The Fort Hood shooting - could it happen here?

From my Examiner.com piece:

There is an ongoing discussion of the detection, motives and profile of Major Hasan, the accused gunman in the Fort Hood shooting. As often happens, once the person has been identified, a look into his or her background shows many indicators that might have pointed to their future actions. E-mail, blogs and chat rooms postings all make sense now....if only......

What rarely gets discussed is that the victims were made defenseless in "Gun Free Zones."

There's a history of mass murder in "Gun Free Zones".

Now at first glance, the concept of a gun-free zone makes sense -- put up a sign and people will heed.

For the concept to make sense, you'd have to accept that someone bent on mass destruction is going to be stopped by a "No Trespassing" sign.

For the concept to make sense, you'd have to accept that someone bent on mass destruction is going to be stopped by a "No Trespassing" sign. Not surprsingly, this hasn't worked out well.

The shooter at Fort Hood elected to use the Soldier Readiness Center for his attack rather than the rifle range, the police or headquarters building. Is it surprising that the Readiness Center is a place where firearms are not allowed and the rifle range or headquarters buildings involve soldiers with guns? Shouldn't be.

There's a history of mass murder in "Gun Free Zones".

• In 1987, at the Luby's Cafeteria in Texas, a gentleman drove his truck into the window of the cafeteria and proceeded to kill 23 people. At the time, restaurants in Texas were Gun Free Zones.


• Columbine High School was a Gun Free Zone.


• Virginia Tech was a Gun Free Zone.

Gun Free Zones just don't work.

Fort Hood, like the bases in the Puget Sound, Fort Lewis, McChord Air Force Base, do not allow people to be armed. What better people to allow themselves to be armed to protect themselves. Soldiers in the field are armed around the clock. They litteraly live with their guns, yet when at home they aren't allowed to have them.

Despite the futility of "Gun Free Zones", Seattle Mayor Nickels is establishing them in parks in the city. He is doing this despite the State Attorney General's opinion that he does not have the authority under Washington States preemption law.

This is a policy that needs to be eliminated not only on military bases other public buildings, and **gasp** colleges and university. It will make us all safer.

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.

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/.

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

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."

Of course, what he is referring to is a few people doing open carry while they were at a political protest near (but not in) President Obama's visit with the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Whether or not the people carrying openly was meant as a "means of political protest" or just how these people, like many others, choose to protect themselves is not clear.

"The continued tolerance of extremists carrying guns is a frightening development which strikes at the heart of the political process and endangers the ability to carry out a reasoned debate," Frommer contends.

Acceptance of people exercising their First Amendment rights to petition the government and their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms does, indeed, strike at the heart of the political process. It is the heart of the political process. Frommer and others' hoplophobia should not be allowed to shape the debate.

The debate that the people were engaging in was about health care reform and what shape it would take.

The debate that Frommer and others want to have is about restriction of Civil Rights.

If Frommer feels that extortion of a State until it restricts its citizens Civil Rights is appropriate, it says more about Frommer than those carrying the guns.

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....

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

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.

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.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy