Alphecca

Fighting For Freedoms

I'm sure you'll all gasp in astonishment to learn that the Washington Post doesn't think much of attempts to restore gun rights in the District of Columbia:

BECAUSE THE District bans handguns, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) complains that she had to dismantle her weapon when she came to town. She said that at home in Texas, "I had always had a handgun in the drawer next to my bed." That may be, but it doesn't give Mrs. Hutchison a legitimate cause to propose a repeal of the city's wise law, given the strong opposition of District leaders and residents to the idea of keeping guns in their homes. Yet Mrs. Hutchison, joined by fellow Republicans George Allen (Va.) and John Cornyn (Tex.), has sponsored a wrongheaded bill to kill D.C. gun laws.

See, I know that some of you agree that this is meddling with the concept of "home rule" but I don't. I consider this to be the restoration of the 2nd Amendment rights -- constitutional rights -- to a subjugated people. True, they don't have to live there if they don't want to but why should they be denied something the rest of us take for granted?

What if the right of women or blacks to vote was left to a state-by-state initiative? What if freedom of the press was only permitted in some areas of the country? If the District's leaders refuse to honor all of the Bill of Rights, then others from elsewhere should try to change that injustice.

If some in the District don't want guns in their home, then they don't have to buy one. That shouldn't give them the power to prevent others who DO want the ability, to protect themselves from the wolves at the doorstep.

Somehow I have a feeling I'll get opposing comments about this one...

By the way, there's something on that linked Washington Post page that crashes my version of Netscape. Be forwarned.

Brady Bunch Sleaze

The gun control crowd will stop at nothing to derail gun-rights legislation. With a hat-tip to InstaPundit, it appears that good-guy Joel Rosenberg was victimized by them in a feeble attempt to derail the Minnesota Personal Protection Act.

No She's Not...

I don't consider Raven a bitch. Just sensible! And Rightly So!

Gun Teacher Forgets 1st Rule

From WHIO TV (OH):

Authorities said a teacher at Van Buren Middle School was showing students how to load a black powder rifle when he fired the gun. He did not realize that the rifle had a live round in it.

Investigators said the teacher was in the parking lot with about 30 students when he aimed the gun away from the school and toward a construction site on the school grounds. They said when he fired the gun, a live round discharged and struck a tool trailer.

School officials said the teacher was unaware that the gun was loaded with the live round. Authorities said no students were injured during the incident.

Kettering police were called to investigate after several neighbors in the area heard the gun discharge, striking the tool trailer. They said no charges will be filed against the teacher.

Dummy.

Carnival of Cordite

My buddy Les Jones is hosting the latest Carnival of the Cordite. He's also started a discussion...

Okay, So Not Everyone...

...Should own a gun. From Yahoo/AP:

FRISCO, Colo. - A man who wanted to fire off bottlerockets but grabbed his gun instead and fired into the sky was arrested Thursday after stray bullets hit two homes.

Nathan Rock, 27, was faces misdemeanor charges of unlawful use of a weapon and reckless endangerment, the Summit County Sheriff's Office said in a statement.

Rock told police he had some cocktails earlier in the evening and was looking for bottlerockets. Coming up empty, Rock said he shot several rounds from his handgun into the air from his porch and driveway.

An officer on routine patrol heard the shots, and police later found Rock asleep in his bedroom with a handgun in the room. He was taken into custody and was being held at the Summit County Jail on $2,500 bond.

Yeah, I'll bet it was more than just some cocktails. Idiot.

Florida Gun Buy-Back

American Drumslinger has the details. In case anyone is dumb enough to turn in their weapons for $50 bucks apiece so they wind-up in the personal collections of the cops.

Hmmm... Maybe I could offer a gun buy-back and build up a nice arsenal of rusty old broken down Saturday night specials...

I Went Shopping For A Gun

First of all, I want to thank everyone for their suggestions to this post.

I finally decided that I should be a bit frugal and bank a couple hundred for bills, paying back a friend, and -- *gasp*, -- I only have 5 payments left on my car -- and so on. Also, I decided that I have enough defensive handguns for now including my Para-45. I like plinking-type long guns. I want to seriously get into target-shooting in a big way because it's so relaxing, enjoyable, and (*ahem*) inexpensive. After a long day at work, I can zip-up to the range and spend an hour making noise and punching holes.

I wanted to check-out a gun dealer just across the river (in NH) and establish a relationship with him. He came highly recommended by friends at work and while walking out with a rifle (for Vermont residents) is no problem, he also has an FFL friend who handles instantaneous handgun transfers across the bridge as required by Vermont. It's a small store only open Saturdays and a couple evenings.

Great guy, small selection but he has good prices and will order anything. I think I've just discovered how to avoid 1+ hour trips to the nearest VT dealers.

I said before that I had enough handguns. Well, of course you never really have too many but I wanted another "fun gun" that visitors and ME could enjoy. I love my old Marlin .22 Bolt but sometimes you just want to do away with the work and have a semi and this dealer had -- go ahead, be pissed and disappointed -- a Ruger 10/22 (the Carbine version) which I've always admired. I decided to get it. And, I can shoot all day with a couple-bucks of ammo. I also did something new for me; I got it scoped (just a cheap Bushnell) because while I usually avoid scopes (my .308 doesn't have one, neither does my Marlin or the Camp-nine I recently (*sob*) sold) I've come to realize that my right-eye is starting to go. I want to SEE the target...

Look, I have enough fire-power to protect myself. I don't really worry about that stuff here in Vermont, at least where I live. And besides, if someone was really stupid enough to bug me, I've got a .32, .38 special, and a .45 waiting to greet them! I want to have fun plinking on-the-cheap. The Ruger 10/22 is a small gun that seemed comfortable. So tear me to bits if you will.

Incidentally, this dealer also does "payments" and I put down $50 bucks on a Savage .17. Okay now, (shameless groveling) I want all of you to hit my "tip-jar" on the right side-bar so I can pay for it within a few weeks...

I immediately headed to the Thetford range. Since it had just opened for the season, I was expecting crowds. I had the place to myself...

It was kinda' weird since it was still nice out (but rain was predicted for the next FIVE days). Maybe everyone else was still celebrating a nice Saturday morning and doing dumb stuff like yardwork when they could have been shooting. Silly people!

Look how nice this place is!

As you can see, Spring has finally sprung but the sky was already clouding-up. I put up targets at the 25 yard boards and started sighting in the scope. Then, the 50 and finally the 100. I really screwed things up then and will have to go back to adjust the scope. It started to get really overcast and about an hour after I got there the rain started, it got cold, and the damned weatherman turned-out to be right.

So, I wound-up buying another plinker, put a deposit on yet another (and I have my sights set on a .223, too!) and tried it out today. Sorry if I decided to go for another "plinker" but I've admired my friend's 10/22's for a long time. Also, Ruger is a local company (Newport, NH) that employs some of them. And besides, I had two bricks of .22 sitting in my closet just waiting to punch some holes...

It's strange but I find myself being defensive while writing this post. You all wanted me to get some big honking firearm and I've let you all down by buying a backyard banger.

Hey, it's another rifle that I've always had my eye on and now I own one. I like it. It's small, like me, and doesn't give my shoulder a cramp.

I'll be back soon. Thanks for stopping by!

Update 5/22: By the way, the place was crawling (buzzing actually) with black flies. Did you know that whatever is in those cans of Off Deep Woods practically melts the plastic on ear-muffs?

Your Tax Dollars At Work

America sunk. From the AP:

The retired aircraft carrier USS America is on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, sunk by the Navy in a series of explosive tests that upset some veterans.

The 84,000-ton, 1,048-foot warship that served the Navy for 32 years rests about 60 miles off the coast and more than 6,000 feet down, according to Pat Dolan, a spokeswoman for Naval Sea Systems Command.

[...]

No warship this size or larger had ever been sunk, and plans to sink the America caused controversy.

"Not a day goes by that I don't think about it," said Lee McNulty, president of the USS America Foundation, which wanted to turn the ship into a museum. "Of all the carriers, that one should have been saved, just for the name America."

The Navy claims this test was necessary to prevent future sinkings of aircraft carriers. I didn't know we had a problem with that. I agree with McNulty, better uses could have been found for the ship. I'm sure it cost a heck of a lot to build (and probably to strip and sink). I agree also that the symbolism of destroying the "America" was foolish.

Marksmanship Programs

I thought you might like to read a couple of stories about new courses starting up for marksmanship programs and safety courses. First, from the Troy Messenger (AL):

Thanks to financial support from the Friends of the National Rifle Association (NRA), a marksmanship/air gun program will be implemented at Charles Henderson Middle School.

A check in the amount of $983 was presented to Forrest Lee, physical education instructor and David Helms, principal by Dave Barron and Buddy Hobbs, co-chairs of the Pike County Chapter of the Friends of the NRA.

Lee, a certified instructor with the state of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, applied for the grant offered through the Friends of the NRA in order to develop and implement a marksmanship/air gun program and to further enrich the school's hunter safety program.

"The goals and objectives of these programs will be designed to provide our students with an opportunity to learn safety procedures as it applies to firearms and the mechanics of firearms," Lee said. "The programs will also provide a safe atmosphere for the development and enjoyment of shooting firearms as a sport and lifetime activity."

This is the perfect way to teach kids safety as well as the pleasure of plinking and target shooting.

The second story comes from the Detroit News:

One of 6-year-old Kristen Carroll's feet dangled above the ground as she perched on her seat on a recent Saturday and focused on shooting a .22-caliber rifle at a paper target 25 yards away.

"Watch where your gun's pointing," warned her mother, Michelle Carroll, as the ponytailed youngster in her bright orange sweat shirt and pink capri pants wiggled momentarily.

Only one of Kristen's shots hit the target at the Rose Lake Shooting Range.

But she pointed excitedly at her mother's bull's-eye after the two wrapped up practice at a mother-daughter shooting and hunter safety event sponsored by the state Department of Natural Resources.

"It was fun," said Michelle Carroll, who runs a day care business in Leslie.

Although Kristen is interested in hunting with her dad, Michelle has another goal.

"I'm more interested in target shooting," she said.

"I'm not a big fan of hunting. I don't eat meat."

The event was the first time a DNR shooting seminar has been aimed at moms and daughters.

The event filled up two hours after enrollment opened, said DNR spokeswoman Mary Dettloff.

With the help of a $2,000 grant from the National Shooting Sport Foundation Step Outside Program, the DNR provided guns and ammunition, a boxed lunch, long-sleeved T-shirts and four hours of instruction in shooting, handling and cleaning guns to the nearly 30 women and daughters.

When people (even folks who think they hate guns) try their hand at the shooting sports, almost to-a-one they dig it and become hooked. And as I pointed out last month, the shooting sports are quite popular.

Parent Control

Forget gun control, we need parent control. From Sports Illustrated:

Is it any wonder why parents are attacking coaches, referees, and yes, players like never before? Our nation's sporting culture has careened so far out of control that all perspective and rational thought have been removed from the equation. It's not about recreation and the Homeric ideal of a sound mind and sound body. Sports, from T-ball to the high school level, are more than ever about being No. 1. This transcends the stereotype of the over-involved father's berating his son or daughter. That's bad enough and could be cured if said dad got off his backside and started competing in something himself.

