Monday, November 9, 2009

Brady Campaign on Fort Hood shooting

From my column in Examiner.com

Never missing an opportunity to turn tragedy into a press release, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly Handgun Control, Inc., said the following:


"

When I heard of the tragedy yesterday, we were in the midst of planning a
response to the latest dangerous legislative proposal from the gun lobby in the
United States Senate - language to automatically restore access to guns to
veterans designated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Justice
Department as ‘mentally incapacitated' or ‘mentally incompetent.' In light of
what happened yesterday - a violent attack by an emotionally unstable soldier -
it is even clearer that the proposal being pushed by Senator Richard Burr of
North Carolina should be rejected.



Of course, the shooting at Fort Hood has nothing to do with Senator Burr's bill and the Brady Campaign knows it. They are referring to S. 669, the "Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act". We'll discuss Burr's bill in another installment.


Major Hasan, the alleged shooter at the Fort Hood massacre, is an active-duty soldier. His mental status is not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veteran's Affairs, which is what S. 669 addresses.



...make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal. -- Handgun Control's, Incorporated's Pete Shields



None of that stops the Brady Campaign from again turning a tragedy into a Press Release. As always, they play from Rham Emanuel's playbook and not let "a serious crisis go to waste."


The Brady Campaign's predecessor, Handgun Control's, Incorporated's Pete Shields told the New Yorker Magazine in 1976,


"... the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal."


The Brady Campaign has become more subtle in their rhetoric, but no different in their direction. It is just too bad they have to rely on tragedy to misdirect the public's eye.

Saturday, October 3, 2009

And Now McDonald

No, not the place with the Golden Arches.
The next piece of litigation that will be critical in continuing to protect our right to protect ourselves will be McDonald v Chicago. But first, a little background.

On June 26, 2008, in the Heller decision, the Supreme Court

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess
a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm
for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Prior to this ruling, the District of Columbia had a prohibition to handgun ownership. From the text of the Heller ruling:

The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possessionof handguns. It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited. See D. C. Code §§7–2501.01(12), 7–2502.01(a), 7–2502.02(a)(4) (2001). Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for 1-year periods. See §§22–4504(a), 22–4506. District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms, such as registered long guns, “unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device” unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities. See §7–2507.02.1

So as far as the DC was concerned, no handguns, and no working long guns anyhow. Parenthetically, they did not even allow law enforcement officers from surrounding jurisdictions to carry firearms off duty.
This ruling, however, only applied to the District of Columbia; this is where Mr. Heller lives and the District was named in the suit. The District of Culumbia is a Federal District (it is outside of the states of Virginia and Maryland from which it was carved).
Self protection activists have known that the next step was to return to the Supreme Court and have the Court rule through the 14th Amendment that the Second Amendment is incorporated, or applies, to the rest of the States.
On September 30th, the Supreme Court granted a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, which asks them to consider the question:

Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as
against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities or Due
Process Clauses.

Representing McDonald and the Second Amendment Foundation is Alan Gura, who successfully argued Heller before the Court.
Let us hope and pray that the Court incorporates the Second amendment through this litigation so that some of the legal impediments to our ability to protect ourselves and our families are removed.
In addition to prayer, I'm sure the Second Amendment Foundation would appreciate some financial help in their ongoing work. The Second Amendment Foundation is at http://saf.org/.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Let's Create New Criminals!

California, a great bastion of gun control and safe streets, has now come up with another absurd law that is an affront to all of us who are law-abiding gun owners, and can create criminals out of someone making what would be a legal purchase anywhere else.


Under the lovely name of the Anti-Gang Neighborhood Protection act of 2009, AB 962 makes the following requirements:




  • Ammunition may not be sold on shelving that is open to the public. The purchaser must be helped by a clerk to get the ammunition.


  • There must be a record of the following:


  • Date of sale


  • Purchaser's drivers license or other ID number


  • Brand, type, and amount sold


  • Purchaser's signature


  • Name of the salesperson


  • Right thumbprint of purchaser


  • Purchaser's full residential address and telephone number


  • Purchaser's date of birth

Now if the vendor does not follow this, they are subject to six months in jail and a fine of $1,000.


Now can anyone really expect to see a Blood, Crypt, or MS-13 member doing all that?


This is just another version of gun control. Kinda like dad saying you can buy a car, but I get to keep the keys.


If you live in California and you are interested, you might give the Govenator a call or drop him a note with your feelings about yet another attempt to leave you defenseless (remember that the police are not obligated to protect you -- Castle Rock v Gonzales).


