Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the February 28th edition of my Weekly Check on the Bias. Here I examine some of the gun ownership and Second Amendment issues covered by the media during the past week. Of course, I do this all week long anyway...

In Illinois, Governor Blagojevich and his Chicago cronies continue their headlong, brains-short push to remove any vestige of the Second Amendment from the state. Currently they're frothing-at-the-mouth to get an "assault weapons ban" passed. That would be -- you know, a prohibition on any firearm that looks scary. Interestingly, there seems to be some disagreement over the bill's chances this Spring. From the Pantagraph (IL):

Gov. Rod Blagojevich's renewed push for a statewide ban on assault weapons may not be called for a vote this spring.

One of his top allies in the General Assembly said on Monday the issue might be just too contentious to move forward before lawmakers are scheduled to adjourn April 7.

"I don't think anything will happen with that," said Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, co-chairman of the governor's re-election effort. "It would be very difficult to pass that over here."

That assessment comes just five weeks after Blagojevich made the assault weapons ban a cornerstone of his State of the State speech.

A federal ban on the weapons expired in September 2004 and Blagojevich wants Illinois lawmakers to approve legislation to ban the manufacture, possession and delivery of semiautomatic assault weapons, assault weapons attachments, large capacity ammunition feeding devices and the .50 caliber rifle.

The definition of a "semi-automatic assault weapon" being left to the capricious whims of the governor and his friends, I suppose. Apparently though, Jone's prediction hasn't made it all the way to the top office. From the Chicago Sun-Times:

SPRINGFIELD -- Legislation banning semiautomatic assault weapons would not likely pass the state Senate if the bill makes its way out of the House, Illinois Senate President Emil Jones (D-Chicago) said Monday.

Despite these comments, state Rep. Edward Acevedo (D-Chicago) said he still plans to call the bill this week in the House.

"I'm not discouraged. I'm going to push forward," Acevedo said. "This is an important piece of legislation, and we shouldn't wait around."

[...]

"We're continuing to do everything we can to get the bill through the House," said Blagojevich spokeswoman Rebecca Rausch. "We're focused on trying to get the 60 votes we need."

If the bill passes the House, it would likely get stuck in the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Jones spokeswoman Cindy Davidsmeyer. The committee is composed of six Democrats and four Republicans.

At least two Democratic senators would vote against the bill, said the committee's chairman, Sen. John Cullerton (D-Chicago). But Cullerton said the bill could be sent to the Senate Health & Human Services Committee, where it would have a better chance of survival.

Todd Vandermyde, Illinois legislative liaison for the National Rifle Association, hopes that's not the case. He said though Jones' comments were good news, the battle isn't over.

"This doesn't change our plan to fight this thing tooth and nail," Vandermyde said.

Two things. First, the threat to send the bill to a friendlier committee would be a dishonest attempt to ram the legislation through the senate by allowing the Senate Health & Human Services Committee -- one that normally wouldn't get involved in altering criminal codes as they relate to constitutional issues.

Secondly, if votes on the issue are that close in both the house and senate, obviously this [the state AWB] is opposed by at least half the legislators and -- by extension -- their constituents. The bill failed last year. When will the Governor and his liberal base realize that maybe gun control is a losing issue for Democrats? Oh wait! Democrats haven't learned that on the national level yet, either.

More than that though, if this bill passes, it could hurt the state economically. From CNS News:

Several Illinois-based gun manufacturers are mobilizing opposition to a bill dubbed the "Blagojevich Assault Weapons Ban."

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley are pushing the bill (HB2414) that would prohibit the "manufacture, delivery, and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons, assault weapon attachments, 50 caliber rifles, and 50 caliber cartridges" in the state.

The bill also would ban "large-capacity" ammunition feeding devices that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Anyone owning such a magazine, belt, drum, or similar device would be required to destroy it or surrender it to a law enforcement agency within 90 days of the law taking effect.

Second Amendment supporters say the bill is designed to stop a major hunting/fishing retailer, Cabela's, from opening a superstore in suburban Chicago.

Several Illinois-based manufacturers of sporting arms plan to hold a press conference on Wednesday to voice their opposition to the bill. Among other things, they will emphasize the bill's adverse effect on the Illinois economy - a direct loss of more than 750 jobs and $150 million in manufacturing sales, the gun makers say.

Even firearms manufacturers not located in Illinois would experience a ripple effect on their retail sales, critics warn.

The Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) has accused Blagovevich and Daley of trying to end private gun ownership in the state by thwarting the lawful retail sale of firearms.

The Nebraska-based Cabela's recently announced plans to build a superstore in Hoffman Estates, northwest of Chicago. The store would employ 400 people and feature a wide variety of sports and outdoor gear. The retail sale of firearms would be a major component of its business, ISRA said.

ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson noted that the village of Hoffman Estates has worked for three years to bring Cabela's to town - even repealing a local gun registration ordinance.

"Hoffman Estates jumped ship, and Daley won't stand for that. This is yet another example of Mayor Daley looking to extend his power and control beyond Chicago's city limits," Pearson said earlier this month.

If the ban on retail gun sales becomes law, "it just wouldn't pay to stay in the retail firearms business -- and that's precisely the intent of this legislation," Pearson said.

It wouldn't pay to stay as a manufacturer either. A few weeks ago I quoted Todd Vandermyde:

Illinois’ firearms manufacturers have told us that should any form of HB-2414 pass, they will be leaving the state, taking with them over $300 million in manufacturing. Jobs, taxes and other revenue will be lost. So once again, our boy wonder Governor’s plan for Illinois economic recovery is to export more Illinois jobs, more business and more opportunities. That is a message that you can reinforce when you call your state representatives about this bill.

Think about that! If it becomes illegal to manufacture whatever Blagovevich and Daley consider an "assault weapon" in Illinois, companies such as Armalite and Rock River Arms would HAVE to move or else stop production on some of the most popular sportsmen's rifles in the country. Indeed, others such as Springfield Armory and Les Baer would have to, too. After all, many of their pistols have magazines holding more than 10 rounds and competitive forces would cause them to lose sales if they started limiting magazine capacity. I strongly suspect that is what their press conference tomorrow will address.

Besides being on the losing side of the gun control issue, Illinois liberals would create the spectacle of hurting the state's economy by costing it thousands of jobs as well as the revenue from business tax receipts from the gun manufacturers. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

Turning to South Africa...Again... Speaking of draconian gun control, I've been following South Africa's attempt to disarm the law-abiding people for several years now. Remember this rant? You can do a search here at Alphecca for "South Africa" and come up with a dozen posts of mine about the recently enacted law that makes it all but impossible to obtain a firearms "Ownership Certificate" from the government. See, you have to show "Need" for one of those certificates and apparently being under siege from criminals isn't one of them. Almost nothing is. From a 2005 New York Times article:

Rossouw Botha, beefy and billiard-ball bald, leafed through his list of customers at Redneck Tactical Supplies, dismay in his eyes, contempt in his voice, even though he was mostly repeating two words, over and over.

"Turned down," he spat out, and leafed another page or two. "Turned down." Four more pages, and once again, "Turned down."

Many of Mr. Botha's clients have been turned down. The rest are waiting to be approved, but many of them could be turned down, too. South Africa has a new gun-ownership law, and since it took effect last summer, Redneck Tactical Supplies, one of two firearms shops in this rather proper white-picket-fence type of beach town, has applied to the government for ownership certificates for about 250 prospective buyers.

"So far, we have yet to receive one certificate," Mr. Botha said.

The new gun law has weapons dealers and users upset. Firearms sales, once 15,000 a month, have fallen to near zero, because of the law's imposing regulatory hurdles and the glacial government bureaucracy that oversees them.

"Not a single license has been issued for a firearm that the association is aware of," said Andrew Soutar, the chairman of the South African Arms and Ammunition Dealers Association.

Even existing "certificate" holders are finding it tough to get renewals and that has led to some slight -- albeit unsatisfactory -- movement by the South African government. From Business Day (SA):

CAPE TOWN — In a major shift after extensive consultation with gun owners, Safety and Security Minister Charles Nqakula has published draft amendments to the Firearms Control Act that will do away with the controversial relicensing process.

However, some of the new clauses that have been introduced have received a cool reception amid claims that they are unconstitutional.

The legislation is being amended to avoid serious legal complications and the criminalisation of hundreds of thousands of legal gun owners who could not get their firearms relicensed. Under the law, about 2,5-million legal gun owners faced being prosecuted if they did not make the deadline for relicensing.

If the proposed amendments are approved by Parliament, the owners will no longer have to reapply for licences, but will have to obtain competency certificates in a period of time yet to be stipulated by the minister.