No, this is about a nearly pathological association with the sports our children play, to the point where parents and spectators believe they are part of the game and therefore permitted -- and even required -- to take action at the slightest bit of injustice. And, like everything in our country these days, the ensuing reaction has escalated. Yelling at the ref is no longer enough, just like a sturdy grandstand and well-manicured field aren't sufficient in Denton, Texas. Fans now direct their anger at officials, coaches and players in more dramatic ways, with pistols, bats and fisticuffs. It's a depressing fact of life in this country. Devoid of other meanings in their worlds, some look for fulfillment in the games their children play. And when it doesn't come, they lash out.

Read the whole thing; it's pretty scary.

Movie Review

No, not here, over at Carnaby Fudge. An in-depth review of Episode III. I'm waiting for it to show up at our town's drive-in theater next month. Yes, we still have one and there's nothing like being able to watch a movie in the comfort of your car, with a six-pack and able to smoke...

Dean Esmay has more on the Star Wars story.

Newsday Bleats on Gun Control

In today's Newsday (NY):

It's a fallow season indeed for gun control in Washington. Not even the specter of terrorism could rouse the Republican-controlled House to consider barring gun purchases by suspected terrorists whose names appear on government no-fly lists, or by people convicted of felonies in other countries.

Firearms haven't been the weapons of choice for terrorists of late. Still, it defies all logic for Washington to let people judged too dangerous to fly on commercial airplanes to stroll into any gun shop in America and walk out with all the firepower they may want. According to the Government Accountability Office, that's exactly what 31 suspected terrorists on no-fly lists were recently allowed to do.

31 suspected -- not accused, not convicted, just suspected -- out of over a million proper sales to people. And if the FBI is so concerned about these "suspects" then since they are the ones who operate the NICS (the "instant check" -- because you actually CAN'T just stroll into a gun shop and make a purchase without going through it--) are or should have been in a perfect position to stop the buys. This is a nation of laws and until an arrest or conviction, the same privileges are supposed to apply to all.

As for foreign felons being able to purchase a gun, I assume they've become citizens here or they wouldn't be allowed to. In any case, it was a COURT decision that led to that loophole, not the Republicans in Congress.

While I'm not necessarily against changes to these conditions (or loopholes, if you will -- I'm undecided at the moment) the laws proposed by one of the usual suspects, NY-D Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, probably went way too far and represented just another of her hundreds of attempts to subvert the 2nd Amendment. She, along with DiFi and Chucky Schumer and Ted "the lifeguard" Kennedy will not be satisfied until we're all disarmed.

Yuck!

Am I the only one who thinks that the "king" in the Burger King commercials is like the creepiest guy on Earth? Would you really want to eat anything he's serving? What marketing genius came up with this campaign?

Bill of Rights Activists

Here's the headline: Gun Activists Oppose Two Nominees for Appeals Judge.

And here's the story From KSL TV (UT):

Some gun-rights activists are opposing two of seven nominees to fill a vacancy on the Utah Court of Appeals.

They oppose the nominations of 3rd District Judge Robert Hilder and former 3rd District Judge Scott Daniels, who more recently served as a Democratic state representative.

Gun Owners of Utah opposes Hilder's nomination because he upheld the University of Utah gun ban and voted against installing gun lockers in state courthouses.

"We have concluded that he has a strong personal bias against the lawful carrying of self-defense weapons by private citizens," the group said an e-mail this week urging gun owners to lobby against Hilder.

Charles Hardy of the gun owners' group said Hilder's gun-related decisions offer insight about his judicial philosophy.

"If you do not trust law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, what are the odds you're going to trust them to make other personal decisions about themselves?" Hardy asked. "The issue does serve as a powerful microscope under which to examine other underlying philosophies."

He said Scott Daniels is opposed because, as a legislator, he called for oversight of concealed weapon carriers and tighter control of sales at gun shows.

Hilder said Tuesday that ethics rules limit his response to the criticism. The guns-on-campus case is now on appeal before the Utah Supreme Court.

"I am not in a position to comment on a decision in a pending case," Hilder said, "but I do hope that a 10-year legal career on the bench would not be judged by a single decision."

Now I'll grant you that Gun Owners of Utah is an advocacy group but I don't see members of the Brady Bunch ever being referred to as "activists". They're always called "gun control supporters" or some other mild term.

As for me, if I'm going to refer to folks as "activists" instead of lobbyists or such, I think I will call the Gun Owners of Utah "Bill of Rights activists" or "Restoring the Constitution Activists" and I hope they are successful.

Update 5/20: I stand corrected:

The Illinois House today approved legislation requiring background checks when firearms are sold at gun shows. The legislation would also require police to destroy records of gun transactions. Gun-rights advocates say the records of firearm purchases lets police build a database of gun owners, which they consider an invasion of privacy. Gun-control activist James Brady, who was wounded in the assassination attempt on President Reagan, recently called the bill "phony." He argues it would deprive police of records that help solve gun crimes. The Illinois State Rifle Association contends limiting police to keeping records for 90 days is a reasonable compromise. The Senate has approved the measure once before, but must vote on it again because of technical changes made in the House.

So here we have an AP story that calls Brady an "activist" and those on our side "advocates". I wonder if they read this post yesterday morning...

Gay Marriage in Oklahoma?

It could happen in a surprising way. From KOTV (OK):

It is a case that could become Oklahoma's first legally recognized gay marriage. A lesbian couple, who exchanged vows one year ago Wednesday, is still fighting for their union to be considered valid.

A Cherokee Nation court clerk issued them a marriage application, but refused to sign the certificate after the wedding. Now the case is headed for tribal court, where it will all come down to how Cherokee law defines marriage.

[...]

The battle has brought them all to Tahlequah, where the Cherokee Nation's highest court will decide once and for all whether the tribe will recognize Kathy and Dawn's marriage. "As I said it's my firm belief that it's not gender neutral, its gender specific and I do not want the laws of the Cherokee Nation and my tribe to be made a mockery of."

[...]

The case goes before the Judicial Appeals Tribunal June 3rd. A lower court already ruled against the couple.

If the Cherokee Supreme Court, rules their marriage is valid, based on governmental agreement, the State of Oklahoma will legally recognize it as well.

Granted, it's unlikely, but what the heck. I'll root them on.

And THAT is my once-per-month "gay post" for May.

This Just In...

Report: Muslim World Largely Anti-American

(Just trying to pick-up the slack for James Taranto...)

(Update: Heh, look in today's credits.)

Restoring 2A to DC

Another attempt to restore the Bill of Rights to Washington DC is in the works. From WJLA TV:

Some Senate Republicans are preparing to launch an assault on the District's gun laws.

Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cronyn of Texas and George Allen of Virginia are signing on as sponsors of the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act of 2005.

The measure would repeal the District's prohibition against most private handgun ownership. It's similar to a measure with 123 co-sponsors in the House.

Supporters of the measure say the legislation will restore the Second Amendment rights of District residents guaranteed by the Constitution.

District business leaders joined the city's elected officials last May to help turn back similar legislation. They cited D.C.'s high homicide rate and problems with youth violence in opposing the measure.

Maybe one reason for the high homicide rate is that the law-abiding subjects of DC aren't allowed to defend themselves. After decades of a handgun ban, as usual (as in Chicago, another high-homicide town that bans handguns) the only people with guns are the thugs, gangbangers and mutants.

As we've seen in state after state that does allow concealed carry (or at least possession in the home!,) the honest, permitted citizens cause a startlingly low incident of crime or misuse, and crime in general drops because the predators know their intended victims might now be armed.

San Francisco take note!

Over At Tarazet:

At my other blog, the story of two Marines --one man, one dog-- working side-by-side in Iraq.

VT To Ban Internet Hunting

It's not a done deal but it's passed the House. From the Bennington Banner:

MONTPELIER -- The Vermont House on Tuesday voted to ban using the Internet to hunt game at remote locations, after amending the measure to allow some use of remote technology by the physically disabled.

The measure earlier passed the Senate without the exception for people with disabilities. The House passed both its amendment and the underlying bill on voice votes. The Senate now will have to decide whether to go along with the House amendment.

The bill is aimed at stopping Vermonters from using the Internet for a practice in which, with the click of a mouse, a person can fire a gun at game as far away as Texas.

"This is the ultimate in couch-potato activities," said Rep. David Deen, D-Westminster, who reported the bill for the Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee. The committee supported the bill on a 9-0 vote, he said.

"I haven't run into anybody who understands hunting technique" who approves of the practice, Deen said.

But Deen also said that as it took testimony on the bill, the committee heard that "physically challenged people might in fact use some type of remote-control hunting technology in order to participate in the sport of their choice."

The amendment allowing that to happen calls for the disabled person to make a special application to the Fish and Wildlife Department, including a note from his or her doctor vouching for the disability.

Regulars know that I disdain the idea of "joystick hunting" but I'm not sure I like seeing any sort of outright ban. Once you start prohibiting things, the ban-list just seems to get longer and longer. Still, it's hard to defend the practice and there is the handicapped exclusion (although there are already many state parks that are wheelchair accessible).

Back to South Africa...

From Reuters:

South Africa's gun amnesty has been hailed a success, as more than 25,000 illegal firearms have been handed over to police well before the cut-off date on 30 June.

Police Director Phuthi Setati said on Tuesday that the response to the amnesty, which was launched on 1 January and extended in March, "has been very good".

In an upbeat mood he told IRIN, "If we collect only one illegal firearm that's a victory for the police as well as the nation, because that particular firearm will never be in circulation again."

He said, "The aim of the amnesty is to rid the country of illegal firearms that are believed to be in circulation. We think we're winning."

Wow! That's just so wonderful. Law abiding citizens turning in their unregistered guns. Now, only the criminals have them. What a fabulous success! I imagine crime will Just Plummet now, eh? No word yet on the other 2 million "illegal guns" still out there...

PA Gun Control Panel...

From KYW Radio:

Governor Rendell’s commission on gun violence in the state -- formed after a rash of murders in Philadelphia earlier this year -- has issued its recommendations.

The task force recommends stiffer sentences for illegal possession of guns and trafficking in guns and recommends the continuation of existing crime prevention programs with track records of success.

But it does not include the proposal gun control advocates most wanted to see: one that would limit the legal sale of handguns to one per month.

Chairman Walter Phillips says the 26-member commission could not agree on that issue:

“That’s an issue there was not unanimity on, with respect to the subcommittee that looked at legislation, or with the entire commission. So we simply put that one handgun per month issue on the table to be further discussed.”

Likewise, there was no unanimity on another issue important to gun control advocates -- allowing Philadelphia and other municipalities to pass their own gun laws.

So sensibly, the committee made the proper recommendations; stronger punishments for the misuse of guns and going after the bad-guys. The gun-grabbers lose again.

I'm Buying!

