Linn County Sheriff Gardner’s Comments
Back when Linn County was having an election for Sheriff, Brian Gardner wanted members of IFC (then known as Iowa Carry) to know that he was the right choice for the citizens of the county who wanted to see their firearms rights protected and restored. But in a perfect example of how quickly things can change, and exactly why NONE of our rights should EVER be subjected to the whims of any elected official, here is Sheriff Gardner talking to KGAN about the recent push to tighten up Iowa’s preemption law through HF 2114:
“When we no longer have the ability to control weapons from going into that building, it lessons the security and could potentially make it more dangerous,” said Linn County Sheriff Brian Gardner.
“It just seems to be too much too soon,” Gardner said. “Wisdom would say take a step back and see what happens here before you make all these changes.”
Does this sound like someone who cares about your right to self-defense? Or does it sound like a Sheriff who wants to make sure that he and his staff are the “only ones” who can safely carry a firearm in buildings owned by the public in Linn County?
You decide.
Oh, and by the way Sheriff… here’s a little insight on what’s happened in the past 13 months since Iowa went to a shall-issue system, also under your protests:
Nothing.
Thank you for your support.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. “Share” the posts on Facebook and Google+, “RT” them on Twitter, and submit them to StumbleUpon. All of that will help spread the word! Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
HF 573 Passes Committee
On a 14-7 vote, HF 573 passes in the House Public Safety Committee. More information can be found on my Examiner page. This is great news for all Iowans who have a desire to protect themselves from harm!
Interesting NPR Article
I’m not usually a fan of NPR. They suck down taxpayer money, and they seem to lean a bit more to far to the liberal side of reporting for my comfort. However, I did notice an interesting article today on their website titled “Law-Abiding Mexicans Taking Up Illegal Guns.” The article discusses the increase in firearms ownership among Mexicans who are seeking a way to protect themselves from the rampant wars between rival drug cartels, and in some cases, corrupt law enforcement and military personnel. It seems that the Mexicans understand that to level the playing field, they need to protect themselves with weapons that will offer them some level of protection other than pitchforks and shovels. And they don’t seem to care that owning firearms is illegal, even though it is protected in the Mexican Constitution.
Imagine that. Citizens wanting to protect themselves and ignoring a federal mandate that goes against their constitution. Sounds a little like a country to their north.
Of course the hoplophobes get their fears mentioned in the article:
Basilio Sabata Salaices is the mayor of the municipality where Colonia LeBaron is located. “Here, guns are very restricted,” he says. “But I see in the U.S. many things happen because youth don’t know how to use guns. I don’t think we should make it easier to possess a weapon, as in the U.S.”
Unfortunately, some youths in the US are injured or killed every year because they do not know how to use a firearm. But is that their fault, or is it the fault of adults who do not keep their firearms secured when they are not on their hips and the fault of society in general that has stigmatized firearms into being evil things that should not be taught about? My kids all know how to use firearms and they know the cardinal rules of firearms safety. I do not fear for them handling a firearm. It’s about education.
“There are lots of Mexicans who have never shot a gun,” he says. “It could be dangerous putting a gun in the hands of an inexperienced person; we could hurt someone.”
It could also be dangerous putting a hammer into the hands of an inexperienced person. Or a knife. But we don’t fret about that. Most self-defense situations occur at arms length. If someone cannot hit a human sized target 3 feet away with any of the standard firearms on the market today, there’s a bigger problem at work. Furthermore, someone who buys a gun will shoot it. Nobody buys a gun for self-defense to just look at it.
Towns that have stepped up and taken on the responsibility of providing for their own safety have seen a decrease in attacks from cartels. Should that be surprising? Of course not! Cartel members are not stupid, and they don’t want to die any more than anyone else. They know that if they can go into a town and bully the residents into capitulation, they will have their way; but if they go into a town that is armed and ready to defend what is theirs, they will go somewhere else and spread their violence.
That’s just the way it works, and it looks like Mexicans are starting to realize that.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. “Share” the posts on Facebook and Google+, “RT” them on Twitter, and submit them to StumbleUpon. All of that will help spread the word! Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
SJR 2001 Passes Committee Vote
The Iowa Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee just passed SJR 2001. This is the legislation that will overturn the DNR’s lead shot ban during dove season. More information to follow this evening on my Examiner page. Next stop – the full Senate.