In addition, other draft clauses will dramatically increase the powers of the registrar of the Firearms Control Registry to declare people incompetent to own firearms.

One of these enhanced powers will allow the registrar to declare a gun owner incompetent “in absentia” and without the power to challenge any views expressed in a complaint against him or her. Sources have claimed that this would be unconstitutional.

Provisions that will require that gun collectors render their collections inoperable have also been criticised as it will make weapons that are worth millions of rand worthless.

That's still draconian but it would seem to negate the "Need" clause in renewing a license. Keep in mind that this is only a proposed bill, not the new law yet. And who knows what "competency" means? I don't think it has anything to do with skill at handling but rather that the nanny-state government gets to decide who is of the right moral character... No doubt that would still make for a lot of denials to the folks who need protection the most. From IAfrica.com:

The draft bill proposes:

* instead of renewing gun licences every five years, legal firearm owners obtain a competency certificate and their guns be audited. Instead of applying for individual firearms, it will only be necessary to apply for a competency certificate every five years;

* limitations on the number of guns which may be possessed in defined categories will only apply to new applications. Owners of firearms licensed under the repealed Act will be able to re-license these after obtaining a competency certificate within the scheduled time-frames;

* "replicas" of muzzleloaders be removed from the definition of "antique firearms" and also be licensed;

* prosecutors be enabled to determine admission of guilt fines in respect of minor offences without the offender being automatically declared unfit to possess a firearm;
all collected firearms be made inoperable; and

* a shotgun able to fire no more than five shots in succession without having to be reloaded be licensed to a dedicated hunter or dedicated sports person.

Shades of Oh Canada, we see this:

Commenting on the bill, Democratic Alliance spokesperson Roy Jankielsohn said it was a "mixed bag".

"The most important aspect of the bill is the acknowledgement that the current Act is failing," he said.

Some owners had already surrendered firearms for destruction after being threatened with imprisonment if they did not renew existing licenses by certain dates.

"Government will have to negotiate appropriate compensation with such individuals," he said.

Martin Hedington, executive member of Gun Owners of South Africa, criticised Nqakula and the police for failing to foresee the economic impact of "this incredibly stupid law", estimated by some to be as high as R24-billion a year.

More than 400 legal gun-dealers were now out of business, and a multi-million rand hunting/wildlife/eco and environmental tourist industry is under threat of almost total collapse.

Nqakula should admit that "legal gun owners don't do crime".

"Two million legal and law-abiding gun owners sure do prevent a lot of it (crime) though. A gun in the hand is worth ten cops on the phone," Hedington said.

I love that last quote! Anyway, here again we see a country attempting to end crime by punishing the law abiding. It didn't work in England, Australia, Scotland, Canada, and it hasn't worked in South Africa. And that's not even mentioning Chicago, Washington DC, and...

...Did somebody mention Hawaii? I won't repeat myself (too much) because it's just from the previous day here but Hawaii is also a state that requires you to show a "Need" to get a concealed carry permit. And, um, no one seems to meet that requirement:

Editor's note: Two bills that would allow concealed carry and open carry of a firearm in Hawaii were deferred and held in the state Senate last week. Hawaii has a may issue law, which allows police chiefs of the state's four counties, total power to decide who gets a permit to carry and who does not. In the last 15 years, police testified at a recent hearing that no one has been granted a permit allowing them to carry a firearm - not domestic violence victims, not those whose life has been threatened, not even retired police officers. Lawmakers say they don't have any plans to change the law this year so that the chiefs would have to issue a permit unless the applicant is not mentally competent or has a criminal record. A total of 38 states allow their citizens to carry a firearm for protection.

Even if you are better trained than the cops, you can't get that, as they call it in South Africa, "Certificate". Writes Jeffrey Domingcil:

I am a Federal Police Officer, a U.S. Coast Guard Law Enforcement Boarding Team Member with a Tactical Counter-Terrorism Unit, a Self-defense and Firearms Instructor, a Use of Force and Deadly Force Instructor, a Chaminade University Criminal Justice Graduate Student, and a local born resident of Honolulu, Hawaii ... yet it is illegal for me to carry a concealed firearm in Hawaii.

As a trained law-abiding citizen, I believe that I can confidently protect myself and others if and when imminent deadly force situations arise that requires immediate deadly force response (better than many local police officers with only high school diplomas and minimal firearms training).