It's finally Spring here in Vermont. While most folks' thoughts turn towards the opposite sex, mine turn towards guns (I'm a little weird that way...). The local range I belong to has just opened for the season. I finally have a weekend off. And, astoundingly, I actually have a little spending money; about $500. I have not bought a gun in two years and damn-it, this Saturday I'm gonna' walk into some gun store and walk out with one. What kind, I have no idea. I just want the pleasure of walking along racks of rifles and cases of handguns (which I'm leaning towards, at the moment) and put the fire out in my wallet by getting something and then heading to the range in Thetford to have some fun. I want a new toy!

It's like Christmas in May. Feel free to offer your suggestions but remember that I'm on a limited budget of --max-- $500 bucks. I'll put up pictures on Sunday. Is this a great country or what? Is Vermont a great (for gun-nuts) state or what?

Can You Hear Me?

Just finished my segment on Cam Edward's show. I really enjoy this radio gig but I get little feedback about it. I'm just curious to know how many of you come here because of NRA NEWS and your thoughts on my weekly appearance there. Since there is no actual link, just Cam speaking my web address, you folks who visit here from there don't show up from a "referrer". Just curious... And my ego needs...Oh, never mind!

Another Carnival!

Only Acidman could come up with Carnival of the Crappers. Oh, man... The blogosphere is just overflowing with talent and Rob flushes it out!

Weekly Check on the Bias

Why, if it's Tuesday, it must be the Weekly Check on the Bias. Here's where I shed some light on the media's bias against guns and the Second Amendment.

I know what you're thinking: Where can I get one of those? Designed (actually as an anti-gun statement) by Philippe Starck, they are being marketed by Flos. More information is here.

Enough of that! I mentioned last week that Secretary of State Dr. Condoleeza Rice had appeared on Larry King and reiterated her support for the Second Amendment. Here's just a brief re-cap of what she was saying:

KING: We have a Second Amendment. People can own guns. By the way, what do you think about gun control?

RICE: The way I come out of my own personal experience, in which in Birmingham, Alabama, my father and his friends defended our community in 1962 and 1963 against White Knight Riders by going to the head of the community, the head of the cul-de-sac, and sitting there, armed. And so I'm very concerned about any abridgement of the Second Amendment.

I'll tell you that I know that if Bull Conner had had lists of -- of registered weapons, I don't think my father and his friends would have been sitting at the head of the community, defending the community.

KING: So you would not change the Second Amendment? You would not...

RICE: I also don't think we get to pick and choose from the Constitution. The Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment.

KING: But doesn't having the guns, while it's protection, also leads to people killing people?

RICE: Well, obviously, the sources of violence are many, and we need to -- to get at the source of the violence. Obviously, I'm very much in favor of things like background checks, and you know, controlling it at gun shows. And there are lots of things we can do.

But we have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that our Founding Fathers thought very important. On this one, I think that they understood that there might be circumstances that people like my father experienced in Birmingham, Alabama, when in fact, the police weren't going to protect you.

And suddenly, a mystery was born because originally, the transcript on CNN's website wasn't showing this part of the interview. Could it be that the transcriber was biased against gun ownership? Or CNN? Well, we KNOW CNN is biased against them. We may never know why that segment was edited out but fortunately, the blogosphere came to the rescue with folks such as CounterTop Chronicles and InstaPundit giving the disappearance wide-play. And guess what? The missing dialogue has been restored. The blogosphere gets results!

Now you and I might not think Condi's statements were controversial but National Public Radio certainly did and it sparked a discussion on News and Notes with Ed Gordon. That link will be to the audio of the show. Gordon invited Robert George, editorial writer for the New York Post; George Curry, editor-in-chief of the National Newspaper Publishers Association News Service and BlackPressUSA.com; and E.R. Shipp, columnist for the New York Daily News and professor of journalism at Columbia University. Note that all three are African Americans. I don't have the transcript so I'll have to transcribe it as I listen to it:

ED GORDON: Alright folks, let's start with what a lot of people are talking about and that is the appearance on Larry King Live and Condoleeza Rice discussed the importance of owning a gun and she recollected the story of her father taking up arms to defend other blacks from racist whites in the segregated South, saying that the constitutional right of owning guns is as important as the right to free speech and religion. A lot of people might not argue with that point as much as they are discussing now Condoleeza Rice cloaked this in a story about her father defending it in hopes of buying those who now look at it --the idea of owning a gun -- as problematic in today's times. E.R. Shipp?

E.R. SHIPP: It's not so much owning a gun, it's mis-using guns. I think it's the issue. And indeed, Condoleeza Rice was very much on message when it comes to the intent of the Constitution of the United States. In the story she told about her father and his friends in defending her neighborhood, the Second Amendment -- it is number two -- and that means that the constitutional writers thought it was very important. It comes before the right not to incriminate yourself and and the right to a fair trial and all kinds of things it comes before but it says that you have the right for a well regulated militia to defend the neighborhood. And so in that case she was right. Now, most of us don't think in complicated ways these days so it's just hearing that Condoleeza Rice says that you have the right to have a gun. But, I think her story is right on target.

ROBERT GEORGE: So to speak [laughter]. That's a high caliber argument you have there. Now, I think that's exactly correct. Now, what we're talking about, contemporary questions about gun control and things like that you should keep in mind that some of the earliest gun control regulations were came out of the post-Civil War, black codes, and they were specifically crafted in the South to prevent former slaves and families and descendants from owning weapons. In that context, Condoleeza Rice is absolutely correct and even today many people are very wary of people, of the government wanting to register peoples' guns and so forth.

GORDON: George [Curry], interestingly enough, she says she favors background checks and controls at gun-shows, she also suggests while telling this story that had authorities had registered weapons -- a list of those -- that she believed her father and others would NOT have been able to defend themselves.

CURRY: Well, I have a problem with the story. First of all, unlike my colleagues I grew up in Alabama, and so her trying to spin this as a twist on civil rights is actually, to me, disgusting. First of all, her family didn't have a whole lot to do with the civil rights movement and she said as much with an interview with the washington post. In fact, her family was intent on walking through the doors that everybody else opened. Let's be clear on that.

[At this point Curry goes into a whole long, almost un-intelligible spiel about how the founders of the country didn't acknowledge blacks, etc... --Jeff]

ROBERT GEORGE: That's not what she said though. What she said was that her family had a gun to be able to defend themselves as citizens within the United States. They were not specifically talking about whether the founders were writing them [the amendments -- jeff] with black people in mind-

SHIPP: Or women.

CURRY: She did say that but that's not how we brought down the walls of segregation in the South, with her daddy had a gun.

And so on. Interestingly enough (but I don't have the strength or time to transcribe it all) both Robert George and E.R. Shipp came down surprisingly heavily in favor of the Second Amendment and the right to defend oneself. Curry came off as a nearly illiterate buffoon who didn't (but probably wanted to) characterize Rice as "an oreo cookie" for supporting gun rights. Listen to the whole thing.

Turning to the print media and Ohio, the law allowing concealed-carry has been in effect for one year. So how's it going? From an editorial in the Medina-Gazette:

Remember all the hype when concealed-carry went into effect in April 2004?

Remember how opponents claimed it would make our streets more dangerous while proponents insisted it would make them safer?

To the extent such things are measurable, one year into the law that gives permit-holding Ohioans the right to carry hidden handguns in public, there is little appreciable impact on public safety — for better or for worse.

"I can't see where it's helped or caused a problem," said Medina County Sheriff Neil Hassinger.

The sheriff said he knows of no instance in which a permit-holder has used the privilege inappropriately or tried to carry a weapon where it's not allowed, such as school grounds or government buildings. Neither has there been any report of a crime deterred by a hidden handgun.

Some argue that's the whole idea: Criminals are less inclined to approach someone with the intent of robbing or attacking them if they think the potential victim may be armed. We'll never know how many deterred crimes there were because, well, they were deterred.

Now granted, the writer clearly states his support for the right to bear arms. Just as important, though, the sheriffs quoted in this editorial have no axe to grind and report no problems with either the permit holders or even the cost and time required to process the paperwork. There's no real bias here since firstly, this is an editorial, and secondly, the author states his own views.

I suspect that Medina is a more rural area of the state but I don't know that. So how does a reporter from a liberal area (Columbus) treat the same premise (the concealed-carry law, one year later) in a NEWS STORY (not an op-ed)? From NBC4i.com:

According to the Franklin County Sheriff's Office, since the law went into effect, there has not been one measurable crime as a result of the law.

On the other hand, there has not been one measurable crime avoided because of the law.

Statistically it has made no difference, Bowersock reported.

Cornell McCleary, 610 WTVN talk show host, has a concealed carry permit.

While working at his private security company in March, he shot and wounded two men during a confrontation.

"I became the target of their aggression. If I didn't have my two cousins with me, Smith and Wesson, I (would have) been history," McCleary said.

Pediatric surgeon Dr. Jonathan Groner deals with young gunshot victims.

"The basic premise that society can be safer by ready access to lethal firepower is a corrupt premise," Groner said.

He opposes concealed weapons. He said eventually, an innocent victim will be killed.

"For the average citizen, it's not an enhancement to safety. Why? Everybody has a bad day. When people walk around with lethal firepower, it's just someone is going to have a bad day," Grover said.

It doesn't take a surgeon to spot the bias of this story; that the CCW law has no effect. Of course, the real implication is that now that folks can carry, mutants might be more afraid of attacking them. You can't measure what doesn't happen! And anyone can play with statistics. My point is that if carrying a firearm makes you feel safer, then if there is no increase of crime because of allowing concealed-carry, the law is working fine and there is no reason to scrap it. The reporter's last interview ignores the rest of the piece because apparently people AREN'T having "bad days" while exercising their new (or rather restored) right.

Finally, from the department of here's how it's done comes this from WJLA TV (MD):

Police say the Silver Spring homeowner who shot a suspected burglar used a properly registered gun.

The investigation is continuing, but authorities in Montgomery County (website - news) say the unidentified suspect apparently robbed another house 15 minutes earlier.

In that case, another homeowner found a man in front of his house on Eastway Drive. The man claimed to be looking for someone, then drove off in a red Geo. The homeowner soon realized someone broke in through an open window and ransacked a room.

Police moments later answered a call on Whitehaven Drive, where they say the suspect broke down the front door and came face to face with a gun-toting homeowner - who shot him in the hand and side.

The suspect took off in the red Geo with police chasing him until the Geo ran off the road. The man is in critical condition and charges against him are pending.

Whether defending yourself from racists or mutants, the Second Amendment has served well as the final defense for individuals, families, neighborhoods, and country. Let's all try to keep it as strong and unfettered as all the other amendments.

Elsewhere in the neighborhood:

Say Uncle has more on the CCW law I mentioned last week.

TriggerFinger reports that New York State is considering a .50 caliber ban. I suspect it will pass.

TFS Magnum highlights the fact that restraining orders are no protection.

Matt Rustler has a nice round-up of RKBA stories.

Cowboy Blob has some 44. Gun Porn.

Confederate Yankee says, "Guns don't kill people, reporters kill people. Heh.

Okay, I better get this up. You can listen to me later on NRA News (link on the left). Thanks for stopping by!

Frank Defending Delay?

(via Drudge) It really happened! From Boston.com:

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Party, said yesterday that the US House majority leader, Tom DeLay, ''ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence," referring to allegations of unethical conduct against the Republican leader.

