Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the April 19th edition of the Weekly Check on the Bias. This is where I scope-out how some in the media are treating gun-rights and the Second Amendment. I thought I'd keep it a little more upbeat today what with the conclusion of a very successful convention by the NRA in Houston.

Even the press has been mostly favorable (or at least fair) in their coverage of the event. In fact, what little there was focused mainly on the appearence there by Tom Delay and Ted Nugent. I notice that except for reprinting a couple AP stories, the New York Times and the Washington Post were rather silent about the convention. Needless to say, the Houston Chronicle wasn't and provided this wrap-up of a final panel at the convention regarding media bias:

"We all know the media is biased," said Cam Edwards, an NRA online talk show host who also has worked as a radio reporter in Oklahoma City. "An anti-gun bias is prevalent in the media. But they won't admit it."

Okay, so that's my gratuitous quote of the day. Heh. The truth is that the Chronicle provided a lot of coverage with little condescension creeping into most of their stories. As I mentioned a couple posts ago, there were even articles providing unbiased looks at many of the exhibits such as a Chronicle story (that doesn't appear on their web site but was reprinted in Arizona Central:

Two floors below, the entertainment ran more toward looking at stuffed whitetail deer heads and talking weapons.

"That is phenomenal," one man said as he checked out one of the animals. "That thing's crossed with a moose."

NRA staffer Monty Embrey, working the booth where 15 mounted whitetail deer heads were displayed, said the animal is actually a full-blooded deer with unusual antlers. Embrey said the exhibit, owned by the NRA, travels to different sports shows.

"People don't get to see a collection of heads very often," he said. "It's a pretty big deal."

Nearby, Joe Bowman, gun coach and bootmaker to the stars, demonstrated his fast-drawing and other cowboy shooting tricks. Bowman was elaborately dressed in a two-tone blue shirt with white fringe and red, yellow, blue and black cowboy boots.

The World War II veteran limped onto stage because of knee replacement surgery, but he could still twirl and juggle guns, firing them so fast the clicks of separate shots were indistinguishable.

Exhibitors displayed their collections of things as specific as guns from the 1870s and Remingtons, and others hawked everything from antiques to the latest in weapons power.

Loon Lake Decoy showed hunting-themed chess sets, with whitetail deer and elk as the pawns in one version and turkeys and pheasants in the other. Camouflaged hunters - with long hair denoting the queens - and hunting cabins rounded out the playing pieces.

One part of the convention that also drew some press was the election of Sandra Froman to lead the NRA for the next two years. From the Daily Star:

It's understandable, in an organization that still divides its convention luncheons into "ladies" and "sportsmen" categories, that publicity about the National Rifle Association's incoming president highlights her gender.

But while Monday's expected election of Tucson attorney Sandra Froman as president of the nearly 4 million-member organization might inject a more civil tone into the arguments over gun control in the United States, it doesn't signal a softening of NRA policies.

"She's not the new pope who's gonna let priests marry," said Mick Rusing, Froman's friend, former law partner and sometime hunting companion. Her election doesn't signal a liberalization of NRA policies, Rusing said, but it could produce a ramping down of its rhetoric.

"She is very comfortable defending gun issues on an intellectual, constitutional level and not the 'Pry 'em from my cold, dead fingers' attitude," said Rusing in a phone call from Houston Friday, where he was attending the annual NRA meeting as a member of its hunting and conservation committee.

Froman said in a phone interview from Houston that she wasn't bothered by the headlines that highlight her gender and hopes her expected elevation to president will entice more women into the ranks. "I'm not insulted. I'm clearly a woman. I enjoy being a woman."

But she said: "There is a lot more to me than just my gender. I'm just hoping that people will underestimate me."

I have a strong feeling that many will. And this from the LA Times:

"She will be a tough and articulate spokesman," said Joe Olson, a professor at the Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minn., and the president of the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance. "She will be unbending on the Second Amendment."

Okay, so that was another gratuitous quote; Joe Olson is a longtime reader and friend to Alphecca...

Well, there were other gun stories around including some good news in Kansas from the Wichita Eagle:

Gun rights advocates scored a victory when Gov. Kathleen Sebelius made it easier for people to transport firearms in Kansas without fear of being arrested.