Mr. Schwarzenegger is at:


Phone: 916-445-2841


Fax: 916-558-3160


E-mail: http://gov.ca.gov/interact



Monday, August 24, 2009

Arthur Frommer Boycotts Arizona Until Civil Rights are Restricted

In his travel blog, writer and travel guru Arthur Frommer is boycotting the State of Arizona until it is more restrictive of Civil Rights.

Frommer says, "I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest."

Friday, August 14, 2009

Gun Control, Health Care Control, and Crowd Control

John Longenecker, who writes the LA Gun Rights Examiner, has been writing a series entitled Socialized Medicine and the Loss of the Second Amendment. Like most of Longenecker's writing, it is very centered on libertarian thought and its relationship to the Second Amendment. Like most of his writing, it is very provocative.

Now intertwined with the health care debate we have a debate about the Second Amendment. As I wrote about recently, a New Hampshire resident recently was at a peaceful political gathering (still protected by the First Amendment, I think) carrying his handgun holstered, but open. This is all legal in New Hampshire.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC "interviewed" the gentleman (really just swore, yelled at, berated and belittled, but you can do that if you have your own network program). That interview is available on my previous post.

Now Matthews is the same person who thought that the Navy Seals shooting of the Somali Pirates was just "luck".....3 "lucky" shots....


Now comes Gail Collins writing in the New York Times "Gunning for Health Care" in which she not only vilifies gun owners, but feels that, perhaps New Hampshire law should be changed to her liking.

This is under the theory that as long as you know that the strange-looking guy waving the big protest sign is packing heat, you can take steps to protect yourself, perhaps such as purchasing a bulletproof vest from a nearby street vendor.
The Huffington Post, in reviewing the Matthews interview, refers to Kostric, the gentleman carrying the gun as "unrepentant". So I'm guessing that if we do or say something that Matthews or Huffington doesn't agree with we are now expected to "repent" -- to them? Does it not matter at all that, though they may not agree with it, Kostric did nothing illegal? No, not at all.

Joan Walsh in Salon.com has, in only 24 hours, has produced a number of pieces of "evidence" that portray Kostric
as a right-wing revolutionary. Walsh opens her piece by saying that Kostric, "brought a loaded gun to the town hall meeting".

Accuracy is such an annoying thing. Kostric wasn't at the town hall meeting. I think we all would question the judgment of a mere citizen showing up to a meeting with the President armed. He was on the street some distance away from the meeting. Again, what he did was perfectly legal, but it is much more fun to pillory him.

So what's the point?

Simple. Portray anyone with a gun as a nut case. Make it look like they belong to some right-wing group of crazies. Marginalize them.

It is much easier to disarm people if we can spin them as crazy and, undoubtedly, dangerous.

Clearly, in the eyes of these media writers, the First Amendment only covers freedom of the press, but it is a little more expansive than that. (Caution - the following is revolutionary in tone -- children, leave the room)

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Yes, it covers freedom of the press, but it also addresses the right of the people (that's you and me) to peaceably assemble and petition the Government, exactly what Mr. Kostric was doing. He's allowed to have political opinions different from others. Sadly, most of the media has forgotten that. More sadly, if one reads the comments of people on the sites of the articles I've referenced, many of the readers have forgotten that, too.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Chris Matthews and the "God Damn Gun"

One of the many news stories about the Town Hall meetings regarding the health care debate showed a picture of a protester open carrying. This took place in New Hampshire, where open carry is legal. The protester was quietly carrying a sign, was standing on private property, and had a holstered gun carried open at his side.

He was guilty of exercising his First Amendment right to petition the government and his Second Amendment right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Seems this doesn't sit well with Mr. Matthews.

Makes one wonder which Constitutionally-protected rights we can exercise without checking with Mr. Matthews.


Monday, August 10, 2009

A Little Mexican Drug War History

Here's a piece from Time Magazine in November of 2008. Seems at that time, the problem with the drug wars in Mexico was the widespread corruption of the police and military (which in Mexico are essentially interchagable).
Now, of course, the problem is the Americans and our guns. After all, 17% of those seized were from the US. Guess the historical widespread corruption disappeared?

In Mexico's Drug War, Bad Cops Are a Mounting Problem
Saturday, Nov. 22, 2008

By Tim Padgett with Dolly Mascarenas / Mexico City

Few rituals are more futile than the "housecleaning" of Mexico's police forces. So deep, broad and brazen is cop corruption south of the border that removing it makes eradicating rats from landfills look easy. Mexico stages quasi-annual purges of officers high and low — last year it was 284 federal police commanders — and yet every year the nation seems to find itself with an even more criminal constabulary. This year's scandals, however, are especially appalling.