Dean's remark, in a speech to Massachusetts Democrats at their party convention, drew an immediate rebuke from US Representative Barney Frank, the Newton Democrat and one of DeLay's harshest critics. ''That's just wrong," Frank said in an interview on the convention floor. ''I think Howard Dean was out of line talking about DeLay. The man has not been indicted. I don't like him, I disagree with some of what he does, but I don't think you, in a political speech, talk about a man as a criminal or his jail sentence."

I hope they don't start telling Dean to "go back to Vermont". I was just getting used to life without him...

More on NPR...

Wasn't it only a week ago that I wrote about public funds going to NPR and their liberal bias? That's a rhetorical question.

Anyway, today's New York Times now tries to spin attempts to restore balance to their news shows as government meddling:

Top officials at NPR and member stations are upset as well about the corporation's decision to appoint two ombudsmen to judge the content of programs for balance. And managers of public radio stations criticized the corporation in a resolution offered at their annual meeting two weeks ago urging it not to interfere in NPR editorial decisions.

[...]

Mr. Tomlinson has been waging a campaign to correct what he and other conservatives see as a liberal bias in public television programming. That effort has been criticized by leaders of public television who say it poses a threat to their editorial independence. At the request of two senior Democratic members of Congress, the inspector general at the corporation is examining whether Mr. Tomlinson's decision to monitor only one television program, "Now," with Bill Moyers, and his decision to retain a White House official who helped create guidelines for the two ombudsmen may have violated a law that is supposed to insulate public broadcasting from politics.

See, I don't care what biased content privately held media decides to spew-out because my tax-payer dollars aren't helping to support it. But the CPB receives millions of dollars from Uncle Sam each year and entities that receive that money have an obligation to present a fair and balanced view in the stories they present. Instead, NPR caters to and reflects the bias of leftist-liberals without any counterpoint.

I always picture a map of the U.S. hanging in NPR offices that only shows the left and right coasts almost abutting each other, with nothing in the middle except maybe a couple scrunched-up cities such as Minneapolis and Chicago and Austin. Middle America and it's values and opinions don't exist to them.

End of the Week...

Usually I'm writing that on Fridays. Normally I take weekends off. For some reason, I've been rather hyper-active the past couple days and I hope you'll read through it all 'cause there are some great links, gun stories, and other neat stuff. Tomorrow will be a busy day so I'll be back Tuesday morning with the "Weekly Report" and until then, I wish you well.

Thanks for stopping by!

Happy Birthday to Eric!

Hey! Eric Scheie is my blogson and his terrific (and much more interesting and varied blog) Classical Values is celebrating two years of intelligent, thoughtful posts. Eric has been a truly good friend (in many ways) to Alphecca and I wish him many more years of success.

Treasure Trove Found?

From Yahoo News:

A trove of 32 previously unknown works by abstract art icon Jackson Pollock has been discovered by a family friend, who said on Friday he would like them to tour internationally and be studied by art historians.

Alex Matter, a filmmaker who knew Pollock from childhood, said the collection was among the possessions of his late parents, who were long associated with Pollock and his wife Lee Krasner.

Actually, he probably just found some old drop-cloths left behind by house painters...

(Hey, it's my blog and I'll be snarky if I want to.)

Last Night...

I went to a song swapping party last night. Folks were invited to bring along their laptops or hard-drives, etc., to exchange mp3's and m4A's. So we all plugged into each other and all got a lot of free tunes... Oh, ha-ha, did I say "free tunes?" What I meant to say was that we all kept really accurate accounts of who got what songs and real soon now we'll send a check off to the RIAA...

Nah, I'm just kidding. Really. Song swapping is probably illegal. Never happened...

Tastes Like...

Gordon at Dog Snot Diaries captures another huge protest. The Million Chickens March...

Someone In Agreement...

Well, at least Scott Scheule at Catallarchy agrees with me that it would be a bad thing if the Republicans go nuclear.

Revolt in South Africa?

Frustrated gun owners are considering mass suits in court. From Independent Online:

There has been growing anger among gun owners and lobby groups who say new regulations make it virtually impossible for citizens to obtain gun licences.

Martin Hood, the South African Gun Owners Association (Sagoa) spokesperson, said the safety and security ministry must brace itself for a barrage of court actions.

The Freedom Front has also threatened to launch a constitutional court action against the government, which it says is systematically disarming law-abiding citizens under the new Firearms Control Act.

[...]

As a result, he said, many affected licensed owners were contemplating taking the legal route in the form of the Promotion of Access to Information Act to force the government to furnish reasons for refusal to grant a firearm licence or renew it.

"As an association we are all for responsible gun control and ownership but constitutionally the process must be fair," said Hood.

He said the new Act was alienating many law-abiding responsible gun owners who "out of frustration will resort to underhand means to get firearms to protect themselves".

Abios Khoele, the chairperson of the Black Gun Owners Association, said many renewal applicants were increasingly becoming frustrated at the prospect that their renewal applications could be turned down.

I said all I'm going to say back in January about this. For now, use the courts. If that fails...

What's That First Rule...?

From the Post-Gazette (PA):

A Monroeville man was wounded in an apparent accident at the Pennsylvania Gun Collectors Association Show at the Pittsburgh ExpoMart in Monroeville yesterday.

Walter Gladkoski, 65, was taken to Mercy Hospital with a gunshot wound to his lower leg, said Monroeville police Sgt. Larry Lyons.

John Bogesdorfer, 64, of Monroeville was looking at a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun at the booth of Hannah's Gun Shop of Tipton, Blair County when the incident occurred around 11:30 a.m. The booth was tended by vendor John Hannah .

While Bogesdorfer was handling the gun, it went off, striking Gladkoski who was at another vendor's booth.

All guns at the gun show were supposed to be unloaded.

"Sometimes in the course of a day, you may have dozens of people handle a gun. It may have been unloaded when it was brought into the show and put on display," Lyons said. "It's hard to say. Obviously, it was loaded when the customer was handling it.''

Obviously. And obviously Bogesdorfer forgot the first rule of safe gun handling: Always assume that a gun is loaded and keep it pointed in a safe direction.

No Comment...

From Southcoast Today:

In celebration of the 31st anniversary of the Gun Owners' Action League (GOAL), Gov. Mitt Romney declared May 7, 2005, as The Right to Bear Arms Day in Massachusetts.

At GOAL's annual banquet in Worcester on that evening, which opened with a tribute to our soldiers and a clip from the movie "Braveheart," Rep. George Peterson read from the document in which the governor had written, "The Gun Owners' Action League is one of the most respected sportsmen's organizations in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."

"This organization and its members are to be congratulated for their efforts, namely: to protect and defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth and the Constitution of the United States, particularly the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms in defense of their families, persons and property and for all lawful purposes including the common defense."
Gov. Romney also lauded GOAL for promoting the shooting sports, and training and education in the safe use and handling of firearms through the GOAL Foundation and for fostering the conservation, growth and wise use of our natural resources.

One of the stars of the gala evening was Erika Ebbel, Miss Massachusetts. A 2004 graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Erika was a member of the school's pistol team.

"I tried shooting and I liked it," she said. "It's a fun sport and guns aren't bad, like some people want you to think. And I discovered that I shot better in high heels, for some odd reason. One day I was shooting with my high heels on and my scores went up, so that's the way I shoot.

"And a man will never cross a woman who knows how to shoot," she mused.

GOAL is a worthy organization and Gov. Mitt Romney probably does believe in the right to bear arms; I just have a little trouble picturing "Right to Bear Arms Day" happening in Massachusetts, a state that makes it Really Hard to do so... I mean, what if it's really windy that day?

More on Remote Hunting

Australia chimes in on hunting via the internet. Here's a quote from the transcript:

MARK SIMKIN: At a shooting range in Texas a dozen people – men and women, retirees and teenagers – are learning how to hunt.

(sound of shooting range)

But the paper targets are not the only things in the firing line. Hunters across Texas are furious about a controversial Internet site that allows people to shoot by remote control.

KIRBY BROWN: Everyone that I know is adamantly opposed to this. It's a stupid idea, but it's totally unethical.

MARK SIMKIN: Kirby Brown is the President of the Texas Wildlife Association, and a committed hunter.

KIRBY BROWN: Hunting is about being in the outdoors, it’s about tracking your quarry, getting in close, giving that animal a fair chance to escape, because you're there and it is there at the same time. And then honouring that animal by taking care of it afterwards, and turning it into the meat that you want to take home with you.

MARK SIMKIN: Isn't hunting, hunting? Shooting an animal, shooting an animal, whether you do it by remote control or do it with your own gun?

KIRBY BROWN: Hunters don't consider Internet hunting to be hunting at all. It's disconnected, it's apart, it's out of context. Hunters love the animals, they love the game, they love being out with them.

MARK SIMKIN: Internet hunting is simple in concept, but sophisticated in execution. A person anywhere in the world can get a Texas hunting licence over the Internet. It takes about five minutes. Then schedule a hunt, log on, and blaze away.

Is it possible that I agree with something from the anti-gun Australian Broadcasting Company? Actually, yes. I wrote about all this last year:

It's a way to connect with your family and friends, a sport that pits you against the prey, it's almost a religion. Schools in areas that still respect hunting actually give the kids time off at the start of the season.

Yeah, this company will send you the stuffed-head if you like, or butcher the meat and mail it to you. That's not quite the same thing as actually being outdoors and stalking and shooting and dragging and then bringing it -- your prize -- to the weigh-station, carving it up (or paying a local to do it) and being able to brag about your triumph to everyone for years to come.

And how lame is "remote" target shooting? Where's the fun of loading a magazine, pinning up the target, smelling the gunsmoke, holding the bullet-riddled target in your hand, and cleaning your rifle afterwards?

Hunting and shooting is much more than just sitting in front of an effing computer.

I stand by that.

Dave Kopel...

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Dave Kopel is asking questions about guns and economies. Along with Paul Gallant and Joanne Eisen, they answer that. There's a link for you to obtain the PDF of the article they have coming out shortly.

To Heck With the Bunny...

Apparently, batteries that can last up to 12 years are on the horizon for consumer goods. From Yahoo:

A new type of battery based on the radioactive decay of nuclear material is 10 times more powerful than similar prototypes and should last a decade or more without a charge, scientists announced this week.

The longevity would make the battery ideal for use in pacemakers or other surgically implanted devices, developers say, or it might power spacecraft or deep-sea probes.

You might also find these nuclear batteries running sensors and other small devices in your home in a few years. Such devices "don't consume much power," said University of Rochester electrical engineer Philippe Fauchet, "and yet having to replace the battery every so often is a real pain in the neck."

Fauchet told LiveScience the batteries could last a dozen years. They're being developed at Rochester and the technology has been licensed by BetaBatt Inc.

Finally! That flashlight in the drawer will always work. Think also of never having to plug-in or charge your laptop batteries again. Digital cameras could also benefit from such. I'll have to check this out with Alphecca's Official Blog Scientist and see what he thinks.

Update

Bitter Bitch has an update on the progress of the "Protection of Lawful Commerce" act -- the gun maker/dealer shield bill.

Wanderings...

