Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the May 2nd edition of my Weekly Check on the Bias of media regarding gun rights and the Second Amendment. Fortunately, the editorial offices of Alphecca were not disrupted by protesting illegal immigrants yesterday so away we go...

Hows-about I start off with a positive article for a change? Siskiyou County is located in the northern most part of California, by the Oregon border. In that sparsely populated, rural area you can still find kids excited about and accompanying a parent on a hunting trip. Mercifully, you can also find local newspapers there that consider this a good thing. From the Siskiyou Daily News:

Brook Nehring is a typical 13-year-old girl who loves the outdoors. She also loves to shoot guns and hunt. During the second week of turkey season, Brook bagged her first turkey.

“She’s been hunting since age nine,” said Don Nehring, her father. He also noted that she passed her Hunter’s Safety Course with flying colors. Nehring and his daughter went out on the season’s first weekend and had a problem.

“Coyotes,” said Brook. “There was three of them and they scared off the turkeys.” Disappointed, Brook and her father headed home.

Undaunted, father and daughter went out the second weekend.

“We had permission to hunt on this property,” said Nehring. “So, we headed back and hoped that the coyotes were gone.”

The second time proved successful.

Brook, using a 20-gauge shotgun, brought down a 23-pound turkey with her first shot. The fowl had a beard nearly ten inches long, spurs over an inch in length.

“I was so excited when I hit it,” said Brook. “I couldn’t believe it at first.”

She has every right to be proud and good for her dad in encouraging her into the hunting tradition -- an activity sadly dwindling in many areas of our country.

Speaking of turkeys -- in a different sense -- E.J. Dionne Jr. is rather a foul bird when he writes in the Washington Post:

Yes, there is a cultural difference between big cities and rural areas, but it's a difference in how guns are used. Rural people treasure their guns mostly for hunting and recreation, and as collectors. In inner cities, guns -- especially handguns -- are used almost entirely to threaten or kill other human beings.

[...]

We desperately need a new politics of gun regulation in which law-abiding gun owners see the fight for tougher laws not as a form of disrespect for their culture but as an acknowledgment that if our gun rules are an unenforceable hodgepodge, illegal guns will inevitably get into the hands of kids and criminals in the cities and suburbs.

Folks, what he's really saying here is that anti-gun liberals need to "reframe the argument" so as to pull the wool over our eyes and convince us that more gun control laws, more gun bans, handgun bans et al are really in our own interest.

If gun laws are a "hodgepodge" then naturally we need uniform national laws to restrict our rights as they are defined in the Bill of Rights. To hell with anyone living in a rural area, let's let the denizens of the elitest coastal cities and states dictate gun policies to everyone else. Let the city mice tell the country mice how to live. Think I'm making that up? Here's another quotation from his screed:

At a structural level, Congress has a deep bias in favor of the rural point of view because the Senate is stacked in favor of rural states. Idaho, Wyoming and Montana have two senators each, and so do California, New York and Illinois.

According to the latest Census Bureau estimates, the six senators from those three rural states represent 2,874,060 people. The six from the three states that include big urban and suburban populations represent 68,150,148 people. By these figures, you might calculate the rough odds against gun regulations at 24 to 1.

So now he's even against our current form of government -- ignoring the fact that the HOUSE is made up of congressmen apportioned by those same population figures. He's bemoaning the fact that the Senate was designed to counteract -- to act as a balance to -- the House and to having populous states dictate laws to unpopulous ones. The Senate was intended to give every state equal representation and to be the more deliberative of the branches of government. Amazing how liberals detest our Constitution everytime they can't get their way (think of the election 2000 where they suddenly decided that the Electoral College should be abolished). [Update: Some still do! -ed.]

Oh and, Junior? You can pass all the laws you want and the criminals will still have illegal guns in their hands. Fool.

Then there is the NY Daily News extolling the virtues of anti-gun Judge Jack Weinstein:

Sharp shootin' Jack Weinstein, judge of the Eastern District, has used a silver bullet to single-handedly keep alive Mayor Bloomberg's battle to get illegal guns off the street. The judge rightly ruled that the city can use federal data it already has against gunmakers and distributors who carelessly deliver their wares to unscrupulous dealers who, in turn, sell to criminals. Weinstein is the man in the white hat against the firearms black market.