I support a bill that allows concealed carry of firearms for law-abiding and trained citizens that have no criminal record, no history of psychological problems, and no history of domestic violence. Training must consist of safe weapons handling and security, and Use of Force and Deadly Force justifications.

With the problem of the ever-rising use of the illegal drug Crystal Meth or"ICE" and increasing violent criminal activity throughout Hawaii, it's about time that the State of Hawaii allows its people to defend themselves immediately when criminals attempt to violently hurt them and those they love.

Hawaii law prevents law-abiding citizens from carrying self-defense weapons, yet criminals are not deterred in carrying guns and knives, which are obtained through the black market and other criminal means, to commit crimes easier and effectively.

Why should law-abiding citizens be intimidated, afraid, and left with the only choice of "turn and run" while carrying our children or worrying if our elders can keep up?

That's if they even have the chance to run. This guy's in the Coast Guard, a professional firearms instructor, has more training than 99% of the cops in Hawaii, and can't get his CCW! Know Why? From the Hawaii Reporter:

The bill and two others that would further the Second Amendment rights of Hawaii citizens, including retired police officers and law abiding citizens in the aftermath of a disaster, were opposed by the Honolulu police, the Honolulu City Prosecutor and the state attorney general.

Spokespeople for these government agencies said they did not trust the people to aim correctly under a stressful situation where they might use a firearm to protect themselves, potentially endangering others nearby. Lori Nishimura of the City Prosecutors office, said she had a "feeling" and she "believed" that allowing citizens to protect themselves with firearms would not be good for the rest of Hawaii’s citizens, though she could not cite any studies or evidence under questioning to support her statements.

Well it certainly wouldn't be good for the criminal classes, eh? How about that! The Government doesn't trust the people. Isn't that the first step towards fascism?

Jetting back to Kenya for a moment, I came across a typical liberal and silly editorial in All Africa.com:

Guns kept for protection by civilians are almost never used. Some may not even know how to use a gun. The Act does not require gun holders to undergo any training on weapon handling.

But what matters is that most of them gain psychological pleasure from owning a gun. Call it firearm worship, if you will. It is pretty strong stuff. For them, a gun is a symbol of power and potency.

Just like the spear of yore, a gun completes the image of a man of substance. Owning one is a statement that one has arrived and is rich and powerful. Rich people own guns to reaffirm their status. Never mind that they don't really need them, or that guns are of greater danger to themselves and their families than to their intended targets. They want to own them, that is the point.

They are fixated with the gun. For them, the gun is a symbol of control and power. And those who have been ordered to surrender theirs now feel not only gunless but also powerless and impotent.

The gun symbolises authority. It represents the power of life and death. Most of all, it is a phallic symbol, not only here but also everywhere. It was Sigmund Freud, the Austrian physician and founder of psychoanalysis, who first theorised that all our weapons are nothing but phallic symbols.

Dick Nauta, a researcher at the University of Nairobi's Institute of African Studies in the seventies, carried out research on the traditional spear and came to the same Freudian conclusion that, for most Africans, the spear was a reflection of virility.

For the Maasai moran, for example, his long and beautiful spear was pride, an extension of his manhood. He also used his spear to establish his right to sleep in a hut with a woman who was not his wife.

The Marakwet used a spear called asiepiret, the latter part of the word meaning penis. The gun has replaced the spear as a phallic symbol.

Seems to me the only one fixated on a penis is the author of this tripe, Peter Mwaura. Funny about his first name...

Anyway, the only reason I even brought this nonsense up is because his whole theory goes up in gunsmoke when you read what Megan D. Lehman writes in Delaware Online:

In the debate over Delaware's concealed-carry gun permits, don't forget the difference between men and women.

The average man can physically overpower the average woman; this is a biological fact. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men. We women should not have to depend on the men in our lives for protection, nor can we expect police to be in all places at all times.

My ability to have a gun for self-defense is central to my concept of freedom and safety in a hostile world. Anyone who tries to take that right is trying to take the only tool that makes me the physical equal of a man.

[...]

Crime could happen to any of us, at any time. The unfortunate truth is that women are physically more vulnerable. If violent men want guns, they can easily obtain them from the black market. I am not threatened in the least by a man who passes a background check and completes a safety course.

Guns are not intrinsically evil or good. The person using a gun imbues such significance.

The right of a rational, responsible, safety-conscious adult to carry a gun offers one way for women to protect themselves against violence. Making permits easier to obtain by law-abiding Delawareans can give us a fighting chance.