Over at Classical Values, my blogson is asking:

Is it more disrespectful to burn the Koran than the American flag?

There's another interesting post by Justin, too.

Incidentally, after 2 1/2 years of blogging, I'd like to think I had more than just one blogson or blogdaughter...

Meanwhile...

Acidman is discussing another gun he has wishes he had...

No Armed Cops in Court?

It's bad enough that citizens can't be armed in a courthouse but now cops and sheriffs won't be, either. From the Capital Times (Madison, WI):

Area police are up in arms over the fact they might lose their right to bear arms in the new Dane County Courthouse.

The Capital Times has learned that Circuit Court judges are planning to institute a policy when the new Justice Center courtrooms open in January 2006 to have police officers and other law enforcement personnel check their guns at the door when coming to the courthouse.

The policy would be a departure from existing rules in the City-County Building, where officers are allowed to take their sidearms to court with them.

Chief Circuit Judge Michael Nowakowski said the new policy is still pending and won't be official until he talks to the other circuit judges by the end of this month.

He told The Capital Times that reasons for the change included limiting criminals' access to guns in the courtroom.

I would think a better solution would just be not to use 90 lb. great-grandmothers as bailiffs, who, by-the-way, would still be armed. That rankles some:

But Scott Favour, president of the Madison Professional Police Officers Association, said unarmed police in the courts would feel uncomfortable and, basically, out of uniform.

The gun "is part of our uniform," Favour said. "When we are in court we are generally expected to be in uniform."

Both the Madison union and the Dane County Police Chiefs Association are opposed to the new policy.

Bailiffs assigned to each courtroom will still carry sidearms, as they do now, underneath sport coats, but their boss, Sheriff Gary Hamblin, would not be able to carry a weapon if he has to go to court.

"If the bailiffs have weapons you would think I'd be able to carry my gun," Hamblin said.

Frankly, I'm glad they'll feel uncomfortable. That's how the ordinary, law-abiding folks feel when THEY have to disarm because of local municipal regulations. And after all, the bailiffs are there to protect you cops, right? Hey, same argument cops who are against citizens concealed-carrying use on us: "We're all the protection you need," they say.

Hmmm... I think I'd better quit blogging for the day; my sentence structures are starting to fall apart!

Survival Guns

Thought I'd link to an interesting article by Rich Johnson in Outdoor Life Magazine. Here's a quote:

When I think about survival guns for outdoorsmen, I think of three scenarios—the first involves using the firearm as an audible signaling device. The second involves providing meat to stay alive. And the third involves self-defense. Taking things in that order (which may or may not be the order of importance in any given survival situation), we’ve tried to define what makes a good survival gun.

Read the whole thing and some of his selections surprised me but made sense.

BloggerShoot

Hmmm... Somehow I missed a post up at Wadcutter until now about some bloggers getting together to make some noise. There's even a photo of Publicola, that mysteriously reclusive gun-nut...

Dodging the Bullet

Denise at The Ten Ring goes Googling and discovers what America would have been like for gun owners if Gore had been president and folks, it's scary...

Minnesota Gun Bill Progress

Try, try again. From Minnesota Public Radio:

Gun control advocates in the Senate got an opportunity they were denied two years ago, as they tried - but ultimately failed - to set stricter limits on who can carry a handgun in public as their fellow lawmakers voted to revive a court-overturned 2003 gun permit law.

"I will not be silenced on this bill and I will not hesitate to point out what a terrible bill it is," said Sen. Wes Skoglund, DFL-Minneapolis, even as a bipartisan group of senators methodically rejected multiple efforts to create more gun-free zones, limits on who can carry guns and deeper background checks on permit applicants.

After hours of debate the Senate voted 44-21 for the handgun bill, a duplicate of the 2003 act that courts struck down because of the flawed method lawmakers used to pass it. At the time, supporters of the bill attached it to an unrelated measure, robbing opponents of the chance to make changes they sought.

Those opponents were able to attach some of those changes to the bill last week in a Senate committee, but found themselves stymied as supporters of the handgun law stripped them right back out during Friday's floor debate, saying they trampled the freedom of gun owners.

The meat of the bill is that issuing carry-permits will now have uniform guidelines across the state instead of being left to the discretion (or whims) of local sheriffs. That's a good thing.

I loved the following quotes:

"Most people of faith that I know don't want guns where they worship," Skoglund said. The Senate also voted down an amendment that would have let local governments restrict the carrying of guns in their government buildings.

"We allow every private business owner to ban guns in their establishment, but local governments - even if they're scared, even if they think there's a legitimate threat - they can't do it," said Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville.

Let's see now, Skoglund is a liberal legislator in ultra-liberal Minneapolis. I really wonder how many "people of faith" he even knows, much less discusses issues such as this one with.

Marty is wrong since a private business IS private and can set their own rules but a government office is a public space and should be open for concealed-carry by the tax paying citizens. I've always been against municipalities trying to ban concealed-carry in parks, town halls, etc.

Quote of the Day

"I just want my weenie back," Ardrey said.

The question is, where did he lose it? According to the police:

"It's tough to hide a 10-foot weenie," Rock Hill police Lt. Jerry Waldrop said.

Before my gay readers get too excited though, read the story...

Here Come Da Armed Judge

From the AP:

JONESBORO, Ga. - Spooked by the courthouse shootings in nearby Atlanta, some Clayton County judges are arming themselves with guns.

The judges requested the guns and firearms training from Clayton County police several weeks ago, Clayton County police Capt. Jeff Turner said.

Clayton Sheriff Victor Hill said police gave guns to eight Superior and State Court judges.

Clerk of Superior Court Linda Miller said she was offered a gun but declined.

"I had a conversation with (Chief) Judge (Stephen) Boswell about the courthouse security issue," Miller said. "He said, 'We're getting guns, do you want one?' I said, 'No, no thank you.'"

Sheriff Hill, whose department is in charge of courthouse security, said he was not told in advance that the police were arming the judges and he wants some answers.

"To issue and bring guns into the courthouse without advance training and notifying the Sheriff's Office of the intent or the location of these weapons shows poor judgment on the part of all involved in the planning of this idea," he told the Clayton News Daily.

Neither Turner nor Will Simmons, the Clayton courts administrator, would give the number of guns issued or name the judges who got guns, citing security concerns.

I think -- not just judges but -- everyone who legally can, should carry. That's what frightens the mutants out there. And wasn't it nice of Clerk Linda Miller to let all the creeps out there know that she isn't armed? Sorta' like those "gun free stores", eh? Might as well send out engraved invitations...

Heating Up...

No, not the temperature outside, just the comments in this post from last week, now that some of the participants are er, participating... It scares me sometime; how widely read this blog is.

Another Must Read...

For your reading pleasure, the latest Carnival of Cordite is up!

Are you still here?

Meanwhile in Canada...

Garrett has found out that in Canada, even a baton is illegal...

What's next, pork chops?

This is Great...

With a hat-tip to Jay, over at Banana Oil, some required reading for gun grabbers!

Progress in Oregon

From the Corvallis Gazette-Times (OR):

Gun makers or sellers could not be sued for damages caused by illegal use of firearms under a bill easily approved Tuesday by the House.

The measure went to the Senate on a 39-17 vote despite opponents' claims that it is constitutionally flawed.

Backers of the bill said the gun industry is prone to harassment by opponents who have brought lawsuits without merit around the country in hopes of making a legitimate business liable for criminals' acts.

[...]

Gun sellers also could be sued for damages when there was evidence they knew or should have known that a buyer "was likely to use the firearm in a manner that would cause unreasonable risk of physical injury.''

[...]

Democratic Rep. Robert Ackerman of Eugene argued that the bill probably would be struck down in court.

He said the measure would take away the state constitutional right to a legal remedy for an injury — the right to sue for damages — without providing an alternative.

But Rep. Wayne Krieger, D-Gold Beach, said the remedy is "you can sue the person using the gun.''

I love that last quote by Krieger because it gets to the heart of the matter. Most mutants don't have any money and that's the real reason for all these lawsuits by various municipalities.

I am disturbed by one of the lines of the story (included above) implying that a firearm dealer should have to guess or mind-read the intentions of a buyer or he could still be held liable. None-the-less, this is a good bill and bears watching.

In a related note, I notice there isn't much action on Capital Hill over the national legislation that would accomplish the same thing. With Democrats and Republicans at an impasse over almost everything, the "Protection of Commerce" act isn't moving. And if the Republicans actually (and stupidly) resort to the "nuclear option" of curtailing filibustering and Democrats respond by bringing Congress to a halt, we may never see that bill pass.

Rice Re-Affirms Gun Support

We've noted this before but Condi Rice has stated AGAIN (on Larry King) that she firmly supports the Second Amendment. From Yahoo/AP:

Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, recalling how her father took up arms to defend fellow blacks from racist whites in the segregated South, said Wednesday the constitutional right of Americans to own guns is as important as their rights to free speech and religion.

In an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live," Rice said she came to that view from personal experience. She said her father, a black minister, and his friends armed themselves to defended the black community in Birmingham, Ala., against the White Knight Riders in 1962 and 1963. She said if local authorities had had lists of registered weapons, she did not think her father and other blacks would have been able to defend themselves.

[...]

Rice said she favored background checks and controls at gun shows. However, she added, "we have to be very careful when we start abridging rights that the Founding Fathers thought very important."

Rice said the Founding Fathers understood "there might be circumstances that people like my father experienced in Birmingham, Ala., when, in fact, the police weren't going to protect you."

"I also don't think we get to pick and choose from the Constitution," she said in the interview, which was taped for airing Wednesday night. "The Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment."

That does it! Since all the TV talking-heads are already speculating about 2008, and as a mostly one-issue voter, I'm throwing my support behind Dr. Condoleezza Rice for President. That is, unless Glenn finally does pick up the gauntlet!

Seriously though, there are no appealing candidates standing out right now for the coming (well, in two years anyway) primaries. Rice has always struck me as far more moderate than many on her side of the aisle. While I am "pro-life" I am not rabidly so and can live with her being not rabidly "pro-choice". I suspect she could care less about banning "gay marriage" or other issues of the far-right and she's clearly comfortable with the notion of defending our nation from the mutants who threaten it.

There's no-one on the Democratic side that I could bring myself to vote for. Hillary? Not in this lifetime. Rudy? Hopelessly anti-2A.

So Condi: You go girl!

Update:
So it seems that while the AP reporter was at the taping and reported the facts of the full interview, CNN didn't like that "pro-gun stuff" and cut it out of the broadcast because they suck.

2nd Circuit Trashes 2nd Amendment

A Virginia resident who visits his parents in NY State regularly wanted to bring his handgun along for protection. From Yahoo Biz:

New York state's handgun licensing scheme does not violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

Upholding the dismissal of a suit brought by an out-of-state resident barred from being allowed to carry a handgun under the licensing scheme, the circuit also found in Bach v. Pataki, 03-9123, that the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV "cannot preclude New York's residency requirement in light of the State's substantial interest in monitoring handgun licenses."

Judge Richard Wesley wrote the opinion for the unanimous three-judge panel.