It was the second time the judge rode to the rescue against gun-industry puppets in Congress. Which only shows how afraid the National Rifle Association and its lackeys are of a lawsuit that seeks to declare negligent dealers a public nuisance by using numbers pried from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The first time, in December, Weinstein ruled that a new federal law limiting gun-industry liability does not apply to the city's suit. That law, ludicrously dubbed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, was passed solely to grant amnesty to gunmakers and distributors who know their deadly products are funneled to criminals and sell them anyway. Weinstein was having none of it.

But even before he could rule on that piece of nonsense legislation, the NRA's lapdogs fired off a second salvo. This was a rider, secretly added to an appropriations bill, making it illegal for the city to use its ATF data as evidence. In quite effectively making the case, city lawyers had utilized the feds' own numbers - like the fact that 60% of guns used in crimes trace back to 1% of the arms merchants. Now, Congress was forbidding any use of federal firearms-tracing info.

I've written about Judge Weinstein several times here, and here I wrote:

The case is scheduled to be heard in Brooklyn in by Judge Jack B. Weinstein, the same judge who threw-out the last suit (filed by the NAACP and written about extensively here at Alphecca) on a technicality. At that time, he stated that he would be open to further gun maker suits. In my First Amendment protected opinion, Weinstein has shown a clear anti-gun bias over his years presiding on the bench and is unfit to hear this case. That is why the City is so anxious for him to hear theirs...

This is another example of a greedy city desiring lots of money and deciding to sue gun makers for the misuse of their products by mutant criminals. Since anyone legally purchasing a firearm must go through background checks (and in NYC a whole lot more) and since most gun makers don't sell directly to the public but instead through distributors and gun dealers, it's hard to see how THEY could be held liable for the criminal actions of others.

Still more here and to further highlight the judge's bias, see this NSSF release:

Dec 2, 2005 -- A federal judge in New York City today ruled that the city may ignore federal law and proceed with its frivolous lawsuit against firearms companies.

Industry defendants had filed a motion to dismiss the suit after Congress passed the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" in October. While the new law was intended to protect firearms industry companies from lawsuits like New York's, Eastern District Judge Jack B. Weinstein opted to deny the motion and side with the city.

"Judge Weinstein's decision was not only predictable, but intellectually dishonest and blatantly biased, given his decade-long track record of aiming to derail the firearms industry," said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade organization for the firearms industry.

"New York City's lawsuit is precisely the type of suit the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was designed to prevent. During debate in each chamber of Congress, Sen. Larry Craig and Rep. Cliff Sterns -- the sponsors of the bill -- both referenced the city's case as a quintessential example of a lawsuit the act would prevent," Keane said.

The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," signed into law in October, was created to prevent lawsuits attempting to hold firearms industry companies liable for the actions of criminals who misuse the industry's lawful products. The law prevents wrongful civil liability lawsuits against law-abiding companies.

So what does all this mean in regards the NY Daily News story? Simply that now, Weinstein is allowing the City's lawyers to go on a fishing expedition to try and find somebody, anybody with deep pockets to fund their vacation homes.

To put it bluntly, quit blaming gun makers and sellers and start blaming the criminals who commit the gun crimes. Throw them the hell in jail for ever and you'll see gun crime drop. Of course, there's no money in that.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel chimes in with an editorial saying:

Mayors like Barrett and Bloomberg can play an important role in curbing handgun deaths, but the problem cries out for national action, if for no other reason than that handguns are portable. A pistol can be manufactured in State A, sold in State B, shipped to State C, lost or stolen in State D and shooting someone in State E.

Some very limited progress has been made in the national effort to keep tabs on the commerce of handguns, but even this thin record of legislative accomplishment is in peril from a misnamed proposal called the Firearms Corrections and Improvements Act.

The bill is before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, headed by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). Barrett has written to Sensenbrenner, urging Congress to reject those sections of the bill "that would interfere with our efforts to combat crime." Barrett is right.

If enacted, the bill would limit the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives from releasing crime gun trace data to local and state law enforcement agencies. The data includes such things as a weapon's serial number and helps police trace, among other things, the ownership of weapons used in crimes. Imposing the limits on the sharing of this information would make it harder to follow the ownership trail.

Allow me to explain what this editorial and Milwaukee Mayor Barrett are really pushing for. This data is a de facto firearms registry. It's bad enough that the ATF has such information. Gun registries lead to gun confiscations. There, glad I could clear that up.