Over the summer, President Felipe Calderón's antidrug czar, Noe Ramirez, resigned abruptly. The likely reason became apparent this week after Ramirez was detained by federal officials and accused of taking $450,000 to keep Mexico's most powerful narco mafia, the Sinaloa Cartel, informed about police antidrug operations. He is the highest-ranking government official to be nabbed in this year's anticorruption sweep. (See pictures of crime-fighting in Mexico City.)
But not the only one. Last month five top officials at the federal organized-crime task
force were collared for the same crime after being fingered by an informant who,
astonishingly, worked for both the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and the Sinaloa narcos. Days later federal police chief Gerardo Garay — whose predecessor, Edgar Millan, was murdered by narco hit men last May, allegedly with the aid of a federal cop — resigned after being linked to a Sinaloa capo. Mario Velarde, a top boss of the federal police force's antidrug unit and a former private secretary to Garcia Luna, was also detained this week, for leaking info to the narcos. Ramirez and all the accused deny the charges.

But as one federal security analyst says, it's no longer strange in Mexico's police purges "to see today's butchers become tomorrow's cows."
Mexico's real carnage, meanwhile, gets ghastlier by the day.
This year the nation has logged some 4,300 drug-related murders, and analysts fear that Mexico could double last year's record of 2,500. The spike in killing is largely
due to the war Calderón declared last year on the drug cartels. He has deployed
more than 25,000 federal army troops in the campaign, but the narcos have lashed
out with insurrection-style violence against a harrowing number of law-enforcement officials, from beat cops to top cops like Millan, as well as prosecutors and judges. The cartels, whose homicidal repertoire includes an orgy of beheadings, upped the terrorist ante in September when they allegedly threw grenades into a crowded plaza in Michoacán, killing eight people.
The cartels, which run a $25 billion-a-year trafficking industry in Mexico, have also intensified their campaign of co-opting police. Not that Mexico's woefully undertrained and underpaid cops are that hard a mark. But the relentless revelations of the breadth of the corruption — including allegations that officers under Mexico's Public Security Minister, Genaro Garcia Luna, were involved in high-profile kidnappings — seem to make a mockery of Calderón's efforts to stamp it out. "This is Calderón's Iraq," says Sergio Aguayo, a security expert at the Colegio de Mexico in Mexico City. "He declared war against the cartels, but he wasn't prepared for the size of the threat the cartels turned out to represent." Many cases in the latest purge, which is indeed called Operation Housecleaning, are based on the testimony of an unidentified cartel informant in U.S. custody. Still, Calderón faces critics who worry the arrests are an attempt by the Mexican President to find scapegoats for his antidrug quagmire and secure U.S. antidrug aid.
The cartels' ability to infiltrate officialdom has grown so convincing that many Mexicans have trouble believing the government's assertion that a fiery Learjet crash this month on a busy Mexico City avenue — which killed Calderón's Interior Minister and de facto Vice President, Juan Camilo Mourino, and top security adviser Jose Luis Santiago Vasconcelos — was an accident and not narco sabotage. That dwindling public confidence has done nothing to help the Calderón administration fend off the effects of the global economic crisis. This year the Mexican peso has lost about a fifth of its value against the U.S. dollar.
That is all the more reason why the U.S. and the incoming Obama Administration need to lend Mexico, America's third largest trading partner, a more serious hand in reforming and professionalizing its police forces. This year Washington approved $400 million for Mexico's antidrug fight in 2009, part of a three-year aid package known as the Merida Initiative. But critics say the plan focuses too much on interdiction hardware like helicopters and not enough on software like an overhaul of Mexico's police and judiciary — especially higher pay for cops, many of whom earn a measly $5,000 a year, and the creation of more modern investigative units. Without it, Calderón will continue to rely on his army in this fight, but in the long run, armies make for lousy drug-interdiction forces.
The police woes should also prompt the U.S. to take its own culpability for Mexico's narco-calamity more seriously. Even U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza this week took issue with Washington's complacency about curbing gringo demand for cocaine and the smuggling of Yanqui guns to Mexican drug gangs. "The truth is, Mexico would not be at the center of cartel activity, or be experiencing this level of violence," Garza said in San Antonio, "were the U.S. not the largest consumer of illicit drugs and the main supplier of weapons to cartels."

Traveling in Chile this week, Calderón insisted that his government "is strongly committed to fighting against not only organized crime but the corruption that organized crime generates and that has become entrenched over years and perhaps decades in the structures of power." It would seem that he made good headway this week. But as those years and decades have all too often shown in Mexico, the corruption usually gets generated at a far greater rate than any government can keep up with.

Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1861296,00.html
Copyright © 2009 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in
part without permission is prohibited.