The suit was brought by David D. Bach, a Virginia resident who is licensed in that state to carry his Ruger P-85 9mm pistol. Bach wanted to bring the weapon with him during regular visits to his parents in upstate New York.

[...]

After being informed by the New York State Police that he would not be eligible for an exemption from the rule that out-of-state residents cannot obtain permits to carry handguns, Bach filed suit in the Northern District.

But his claims that the bar on nonresident permits violated the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" and the Privileges and Immunities Clause were dismissed by Northern District Judge Norman A. Mordue.

Mordue held that Bach could not allege a constitutional right to bear arms because the "Second Amendment is not a source of individual rights." And the Privileges and Immunities Clause was not violated by the permit rule, he said, because "the factor of residence has a substantial and legitimate connection with the purposes of the permit scheme such that the disparate treatment of nonresidents is justifiable."

[...]

New York state countered by arguing that the Second Amendment is only a guarantee to the states of "the collective right to fortify their respective 'well regulated' militias."

"Although the sweep of the Second Amendment has become the focus of a national legal dialogue, we see no need to enter into that debate," Wesley said. "Instead, we hold that the Second Amendment's 'right to keep and bear arms' imposes on only federal, not state, legislative efforts."

Once again we see judges who should be figuratively tarred-and-feathered for their astounding lack of knowledge concerning current thinking on constitutional law. Even such liberals as Lawrence Tribe have come around to believe that the Second Amendment refers to a personal right, just as all the other amendments do. Here we have (in my opinion) incompetent judges attempting to twist the original meaning of the Bill of Rights to suit their activist positions.

I found this disturbing, too:

In so holding, Wesley said the 2nd Circuit was joining five other circuits, and it was following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court in Presser v. Illinois, 16 U.S. 2252 (1886), which he said "stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the states."

So does that mean that individual states can also disregard other amendments in the Bill of Rights? Can NY do away with voting rights for women? Freedom of the Press?

The far left and the far right are determined to trash the documents that keep us free. I call that un-american.

The founding fathers must be rolling in their graves.

Update 5/12:
I've received another perspective on this that I think is important to air, an insight not provided by the news account:

Jeff,

About your piece on the NY lawsuit brought by the guy from VA. This guy David Bach never should have brought this ill-conceived lawsuit in the first place. He came to us and we turned him down. Bach tried presenting himself as a real badass to the court and media. A combination of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Steven Seagal, and Jean-Claude Van Damme all rolled into one who wanted to carry at all times because street thugs and terrorists are hiding in every bush and he needed to be able to kill at a moments notice. Bach was his own worst enemy. The only saving grace here is that Judge Wesley avoided the question of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and based his decision on an ancient and weak argument that the 2nd Amendment was not "incorporated" as a right guaranteed against state incursion by the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Jacob J. Rieper, Legislative Director
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association

So my comments might have been heavy-handed. Now I'm glad I only said, "figuratively"...

Update 5/14:
Dave Bach responds:

You know Mr. Rieper, I don't mind if someone disagrees with the case or even if they dislike me personally. But I would suggest that you read all the pleadings in their entirety before citing the media as a credible source of information, particularly regarding this case and on issues involving the rights of gun owners in general. I have no doubt that the media reported what it wanted to report and cherry-picked comments from the Complaint to convey whatever impressions they wanted to make. As I said previously, I have not sought out the media and spoke briefly with only one reporter from Syracuse where the case was initially decided. Nor do I have control over what the media reports or how they choose to report it. What is beyond me, is why you continue to perpetuate media reporting that is evidently negative on such an important issue.

The facts in this case are NOT an issue unlike the majority of other gun cases that make it to court. The fact I served in the military as a Navy SEAL and have years of experience handling many different types of small arms in a case about firearm restrictions is not playing up anything. The fact that a terrorist group claimed thousands of lives in NY, VA, & PA in a single day and continue to pose a significant threat at home and abroad is to me, relevant, particularly when, as here NY continues to disarm law-abidng citizens of sister States at its border. And just so there is no misunderstanding, the facts of this case focus neither on terrorism nor my military background. Rather, the facts focus on violent crime and the rights of individuals to have an effective means of protecting themselves and family members from violent criminal acts when traveling interstate. The fact is, NY has some of the toughest gun control laws in the Nation and not suprisingly, some of the hightest violent crime rates. When I filed the lawsuit in 2002, NY accounted for well over 100,000 violent crimes per year according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics. So rather than continue to trash the plaintiff and brag about your organization turning down a case that argues for the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, why not provide some constructive support.

Perhaps when I return from my tour of duty in Iraq we can get together and discuss the case in person rather than in this forum. Your organization certainly could do a lot of good by helping in any future proceedings such as filing a well written amicus brief.

Dave Bach
Bach v. Pataki

This is good, folks. We have the participants of this story going at it. I haven't taken sides although obviously, I lean towards Bach in my condemnation of the court ruling that somehow, the Second Amendment is NOT a personal right. I consider that FLAT WRONG. Dave does, too. Keep reading the comments...

2 1/2-Years Young...

I just realized that I missed noting last month that Alphecca was 2 1/2-years-old, and that Tarazet turned 1. That's when you know you've been doing this awhile... There are blogs that are quite a bit older than Alphecca, but Alphecca is still older than most of the 9 million other ones out there.

Scathing column on CN Gun Registry

Lorne Gunter trashes the Canadian Gun Registry in yesterday's National Post:

It's not just the waste, although that's atrocious -- nearly $2-billion for a dysfunctional pile of uselessness.

And it's not just the uselessness. The registry is also one of those truisms for liberals, one of their articles of blind faith. To a liberal, universal registration of guns is something all intelligent people must support or, well, they're not intelligent. They use gun control as a litmus test for who is and isn't sophisticated and subtle of mind. So that even if you can prove the registry will have no practical effect -- it won't prevent armed robberies or murders, or keep enraged spouses from killing one another -- a liberal still has to cling to it for fear of being seen as NOKD (not our kind, dear).

But what troubles me most is what it says about its supporters' attitude toward the people and government. Backing most gun laws amounts to proclaiming trust in government over trust in one's fellow citizens.

This is especially true of Canada's gun registry. You really, really have to have faith in government, and be really, really suspicious of the gun owner down the block to continue to think our national registry will ever do any good.

Frankly, I'll take my law-abiding neighbours over politicians, bureaucrats, experts and advocates any day.

Read the whole thing...

Weekly Check on the Bias

The temperatures are rising. The Sun is higher in the sky. Plant stalks are growing up-up-up. Orioles are heading North. The Yankees are headed South. But enough waxing poetic...

Welcome to the May 10th edition of the Weekly Check on the Bias of media regarding firearms and the Second Amendment. This week's photo was sent in by reader Roger D. to show me that my cat isn't the only one well armed:

Well, just when you thought you'd heard all the rhetoric over the new law in Florida re-inforcing a citizen's right to defend themselves from mutants, along comes a story by Jacqui Goddard from the Christian Science Monitor which was reprinted a day earlier in USA Today. And if that last sentence confuses you, all I can say is it was a time-travel thing... Anyway, the article starts off with the (unfortunate) shooting of a 16-year-old playing a prank. This anecdote has become the "poster boy" of the anti-Castle Doctrine law. The fact that such occurrences are so rare compared to justified armed defenses shows that it really shouldn't be used by reporters UNLESS they also point out that the new law still requires that residents who do meet "force with force" pass the test of what a reasonable person would do. Sadly, this one doesn't. Alas, she DOES quote the Brady Bunch rather a lot:

This law "worries me terribly," says Sarah Brady, chair of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "This is just a license to kill."
[...]
Ms. Brady believes that far from making sense, the new law provides gun owners a legal screen behind which to hide during confrontations and "threatens to enable every rogue with an itchy trigger finger." "It's a terrible precedent," she says. "I am sorry that Florida had to be a test-ground, but I think what has gone on there should be a wakeup call for the rest of the country to stand up and fight this."

And then, a shameful, gratuitous paragraph:

Brady - whose husband, former White House press secretary Jim Brady, was left disabled after being shot in the head during the 1981 assassination attempt on President Reagan - speaks as a victim as well as a campaigner. "This law isn't a deterrent, it sets a terrible precedent. At ballgames, in bars, on the streets, this is going to endanger the lives of innocent folks and put them in the line of fire, just like my husband was," she says.

I say "gratuitous" because Jim Brady was not shot as a result of being mistaken for a burglar or rapist or for committing any other criminal act. Therefore, why bring him up at the conclusion of the piece? It is "shameful" to suggest that this law would legalize assassination attempts, as Sarah Brady seems to imply. Such quotes indicate a serious question of bias on the reporter's part.

Oh sure, there are the usual quotes from the NRA. Actually, there's the usual bashing of the NRA that we've come to expect in any gun-rights story emanating from the Monitor. It's all a plot by the NRA:

Now the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) has chosen Florida to launch this latest gun initiative, in hopes of once again taking its campaign nationwide. Consequently, lobbyists on both sides are gearing up for a national fight.
[...]
Florida seemed an obvious target for the NRA as a launchpad for such legislation. It has long been a supporter of more rights for gun owners...

And so on. You'd never read such innuendo regarding other lobbying groups such as the NEA, the Teamsters, AARP, et cetera. Not even for trial lawyers. But liberal journalists love to bash or tar the NRA and their liberal editors let them get away with it.

Speaking of Florida, when a gun maker gets the chance to be interviewed by the press, moderation might be the order of the day. From the St. Petersburg Times:

There's no sign on its front door. The place is unobtrusively tucked in a row of auto body shops in a no-frills industrial park next to the Veterans Expressway in Town 'N Country.

Nothing would tip you off that, behind that unmarked door, local entrepreneur Mark Serbu and his crew are manufacturing powerful .50-caliber rifles, right on the edge of what's legal.

"This is the biggest, baddest gun you can buy without a special license," said Serbu, 43. "It's like having control of lightning in your hand."

It's clear that the journalist is skeptical of the legitamacy of the firearm but "edge of what's legal" is just plain hooey. Either it is or it ain't, and in 49 states -- it is. But the owner, Serbu, doesn't help the cause with allusions to harnessing "lightning". That's just going to scare the crap out of folks reading the article who might not be supporters of an unfettered Second Amendment.

Look, it's great to be enthusiastic over the products you make but handing out quotes like that is red-meat for those in other states whom would like to ban such guns.

Carry-on in North Carolina might be the title of a story from the News-Record:

On one side of the debate stood gun rights advocates, those who said police couldn't be relied upon to always protect citizens. Firearms could.

Then there were the anti-gun forces, opponents who predicted violent street justice and vigilantism run amok.

North Carolina's concealed-handgun law, which passed the General Assembly a decade ago this summer, ended the state's longtime ban on carrying hidden firearms. But contentious debate over its effects remains unsettled.

The National Academy of Sciences in December called for more research. Several studies throughout the years appear to validate both sides of the issue.

While experts debate the merits of concealed handguns, this much is known: a News & Record analysis of thousands of state records shows proponents made at least one accurate prediction -- those who receive permits follow the law.