The fact is, if a cop or DA wants to, they can request a trace anytime about a specific gun. This law wouldn't prevent that. What it would prevent is simply releasing all data on all transactions to aid in fishing expeditions. Releasing information that way simply allows greedy city trial lawyers to attempt to find someone to blame for a municipality's crime problems and gain some money from it. The Protection of Lawful Commerce Act was supposed to put a stop to that but there's always that negligence loophole in the legislation and trial lawyers will twist a case every-which-way to exploit it. Especially when they have a biased Judge such as Weinstein helping them out.

Another range under fire. What's unusual is that some of the complaints are coming from the family that donated the property for that use in the first place! From the Poughkeepsie Journal:

RED HOOK — A town gun club has been temporarily shut down after complaints from neighbors about zoning violations and noise from inappropriately heavy firepower.

Neighbors on Spring Lake Road said the Cokertown Rod & Gun Club has expanded its membership in recent years, and those members are shooting more powerful weapons more frequently, more hours of the day and in the company of more guests.

[...]

The club sits on 5.2 acres donated in 1962 by Jean Horkan and the late James J. Horkan, a state trooper and an original member of the gun club. The club — initially comprised of a small group of Red Hook-area hunters and outdoorsmen — used the parcel for gathering and hunting small game.

In recent years, the membership has expanded to include people from across Dutchess, Ulster and Columbia counties, as well as their guests, according to a letter of complaint sent by Jean Horkan's attorney to Red Hook Supervisor Marirose Blum Bump. According to the Horkans and their attorney, Cokertown also has violated local zoning ordinances and is illegally operating an outdoor target range on 5.2 acres when the minimum acreage for such a use is 50.

Fennell's letter said the club "enjoys nonconforming (grandfather) status" because it has been in existence since the Horkans donated the land in 1962, but it must stop activities until it meets all of the town's zoning laws.

Michael Horkan, who also lives on Spring Lake Road, said his mother has had difficulty selling her home because of the near-constant gunfire. He hopes the cease-and-desist letter will solve that problem and will bring a little peace to his neighborhood after the past few years of escalating noise.

Horkan, who is a lieutenant with the City of Poughkeepsie Police Department, said the gun club was a danger because some members were using military-style weapons.

The club would seem to be a victim of its own success. Still, if you donate land to be used as a gun club, do you really have the right -- 44 years later -- to decide you don't like the type of guns being shot there? And if the club has been there for 44 years can a town zoning officer or a plaintiff's attorneys suddenly decide they are in non-compliance with acreage requirements? This sounds to me like sour grapes by the Horkans because they're having trouble selling their home.

Self-Defense in Houston. From KPRC TV:

A woman was accused Monday of shooting her ex-boyfriend in self-defense, KPRC Local 2 reported.

Officers said the man showed up at the woman's home in the 2300 block of West Tidwell at Rosslyn at about 10:30 p.m.

A fight ensued and the woman said the man went to the kitchen, got a knife and threw it at her, according to authorities.

She then picked up a gun and shot him in the abdomen, police said.

He was taken to Ben Taub Hospital in stable condition.

Police said the shooting appeared to be self-defense.

One question for the author of this story: How can you be accused of not committing a crime? If the cops say it was self-defense and the woman wasn't arrested, there is no crime on her part. What is she accused of?

And in Tennessee... This story is already dated but I like it anyway. From the Chattanoogan:

A disabled Red Bank man foiled a home invasion early Thursday morning by getting off four shots at a man busting in his bedroom window.

Red Bank Police Lt. Jim Kyle said the incident happened at 1:30 a.m. at 203 Euclid Ave.

He said David McCutcheon was asleep in his bed when he heard his bedroom window breaking, then saw a masked man coming through the window.

Mr. McCutcheon reached for a .32-caliber revolver and began firing, causing the masked man to make a hasty retreat.

Lt. Kyle said Daniel "Spike" McCabe, 28, was found to have a gunshot wound later in the day in Soddy-Daisy when he was examined for a drug overdose.

He said McCabe, who is originally from Red Bank but now lives in Soddy-Daisy, has been charged in the Red Bank home invasion.

Lt. Kyle said one shot hit McCabe in the arm, two shots hit a bedroom wall and the fourth shot went through the window.

Officers went before General Sessions Court Judge Bob Moon after Red Bank Judge Gary Disheroon was not available. Judge Moon set a $500,000 bond for McCabe since he was on bond for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault.

Feisty, that's how I'll term McCutcheon. And smart! Granted, he would have done the world a favor if he'd killed McCabe but still, he used his 2nd Amendment right to protect himself from a mutant with a history of violent crime.