A new law the governor signed Friday makes it legal to carry a firearm anywhere in the state as long as it's unloaded and in an enclosed container. The law, which takes effect July 1, says local governments can't impose more stringent controls.

"Currently hunters and other law-abiding gun owners traveling across Kansas may unknowingly violate gun ordinances by simply driving through another town," Sebelius said in statement.

Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, a backer of the legislation, praised the governor. He and other gun rights advocates said the bill was needed to protect gun owners from unfair prosecution.

The reason this is important is because of the issue of local municipalities enacting tougher gun control ordinances than in the rest of the state. We see this -- for instance -- when Denver wants to make criminal anyone who drives through the city with a firearm. That is, what might be perfectly legal in most of a state suddenly turns the gun owner into a felon when they enter a local city limits. Bills of this kind have been cropping up here and there. I believe Virginia passed a similar bill that was even more encompassing in that it covered carry laws as well -- something the Kansas measure doesn't.

Residents of Illinois and New York State shouldn't get their hopes up, though, for anything similar to counteract the rules in Chicago and New York City.

How about a positive story from New York of a youth club for clay shooters? From the Ithaca Journal:

With the glare of the sun reflecting off his safety glasses, the 17-year-old from Van Etten paused and then yelled, "Pull."

From a distance, a small orange disk floated across the sky, from left to right. In a split second, Chaffee located the target and then fired.

The shot hit the clay sphere and shattered it to pieces, another successful hit.

Chaffee is one of 22 kids participating in the Scholastic Clay Target Program. The club, in its second year, meets each Monday at the Newfield Rod and Gun Club.

The program is for kids between the ages of 12-17. While no experience is required, participants must either have completed a hunter safety course or plan on completing one in the next six months.

"The program is set up to teach them gun safety, gun handling and etiquette. And also teamwork," said Dick Lindblad, one of the coaches. "Teamwork and safety, which is the biggest thing,"

Newfield is a suburb of Ithaca. The story is quite interesting as kids are interviewed to find out what they've learned about the sport and improving their skills. The article has NO quotes from anyone disgruntled over the program as "sending the wrong message..." and that's important because Ithaca is a college town (which -- and maybe this is my bias -- usually means a liberal town).

Last week I mentioned the story of the great-great-grandmother who fought back against a thug. Here's a quick redux:

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A man accused of bursting into a convenience store demanding money was in the hospital Friday — shot, authorities said, by the great-great-grandmother working behind the counter.

Janet Grammer was filling in for the regular clerk Thursday afternoon when a man entered the store waving a gun and fired two shot at the back wall.

"I think he thought I was an old woman and would just give him the money," Grammer, 64, said Friday. "My life was at stake. I thought he was going to kill me."

So she pulled a pistol out from under the cash register and fired once, hitting the man in the chest. He fell to the ground, dropped his gun and then fled, leaving a trail of blood. Grammer fired two more shots as he was running away.

What I found interesting is that this story was picked-up not only by local TV stations but was featured (with interviews) by the NBC Today Show last Saturday. It's rare for a national news show to feature an incident where a firearm was used in defense and while interviewer Campbell Brown did try -- a couple times -- to question the positive aspects of the story, Grammer and the police officer with her didn't rise to the bait.

At one point Brown asked the cop if he approved of her actions and he said (to paraphrase), "Yes, she was within her rights and she feared for her life".

As we all know, Florida is on the verge of passing a "Castle Doctrine" law. In fact it only awaits Gov. Jeb Bush's signature. From the St. Petersburg Times:

The measure passed Tuesday reverses the longstanding law that a person acting in self-defense outside their home, workplace or car has a "duty to retreat" from the danger before resorting to deadly force.

It also puts into state law the decades-old "castle doctrine," a common law principle that gives people the right to use deadly force if attacked inside their residence. Under the bill, a person is justified in using deadly force when the force is "necessary to prevent death, great harm or the commission of a forcible felony."

Gov. Jeb Bush has said he will sign the bill. The law would take effect Oct. 1.

The Florida Sheriff's Association and Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, both opposed to early drafts of the legislation, have taken a neutral stance on the final version.

"We think by and large they have come away with a good product," said Buddy Jacobs, general counsel for the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association.

I had discussed this extensively last month. While it is already permissible to use deadly force to defend yourself in Florida, up till now you had to be able to "justify" that force by proving you really were in danger. In essence you were expected to psychoanylize the mutant breaking into your home before defending yourself. You also had to show that you had tried to "retreat". Now you won't have to.