Over in Kenya, I suppose that "Peter" would just consider the right to protect oneself from rape, assault, and robbery as penis envy.

Meanwhile in Idaho... From KBCI TV:

ADA COUNTY - Senator Gerry Sweet and Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney are at odds over concealing guns in a vehicle.

"This law doesn't do anything regarding the bad guys ," said Sen. Sweet. " This is only to protect law-abiding citizens ."

"Our issue is that this bill allows criminals to possess weapons just as easily as law abiding citizens ," Sheriff Raney said.

Sweet has introduced a bill in the senate that would allow Idahoans to carry a loaded gun anywhere in their car, whether it could be seen or not. Right now a loaded weapon must be in plain view unless the owner has a concealed weapons permit.

"The wording would allow gang members or criminals on the way to their crime to legally conceal those guns ," Raney said.

The rise in gang violence in the treasure valley has law enforcement worried, and they're looking for ways to reduce the problem. Governor Kempthorne introduced a bill to criminlaize gang violence, and it's quickly moving through the legislature. But Sweet says his bill doesn't have anything to do with gang members. He's focusing on vacationers and those who don't use guns very often.

Here's a news flash for Sheriff Raney: Criminals already possess weapons, and far more easily than law abiding citizens. AND, legal or not, they're already concealing those weapons on the way to "their crimes".

If a car is an extension of a person's home -- and many courts have said it is -- then a person who is entitled (law abiding) to own a gun at home ought to have the right to have one in their car, whether in plain sight or in the glovebox or under the seat.

The Risks of Travel... Especially in New Jersey and New York City. My thanks to Gun Law News for pointing me to the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and this bulletin:

The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. (ANJRPC) announced that it has commenced a lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and one of its police officers for wrongfully arresting and imprisoning for nearly five days a 57-year old Utah man delayed at Newark Airport by a baggage error while traveling from Utah to Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit seeks more than $3 million in damages for civil rights violations and a permanent injunction forcing the Port Authority to follow Federal law on interstate transport of locked, unloaded firearms that have been secured in luggage and declared by law-abiding citizens.

The Utah man, Gregg Revell, a real estate broker and family man with no criminal record and a Utah firearms permit, was flying alone from Salt Lake City, UT to Allentown, PA to retrieve a car he bought and drive it home. He was travelling with a firearm for personal protection. As required by Federal law, the firearm was unloaded, cased, locked and inside his luggage when he declared it at check-in in Salt Lake City on March 31, 2005.

Due to an airline-caused baggage error, Mr. Revell missed his connection from Newark to Allentown and had to stay overnight in New Jersey. When he checked in at Newark Airport the next morning to complete his travels, he again declared his firearm, as required by FAA regulations. He was then arrested for possession of a firearm without a New Jersey state license, and imprisoned in Essex County jail for five days until his family arranged bail, which had been initially set unusually high at $15,000 cash (no bond).

But Mr. Revell’s travels were protected by the Firearms Owner Protection Act, a Federal law passed in 1986 to protect law-abiding citizens who travel with firearms. (See 18 U.S.C. § 926A.) That law trumps state and local gun laws and protects interstate travel with firearms under certain circumstances, all of which were present in Mr. Revell’s case. Several months after the arrest, all charges were withdrawn and the prosecutor’s case administratively dismissed.

"The Port Authority blatantly violated Federal law when it arrested Gregg Revell," said Scott Bach, President of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA Board of Directors. "Those charged with enforcing the law have a special responsibility to follow it themselves," Bach continued. "Mr. Revell’s arrest is part of a pattern of similar misconduct by the Port Authority throughout the New York-New Jersey metropolitan areas."

"This lawsuit is intended to send a signal not only to the Port Authority but to every agency and officer responsible for policing our airports and highways: if you violate the rights of law-abiding gun owners, you will be held fully accountable." The lawsuit also names the arresting Port Authority police officer, Scott Erickson, as a defendant.

This is absolutely shocking and I hope they win the suit. Also From the ANJR&PC:

Text of the Firearms Owner Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 926A)

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

Last time I checked the dictionary, the definition of "Notwithstanding" is: In spite of.

Since this suit will no doubt cost money, this might be a good time, even if you don't live in New Jersey, to become a member. Do it as a show of financial and moral support.

Well, I'm out of steam so time to get this posted. Naturally I'll be on the Cam Edwards - NRA News Show this afternoon. As always, thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at February 28, 2006 09:13 AM