Try telling THAT to Cathy Sorbo when the title of her Seattle PI editorial is, "It's Time to Infringe on the Second Amendment". Hat-tip to reader Aaron Tate for this one. Sorbo writes:

What would happen if all personal firearms were banned? It'll never happen, but I enjoy mulling it over almost as much as I like to think about a night without car alarms, or becoming the nanny to Jude Law's children.

[...]

Gun violence and gun control issues can quickly divide communities. Gun advocates everywhere will tout their right to bear arms while others would prefer the right to live in a society without people packing weapons down the backs of their pants.

Gun advocates have the National Rifle Association behind them. The NRA holds firmly to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "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."

Sorry, but it's been 215 years and it's time to infringe.

Well, Cathy, just as soon as all the mutants packing weapons in their pants disappear from the face of this planet, I'll consider not packing one myself. Until then, I prefer to rely on my own firepower for protection rather than to be the recipient of someone elses because the cops weren't there or because bleeding hearts like yourself elect judges who turn these thugs back out on the streets with nary a slap on the wrist for previous offenses.

Cathy Sorpo is a regular on the NPR news satire show Rewind She's also a nut case. I wonder if, since the First Amendment is also 215-years-old, maybe we should outlaw "free speech"? After all, that would do away with violent movies, porno, idiot NPR commentators, and rioting protesters with hurtful messages toward Christians and Jews and others...

Seriously though, there were plenty of good comments in the "Sound Off" to her op-ed including:

Ban all firearms... sure... that feckless method of reducing violent crime worked really well in England and Australia. The criminals just walked in and gave their firearms to the authorities. Disregarding the absolute failure that gun banning has proven to be from the historical perspective there is a more dire proposition being offered by the Libs in asking for such bans. This proposition is that those of us who are law abiding citizens should be judged and penalized in regards to our civil rights in accordance with the behavior of the lowest common denominator in society - the criminals. If we apply the same logic then the Libs should have no problems with suspending the right to free speech for all Libs the next time some loose screw Lib radio host asks for the killing of the president.

But I had to laugh -- in a cringing sort of way -- at one of her theory's supporters:

I've lived in various US cities over the last 50 years have never felt a need to own a gun. Even when I had a pistol put to my head by a crack dealer on at the "Ave" a few years ago, I never thought "Gee if I only could have engaged in a gun battle with my assailant." What I did do was file a complaint with the police and based on my call and probably others, the police became more visible in the area, and at least in my opinion lessened if not solved the problem.

Fortunately for him, he lived to file his complaint; most aren't so lucky. As for the problem being "solved" by his call, what dream world is HE living in?

The New Media. Enter Stage Right is sort of half-way between a newspaper and a blog but I really liked what one of their columnists, Lady Liberty, says about CCW laws:

I've received emails on this topic ever since I started commenting on stories about Concealed Carry Weapons legislation in the various states. The problem? I'm not a fan of such laws. Saying so has apparently upset some gun rights advocates enough that they don't go on to see what I say with the very next breath, and that is this: We already have a CCW law in every state, and it's called "the Second Amendment."

My point is a relatively simple one. States that pass CCW laws require that applicants jump through a variety of hoops. They must provide all sorts of information about themselves (often including fingerprints). They must undergo background checks. They must take training and pass tests. Then and only then are they given a license that says they can arm themselves. Please don't think that this means I consider training a bad idea. It's the licensing itself I consider wrong at best, and a real danger to freedom.

When we get a permit or a license to do something, by definition that permit can be revoked by the state. It may or may not need cause to do so; it may or may not manufacture that needed cause at a later date. In the interim, those who are licensed now have information about themselves and their firearms neatly and irrevocably stored in a government database which may or may not be misused or hacked. You'll forgive me if I disagree that an unalinable right can ever be "licensed," and for thinking that those who seek a permit for such are the ones who are giving up their rights.

The truth is that my support of the Second Amendment is unequivocal. Unfortunately, even those labeled gun rights supporters are often more lenient in their own advocacy than I am. The only CCW laws I freely support are those in Alaska and Vermont. In those states, the one requirement for carrying concealed is that you want to. Now that, my friends, is the Second Amendment as it was intended!

To which I can only add, Bravo!

There's lots more but it's time to get this posted. Remember that I yack about this stuff all week long so don't be a stranger. You can also listen to me doing this report live on The Cam Edwards Show every Tuesday afternoon starting at 3 PM (Eastern).

As always, thanks so much for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at May 2, 2006 10:10 AM