One-tenth of 1 percent of all permits issued since the law's inception have been revoked. Though the State Bureau of Investigation declined to release what led to revocations, local law enforcement officials say most weren't because of crime.
[...]
They once called themselves North Carolinians for Gun Control. That changed a few years back when organizers renamed the group the North Carolinians Against Gun Violence Education Fund.
[...]
"We made (North Carolina's) concealed-carry law more strict than it would have been," said Lisa Price, the organization's executive director. "In some states, almost anyone can get a concealed-carry permit."

Ten years ago, Price and gun opponents lobbied against the law's passage. Today, she said, it's harder to support the argument of potential street violence that critics once used to oppose the law.

There are some nonsense quotes from others, including Yale law professor John Donohue -- whom I've written about before -- but the meat of the article comes from three stories of ordinary people deciding to arm themselves or in one case scaring off a rapist. In fact, the author of this piece, Eric J.S. Townsend, seems pained to find any REAL controversy over the law allowing concealed-carry in the Tar Heal State. Again, no blood running in the streets...

Meanwhile, in Minnesota, the (Twin Cities) Pioneer Press rarely shows any support for gun rights but they are backing range-rights:

Earlier this week, the Senate Judiciary committee hammered out what we think are some common-sense proposals for the regulation of gun ranges. For those of you living in the city center, this has been an ongoing and increasingly intense battle as the suburbs push from the outer ring into formerly rural communities.

For the record, we have no more sympathy for people who live next to and want to close gun ranges than we do for those who live next to a pig farm or in the flight path of an airport. Frankly, it's not like most folks buy their houses one day and the offending sites just pop up the next. Our point was made in Thursday's Pioneer Press and the front-page story by reporter Alex Friedrich.

"When they have (shooting) meets, it's unbearable," said Grace Axelson, who lives within 100 yards of the Bald Eagle Sportsman's Association, a gun club in Hugo. That's all well and good until you realize that the club has been there since 1957.
[...]
As we noted in a November editorial, the Legislature has proposed a set of national standards that are measurable and protect gun clubs from unsubstantiated claims by angry newcomers who wake up one day to discover — GASP — that there's a gun club in the neighborhood. Opponents have also made hay of the fact that the National Rifle Association developed the standards. We don't agree with the NRA on everything, but as with gun safety, they're pretty much the experts on running gun clubs.
[...]
Indeed, reasonable people can disagree over concealed carry and assault weapons, but this legislation seems right on target.

Hey, I've knocked this paper in the past and it's only fair that I pat them on the back for a good editorial.

Damn-Fool Police Chief. A depressing story of a gun collector who had a Massachusetts carry permit. His jacket blew open in the wind and a cop saw his holstered gun. So what, right? The cop let him go (apparently you can't open carry?) and that should have been the end of it. It wasn't. The Daily News reports:

While the officer let Landers go without an arrest, the Adams Street resident soon after received notice from Dedham Police Chief Dennis Teehan that his Class A license to carry firearms had been revoked due to the incident.

Landers, a Vietnam veteran with no criminal record, said he was crushed by the letter, which he saw as an attack on his credibility. After serving as a Navy engineer on a submarine from 1966-1971, he'd always been interested in collecting historical war artifacts such as guns, uniforms and other items. Landers said he never planned to use his gun and he was not risking public safety by carrying the weapon on his person.

But Teehan saw things different. The chief said he was "troubled" by the 1998 incident in which an officer spotted the handgun on Landers and resulted in a "negative" police report.

"I have always erred on the side of caution when issuing a license to carry firearms," Teehan said in a 2001 letter reaffirming his denial. "For this reason, I find it necessary to deny your request for a license to carry."

Teehan did not return calls last week inquiring about the case.

Worse, by loss of the permit, Landers is now prevented from owning recent vintage firearms. All because of a gust of wind and a blow-hard cop. Teehan is an ass and I'm glad the Daily News decided to report this story. Even those Massachusetts residents who don't support the Second Amendment ought to see the unfairness of Lander's plight.

Dept. of How It's Done: I always like to end with one of these stories. From Columbus, Ohio:

A homeowner shot a burglary suspect early Thursday morning at his own home on the city's west side, according to the Franklin County Sheriff's Office.

The homeowner said two people kicked in the door and entered the living room of his Volney Avenue home at about 12:40 a.m. The resident said he feared for his safety and shot at the burglars twice, striking one of them in the upper torso.

The unidentified suspect was found a short distance from the home and was transported to Mount Carmel West Hospital. The suspect was listed in stable condition.

The other suspected burglar was not found.

One mutant down, so many more to go...

I'll be live on Cam's NRA News later today. The show starts at 3 (Eastern) and I'm usually on about 3:20. You DO listen every day though, don't you? You should!

Thanks for stopping by!

Carry Bill in Nebraska

A bill is wending it's way through the Nebraska legislature to allow actual concealed-carry without stipulations (such as "need"). From the Omaha World-Herald:

LINCOLN - The gun fight of the 2005 Legislature got underway Friday, as state lawmakers began firing away over allowing Nebraskans to carry concealed handguns.

The battle is mostly a matter of the clock ticking to a final showdown. The bill's sponsor, State Sen. Jeanne Combs of Milligan, believes she has the two-thirds majority support needed to pass the bill over determined opposition from several lawmakers.
[...]
Combs' proposal, Legislative Bill 454, would allow Nebraskans to obtain a five-year permit for carrying a concealed handgun, at a cost of $100.

Under the bill, they would need to complete a training course, pass an eye test, submit fingerprints and clear a criminal background check before the Nebraska State Patrol would issue the permits. Those committed as a dangerous mentally ill person within the past five years would not be eligible.

Friday's debate pitted the Legislature's youngest freshman, Sen. Mike Flood of Norfolk, against its senior member, Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, the longest-serving state senator in Nebraska history.

Flood, 30, said the concealed weapon bill is fairer than existing law, which allows Nebraskans caught with a concealed gun to claim an "affirmative defense" that it was needed for self-protection.

He said a person could be arrested, handcuffed and booked in jail - "the entire time not guilty of violating the law" - before getting a chance to persuade a judge that they were entitled to carry a gun.

There is opposition but for the sake of my brothers and sisters in Nebraska, I hope this goes through. Any of you with links or thoughts on this are welcome to share them in the comments.

Taxpayer Funds For NPR

I received an email yesterday from a reader. I won't identify him but I'll quote him:

Dear Jeff Soyer,

I happened to come across your "weekly bias check"
posting of Nov. 22 last year. This is where you
discuss a National Public Radio (NPR) story that
seemed to be biased against certain positions on gun
policy that you promote. You appeared to be most
incensed about the fact that NPR is "partially
taxpayer-funded," as you mentioned it several times.

This claim struck me as suspicious, and indeed it
isn't true.

From http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html:
"NPR is a private, self-supporting media organization
that receives no direct federal funding for general
support." NPR would have little credibility as an
independent, objective news source if it accepted fed
money. Joan Kroc left NPR $200 million in her will,
so they're doing fine financially without government
support.

I'm not interested in your position on gun policy, but
I love NPR and I think you have a responsibility to
tell the truth to the readers of your blog. I think
you should offer a correction in your blog to reflect
the fact that taxpayer money does not fund NPR
"anti-American endeavors."

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Here was my reply to him:

NPR receives part of it's funding ($57 million just a few years ago) from the Corporation For Public Broadcasting. The CPB receives hundreds of millions of dollars per year from the federal government. You can read that in the CPB mission statement here:

link

"By law, 95 percent of the funds allocated to CPB go directly to benefit viewers and listeners, either through Community Service Grants (CSGs) to stations or programming grants to producers or other station-related activities.
[...]
"The balance of funds supports operations and programming to public radio (which totals $57.1 million for FY 1999), education service grants (ESGs), copyright fees, education activities, training, planning and research, and CPB’s administrative costs and system support."

And their whining [press release from CPB] about budget cuts here:

link

"[Note to editors and reporters: Today, the U.S. House Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Subcommittee agreed to the President’s budget proposal, which provides no new separate funding in FY 04 to public broadcasting for its digital transition or satellite interconnection. Instead, the Subcommittee opted to allow the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to spend up to $100 million (out of its $380 million 2004 general appropriation) to pay for these important priorities. CPB had requested $60 million in FY04 for digital conversion funds and $20 million in interconnection funds, and $410 million for FY 2006.

"Further, the Subcommittee approved only $330 million for CPB’s FY 2006 general appropriation, which if enacted would be a $60 million reduction from CPB’s FY 05 level ($390 million) and $80 million below CPB’s request for 2006."

You can read more here:

link

"The House Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection currently is considering a bill to authorize appropriations for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). H.R. 2384 seeks to increase the CPB's funding from the current fiscal year (FY) 1999 level of $250 million to $300 million for FY 2000 and $340 million for FY 2001 (an increase of 36 percent over FY 1999). And the bill would enable federal appropriations for the CPB to grow to as much as $475 million by FY 2002--a 90 percent increase over current funding levels. Moreover, H.R. 2384 would grant a one-time appropriation of $770 million over the next five years to assist the public broadcasting industry to transition into providing digital television.

"This stunning potential increase in the CPB's budget would amount to an unwarranted waste of tax dollars because the organization's mission is both obsolete and redundant. A broad array of competitors offers Americans nearly identical television program options. But this proposed hike in funding is surprising because, just four years ago, Washington seriously debated reforming and even privatizing the CPB. Instead of automatically increasing the budget of an agency whose services no longer are necessary, legislators should give serious consideration to ending all federal subsidies for a service adequately provided by the free market."

And if you consider the Heritage Foundation to be hopelessly conservatively biased, here's commentary from Slate:

link

"If media activists were serious about public broadcaster independence, they'd take this week's news as a cue to wean public television and radio from the federal government teat. CPB provided 15.3 percent of the $2.3 billion spent by public broadcasters in 2002, with 26 percent coming from station members "like you," 22.8 percent from businesses and foundations, and the remainder mostly from state and local governments and colleges and universities."

In the interests of "truth" I stand by my statements on Alphecca. By the way, the link you sent me below goes to a page not found...

Incidentally, the above is not even counting the support given to NPR by various state governments (such as the NY Council on the Arts, etc).

Best--

--Jeff

So NPR might get off the hook by claiming "no DIRECT federal funding" (emphasis mine) but if the CPB is receiving millions from the federal government and turning around and distributing millions of those dollars to NPR, then yes: NPR is being partially supported by taxpayer dollars and they have an obligation to represent all viewpoints in their broadcasts, not just the liberal elitists in this country. I stand by my statements and my condemnation of NPR. Bloggers ARE the truth-tellers of the new media!

What I'm Reading...

Yeah, I know, who gives a rat's... Still, it's my blog and I'll bore you if I want to. Actually, I've just put in ten straight days at work and am really looking forward to having tomorrow off. SO, I'm planning to dig into a pair of paperbacks that have been sitting on my shelf, unread, for several years. The Mote in God's Eye and The Gripping Hand, both by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. It's supposed to be rainy and dreary so I call that perfect reading weather. I hope your weekend is better. See you soon and thanks for stopping by!

Pity American Car Makers...

Not really, of course. I wrote about the problems GM and Ford were having a few weeks ago. Now, Individ has lots more to say about the situation. And I agree with him.