And why should anyone have to retreat in their own home or car? Thanks to Jim D., one of my readers, I was pointed to a nonsensical editorial in the Detroit Free Press by Nichole M. Christian:

You have to wonder whether the Florida Legislature has lost its mind.

It's a legitimate question, given the dangerously nutty idea that body recently passed with unusual speed.

Gov. Jeb Bush is expected, any day now, to sign Florida Senate Bill 436 into law. His pen stroke will make it 100 percent legal to use deadly force as a self-defense option in the Sunshine State. Anyone who thinks they're under attack could, as of Oct. 1, "meet force with force if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be and the force is necessary to prevent death."

If that isn't risky enough, the bill also extends immunity from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits to the person taking justice into his or her hands, so long as another law isn't being violated.

This is not only a break with sanity; it's a needless break with existing law.

You know WHY she thinks this is insane? She quotes the bill's sponsor, Marrion Hammer:

"What's so wrongful about taking the life of someone trying to rob or rape you, or take your life?" [said Hammer]

The hole in Hammer's argument is that the new Florida law will turn deadly force into a justifiable option for an untrained citizenry. Police officers get weeks of training in the use of all kinds of force, deal much more often with pressure-packed situations and still make bad judgments and deadly mistakes.

Remember the Malice Green case in Detroit? Or Amadou Diallo, the 22-year-old man who died when four New York City police officers fired 41 shots at him as he reached into his pocket for ... his wallet?

Well, the holes in Christian's argument are that firstly, we can't all have a cop standing guard over us and our loved ones all the time. Secondly, if -- after "weeks of training" -- they don't always get it right then she must be arguing that they shouldn't be armed or allowed to use deadly force either! So I guess no one should be armed or allowed to use deadly force. Oh but wait, the criminals still will...

Lastly, to compare the shooting of Diallo by cops to the actual situations citizens might find themselves in is ridiculous. I can tell you this though, if some mutant breaks into MY home I'm not going to wait to see if he's just pulling out his wallet.

But wait, there's more! She goes on to quote a Michigan prosecutor:

The idea that any state would sanction near carte blanche use of self-defense when violence is already so much a part of American culture, particularly in Detroit, strikes Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy as irresponsible.

"The bill assumes that everyone is reasonable and rational. Let's just say someone acts with this law as a defense and the 4-year-old in the yard or the 90-year-old walking down the street gets hit," she says. "A bullet has no name on it. How do you control that?"

Oops! Found another hole. That same logic says the criminal's gun might also let loose a nameless stray bullet so actually, shooting him would prevent such tragedies.

To the Detroit Free Press's credit, it did publish readers' letters critical of the editorial. Let me quote from one:

How would empowering average citizens to use deadly force against a life-threatening attack in their own homes lead to more violence? Logically one could conclude that this would only lead to less violence as the threat of deadly force in self-defense may actually deter criminals.

You state that "anyone who values human life should find a big problem with government-approved retaliation." However, anyone who values human life should have a huge problem with government-approved penalties against victims who engage in acts of self-defense in their own homes.

I am sick and tired of laws that protect the perpetrator more than the victim.

Why in the midst of being victimized in my own home by an intruder should I have to stop and worry that my actions against my attacker could cause me more harm in our legal system than the bodily harm the attacker could incur on me?

Exactly.

Here's what's happening over at some other fine blogs:

Bill and Denise (from my neck of the woods) actually attended the NRA convention and have been providing continuous coverage over at The Ten Ring. A lot of good reading and inside stuff.

Paul at Right Side of the Rainbow stomps all over the Brady Bunch!

James at Hell in a Handbasket looks at the guns of Battlestar Galactica. And he's got pictures. Lots of them. (I like pictures...)

Jed at FreedomSight has more on the problems in Colorado regarding the problem I mentioned above with cities enacting tougher laws then the state has. Colorado Springs wants to correct that.

Meahwhile, Bruce over at mASSBACKWARDS is doing a little stomping of his own on MA Senator Jarrett Barrios.

Time to get this up. You can listen to me later today on Cam's Show (link at right) and now, the sun is out, it's supposed to hit 80 degrees and I've got the day off. Thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at April 19, 2005 09:04 AM