carry hidden handguns in public and does not require background checks at gun shows. In 2001, the most recent year for which data is available, 5 children and teenagers in Maine died from gunfire.

Hmmm... Alphecca gives Maine an "A." I like this trend in Northern New England. I wonder how InstaPundit's Tennessee fares:

Tennessee gun laws again received a D+ because it does a poor job of protecting children from gun violence. Gun violence in the state could increase because the federal assault weapon ban will expire this year if Congress does not reauthorize it and Tennessee has no state law restricting assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition magazines. Tennessee does not hold adults responsible for leaving loaded guns around children, does not require child-safety locks to be sold with guns, and does not have any handgun safety standards. Tennessee also forces police to let people carry hidden handguns in public and does not require background checks at gun shows. On a positive note, Tennessee does limit sale or possession of handguns by kids. In 2001, the most recent year for which data is available, 65 children and teenagers in Tennessee died from gunfire, resulting in a youth firearm death rate 15% higher than the national average.

Tennessee receives an "A-" from Alphecca. If Tennessee could just lower their Brady Bunch rating a bit they'd get an "Alphecca A." I wonder what the Bradys consider an "A" state? Oh I know, let's look at Bitter Bitch's Massachusetts:

Massachusetts gun laws again received an A- because it has better-than-average laws to protect children from gun violence. Massachusetts prohibits anyone under age 21 from buying or possessing a handgun, holds adults responsible for leaving loaded guns around children, requires child-safety locks to be sold with guns and bans Saturday night specials and assault weapons. The state also requires handguns to either have a loadedchamber indicator or a magazine safety disconnect to prevent accidental shootings. Despite these regulations, in 2001, the most recent year for which data is available, Massachusetts lost 24 children and teenagers to gun violence.

Massachusetts can improve its grade by strengthening its ban on assault weapons, requiring guns to be ballistic fingerprinted, and limiting handgun purchases to one-per-month to curtail bulk buying and illegal gun trafficking.

Alphecca gives Massachusetts an "F" and sends it's sympathy to Bitter...

Well, this is all a lot of fun. Swen at A Coyote At the Dog Show reports that his state got an "F" (Wyoming.) You can see how your own state did in their pathetic report by reading the PDF file for it here.

---

Let's take a look at what some bloggers are blabbing about...

Lay Lines has a post up about holstering your gun.

The Spoons Experience has the unfortunate story of a man shooting an intruder and being charged with illegal handgun possession. The town he lives in doesn't allow it! Read the whole thing and weep...

Stop the Bleating reports that disgraced "researcher" Michael A. Bellesiles is shopping his book Arming America... around to find someone who will publish it. Has he tried the Weekly World News? They handle "made-up" stuff...

Say Uncle finds anti-gun bias in a newspaper editorial. Astounding! By the way, Say Uncle kindly provides the hosting for The Shooters' Carnival and there's plenty of good -- UNbiased -- stuff there so check it out.

Hell In A Handbasket has an interesting post on the history of bayonets. With pictures of course!

Speaking of fighting back, which was the theme of most of this week's edition, Wince and Nod has all the links to video of a store clerk defending himself.

---

Well, I guess this wraps up another "Weekly Report" and once again I want to thank you all for stopping by to read my endless prattle. Have a great week everybody!

---

Update 1/12 7 PM Some Comments Received:

The Christian Science Monitor article you mentioned from a few days ago finally showed up in the Seattle Times yesterday. It was headed "More senior citizens carrying guns" but it was the sub-head that moved me to write: "Fear of crime leads many to 'protect' themselves". Don't you just love sneer-quotes? I don't expect much better from the Times but the really awful thing is that in this town, this is the "conservative" paper.

--Carol G.

---

Was pointed to your site and the weekly report card by InstaPundit. That's an interesting report - I enjoyed reading it.

I also liked the pointer to the Brady campaign's grades of various states. Colorado, I was interested to see, got a 'D', which I thought was interesting. Given the Columbine Massacre, if anything gun laws have relaxed slightly since then - but then, if I remember correctly the guns were gotten illegally for that anyway. Having had my house robbed a year ago, I'm quite familiar now with the police's clean-up job... which is never perfect, given that we never saw any response on the robbery. They basically just validated our insurance claim.

--John

Thanks folks!