Can You Spell Football?

Not that you have to if you're a star athlete in the school systems of Georgia. DC Thornton reports on another reason our schools are a joke.

Thug Pulls Toy Gun -- Dies

And another mutant bites the dust. From Yahoo/AP:

DALLAS - A bank robber once dubbed "Cowboy Bob" because of her bearded male disguise was fatally shot by police Thursday after holding up a bank, fleeing police in a recreational vehicle and pulling a toy gun that officers thought was real.
[...]
Officers were trying to persuade her to surrender when she pulled what appeared to be a revolver, prompting four officers to open fire, Martin said.

Tallas was convicted of three counts of bank robbery in the early 1990s, Martin said. In what a judge at the time called "one of the most unusual cases I've ever seen," Tallas eluded authorities by posing as a Western-styled man, complete with fake beard, cowboy hat, sunglasses and cowboy duds.

She was sentenced to two years and nine months in prison in 1993 after pleading guilty to robbing a Mesquite bank, one of four she held up during a 10-month period.

Two things: First, with four convictions for armed robbery already under her belt, so to speak, why was she back out on the street?

Secondly, pulling a toy gun on four armed cops sounds like she was intentionally trying to commit suicide.

How's THIS For Logic...

Two years ago Brazil banned private citizens from owning handguns. Now comes THIS:

Venezuela and Brazil have the highest gun death rates in the world, according to a U.N. study released on Thursday in Brazil as the country's legislators considered a referendum to ban firearm sales.

Gun murders are the leading cause of death in Brazil, which ranked second only to Venezuela in gun murders out of 57 countries studied by the United Nations report.

In Venezuela, 22.15 people out of every 100,000 are murdered with guns, while 21.72 are killed in Brazil.

Those rates were higher than for Israel, which has an armed conflict with the Palestinians. At the bottom of the ranking was Japan with a rate of 0.06 people, according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ( UNESCO) study.

Brazil's Congress is considering a national referendum this year to ask whether the sale of arms should be prohibited in a country said to have the world's highest number of murders.

Let's see, the law-abiding can't own handguns. So only the criminals own handguns. Brazil then becomes the country with the highest gun murder rate in the world. So now they'll ban ALL guns. This could be a question on the SAT. And the answer would be: So now only the criminals will own any guns.

San Francisco take note!

Brady Bunch Fined

From Yahoo/AP:

WASHINGTON - A gun-control group and its political action committee have paid a $12,000 fine to settle a campaign finance case from the 2000 election.

At issue were ads and endorsements by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its Brady Voter Education Fund involving various Democratic candidates in 2000.

The American Conservative Union, in a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, accused the Brady organizations of making illegal corporate contributions to the Democrats' campaigns.

Granted, violations like that could happen to almost any large lobbying group. Still, I get some glee on reporting it...

St. Louis Ready to Arm...

St. Louis will finally start issuing concealed-carry permits. From the Jefferson City News-Tribune:

St. Louis residents will be able to apply for concealed weapons permits after Gov. Matt Blunt signs a bill aimed at fixing a flaw in Missouri's concealed guns law.

Senators gave final approval to the legislation Tuesday, and a Blunt spokesman pledged he would sign it into law.

The St. Louis sheriff's department plans to begin taking permit applications as soon as that happens, said Mike Guzy, administrative assistant to St. Louis Sheriff James Murphy.

St. Louis city and county are the only localities still not issuing permits more than 14 months after the Supreme Court upheld the legality of concealed guns. That ruling also said the law's funding mechanism could impose an unconstitutional, unfunded mandate on local governments.
[...]
Legislative supporters said the bill eliminates any legal wiggle room for counties to continue to refuse to issue the permits.

"It ends all the Supreme Court challenges, all of the objections that the chief law enforcement officers have," said Sen. Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau, an attorney who handled the bill.

The Senate passed the bill 29-3. The House passed the same bill 142-7 in March.

Because it contains an emergency clause, the bill will become law as soon as Blunt signs it, instead of on the state's traditional Aug. 28 start date for new laws.

The legislation passed Tuesday lets sheriffs use the money to cover all costs stemming from the concealed guns law, including the background checks and the employment of additional staff. If the $100 fee is not enough to cover the costs, the legislation allows sheriffs to apply for reimbursement from the state Office of Administration.

Good news for many in Missouri. No more excuses from St. Louis.

As I Said...

As I mentioned over the past weekend, we've been having our annual meetings at work so posting has been light around here. That will be over and I can get back to Important Gun Stuff here this weekend.

Wish I Were There

It looks like everyone had a great time at BoomerShoot 2005. You can read about it at Joe Huffman's blog. Just start scrolling. More at Kirk's and Kim du Toit's will be forthcoming, I'm sure. One day I'll have to get over my lack of travel desire...

ACLU Sides With Killer

As usual, the ACLU just doesn't get it. From the Times-Argus (VT):

A number of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International, are gearing up to protest the first death penalty trial in Vermont in almost half a century.

The protests will probably include picketing the federal court house in Burlington where the trial of Donald Fell will take place, leafleting and a letter-writing campaign, said Allen Gilbert of the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Two meetings are planned for next week, one in Montpelier and one in Burlington, to plan strategy, Gilbert said.

"We're trying to coordinate activists so we can help the public understand why capital punishment should not be an option in Vermont," Gilbert said. "There are many different ways to help get that message across."

Why are they gearing up now? Because the trial of Donald Fell is about to start. He's (along with a partner) the mutant who kidnapped a woman from a Rutland shopping center in 2000, drove her into New York State, and then, while she was kneeling at the side of a country road pleading for her life, shot her dead.

Fell's partner in the crime has since hung himself in his jail cell.

From the story:

Fell, and a co-defendenat Robert Lee, were arrested three days later in Arkansas driving King's car. Lee hanged himself in prison in 2001.

Fell is charged with carjacking with death resulting — a federal crime that carries the death penalty.

In 2002 the Justice Department decided to seek the death penalty against him.

The ACLU, which eschews defending civil liberties unless they involve foreign terrorists or cop killers, has now sided with Fell, believing that if found guilty, he should not be put to death.

Naturally, they were no where to be seen protesting the fact that Fell had deprived Teresca King of HER civil liberties by kidnapping her and then depriving her of her life -- the ultimate civil liberty for someone who obeys the law.

Then again, the ACLU also refuses to defend the civil rights of Americans to bear arms. Apparently they're very selective about which Bill of Rights amendments they are willing to support. That is why I never have nor will I ever be a card-carrying member.

Meanwhile in Maryland...

You'll be shocked -- SHOCKED I tell you -- to learn that a gun control group, CeaseFire Maryland, doesn't think there's enough gun control in the Old Line State. From WBAL:

A gun-control group says an important provision in Maryland's gun safety act has been gutted.

CeaseFire Maryland contends it happened over the past year because of a state board that regulates the sale of handguns. But a Maryland Handgun Roster Board official said the board has followed the law and based its decisions on expert opinions.

Maryland became the first state to require manufacturers to move toward selling handguns with gun locks integrated into the design in order to prevent accidental deaths in 2000.

Gun-control advocates claim the roster board's decision-making over the past few years increasingly reflects a slant toward gun-rights interests that has effectively eroded the law through a relaxed interpretation.

The law defines the locks as "integrated mechanical safety devices" that are "built into a handgun."

The authority to interpret the law rests with the 11-member board. The board consists of two law enforcement representatives, a state prosecutor, a National Rifle Association representative, a gun industry member, two engineers, a gun-control advocate and three citizen members.

Leah Barrett, executive director of CeaseFire Maryland, a gun-control advocacy group, said that the board has become ineffective.

"They have a very definite economic interest in watering down the law," Barrett told The (Baltimore) Sun. "We don't have an economic interest in this."

The board declined recently to review a decision made last year allowing a gun lock that gun-control advocates say should be restricted under the law.

During the meeting this past week, the board approved another similar device, as well as two small handguns that gun-control advocates say are too easily concealed.

And on and on. I think that integrated gun locks (what ever that means) are fine for someone who wants such a thing but requiring it is wrong for the following reason: A firearm kept as a defensive weapon MUST be at the ready. When you are suddenly confronted by some mutant, or you hear someone crashing into your home, you need a gun that is cocked and ready to rock. You may only have precious seconds (or less!) to bring that firearm to action and the last thing you need is to be fumbling with keys or "decoder rings" or any other "smart gun" nonsense. Or maybe your spouse is home alone and can't remember the combination to use the gun.

Look, if someone has young kids, sure, a gun safe or "integrated lock" might be the wise way to go. But that's a personal decision that shouldn't be state mandated. For folks like me who live alone, I don't want my gun rendered useless in an emergency. Has anyone thought about the fact that "smart guns" will require a battery and that batteries run-down? Usually just when you need them? (Try that old flashlight sitting in the kitchen drawer...)

Anyway, it seems to me that there is a good mix on the Maryland Roster Board Commission. Besides, would CeaseFire Maryland ever approve of ANY safety design?

Reminder!

As I mentioned in last week's "report", I have wall-to-wall meetings this week at work so posting will be light and there won't be a "Weekly Check..." tomorrow.

More on FL Castle Doctrine

Naturally the Washington Post jumps into the fray over the new law in Florida that allows people to defend themselves without being second-guessed:

Telling them that they need only feel threatened in a park or a hospital or a stadium or a domestic dispute to start pulling the trigger is tantamount to turning Florida into Dodge City.
[...]
Weapons sellers couldn't be happier. More work for morticians, too. And more danger on the nation's streets.

Where have we heard that before? I'm surprised they didn't drag out the old chestnut of "blood flowing in the streets" as well. Their expert on the whole business is, of course, the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and one disgruntled cop. They managed NOT to mention that several Florida associations of police and sheriffs either support the law or have no opinion of it. The fact that it [the bill] passed overwhelmingly would suggest that most of the state legislators feel that it IS a good law. I'm already bored of talking about it...

I guess Steve Otto of the Tampa Tribune feels the same way:

The new law says that any person ``has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm.''

That ought to do it. No more namby-pamby running and hiding down here in Florida.

If you fear for your life in your car, out on the street, sitting up there in the Little League stands, well, you don't have to back off any more.

Some guy cuts you off at the pass, or the interstate, just reach for that old peacemaker in the glove compartment and ``Blammo!'' he won't be messin' with you anymore.

Cutting To The Chase:

The truth is, the new law isn't going to turn Florida into the Old West any more than the old law was one that anybody paid much attention to.

The old law required citizens who were threatened to try and retreat if they felt threatened in their cars or at home.

Right.

Do you know anyone who would consider running away if someone holding a gun was standing in front of them?

If it's 3 o'clock in the morning and someone is fiddling with the bedroom window, is there anybody out there who isn't going to reach for Ol' Betsy and start blazing away, law or no law?

So are things going to change in October when the new rules kick in?

Probably not.

We'll see...

802 On the Move...

My friend Cathy Resmer has moved 802 Online to here. This is her blog about Vermont blogs and is a good jumping-off point for those looking to explore other VT bloggers.

Condolences

My condolences to the friends and family of Steve Harod, known as "Airboss". You can read more here and here.