Guns in the Workplace
Up in Indianapolis, a Kroger’s manager is being hailed as a hero by some for his actions during a robbery attempt. Elijah Elliott, the 24-year old manager of the Kroger’s store, shot and killed a would be robber, Jeremy Atkinson, after Atkinson placed a “hard object” against the back of another employee and forced her into an office with the intention of robbing the store. Atkinson is a career criminal. He was jailed for the armed robbery of a Subway store in 2009, and was already in a work-release program. He escaped from the work-release program and was on the run when his robbery attempt was foiled by Elliott, and the career criminal was removed from the gene pool.
I was reading a story about the incident and the potential to throw the whole “guns in the workplace” debate back into turmoil up in Indiana, and I noticed a few things that were interesting.
Kroger spokesman John Elliott confirmed that the company does have a gun policy but would not discuss its contents. Media reports have indicated that the company handbook expressly forbids employees from bringing firearms to work.
As do most companies. Yet, here we have a prime example of why employees should be allowed to defend themselves while at the place that most spend 1/3 of their waking hours. How many examples do we have of employees bringing a firearm to work for self-defense purposes and then using it negligently to injure or kill innocent bystanders or co-workers? We do have many examples of employees bringing firearms to the workplace in order to exact revenge on a co-worker or a supervisor, but that is not carrying for self-defense. That is carrying – and using – a firearm in the commission of a crime. What I want to see from the anti-gun crowd is a hard set of statistics that shows how dangerous it is to carry a properly holstered firearm in a place of business. Do we have records of these guns going off spontaneously? Do we have incidents where these guns are used in a reckless or negligent manner? I didn’t think so.
Records suggest Elliott at one time had a carry permit for a gun, but it’s uncertain whether that’s still the case because lawmakers recently changed the law to make such information confidential.
As it should be. It is nobody’s business who carries a firearm for self-defense. In fact, everyone should have the responsibility to defend him or herself. If you choose not to do so, that’s your own business.
Under Indiana law, Kroger is allowed to decide whether to let employees bring guns to work. And if an employee breaks a company rule, Kroger is under no legal obligation to discipline or fire him — or to make its decision public.
So Kroger’s is free to set its own policies and doesn’t have to make them public? Sounds like a privately held company. Just as it’s nobody’s business who carries a firearm, it’s nobody’s business what Kroger’s decides to do here. If they fire Elliott, we’ll all find out soon enough. Kroger’s employees will know what’s happening too, and at some point, word will get out.
The problem, Indianapolis lawyer Michael Blickman said, is that not disciplining Elliott would open the door for some legal risk in the future.
Hogwash.
Gun owners aren’t necessarily trained in how to deal with dangerous situations. If another employee one day fires a gun and accidentally hurts an innocent person, the company could become liable if it’s thought to be permissive about weapons in the workplace, said Blickman, a partner in the labor and employment group at Ice Miller.
This is easy to resolve. All of us who carry a firearm for self-defense understand the responsibility of what we choose to do. If we use a firearm to defend ourselves, we are solely and wholly responsible for every bullet that comes out the end of our gun. Written on each piece of copper-jacketed lead I carry is my name, and I need to be able to defend the use of each one. If I use my gun in a way that someone innocent is hurt or killed, I better have a damn good explanation for it, and I must also be prepared to suffer the consequences. Carrying a firearm is an awesome responsibility. But you cannot punish people for something that might happen, which is the situation we find ourselves in now. We are not allowed to carry firearms at our workplaces because we might use one to injure or kill someone innocent, and our employer might be liable for it. But instead of addressing that problem specifically, blanket policies get made that in the end solve nothing. In the case of this incident, would Kroger’s have been happy with one or two dead employees if things had turned out that way?
Companies can very easily change their policies to allow employees to bring firearms to work, with the stipulation that all firearms must remain secured in their holsters at all times. That’s proper firearms safety. Any deviation would result in swift and harsh disciplinary actions, and any reckless or negligent use of a firearm that causes injury or death of someone becomes the sole responsibility of the employee involved. You cannot allow lax firearms safety rules, because that’s how people get injured or killed. But you can allow employees to defend themselves, so long as the correct policies are in place.
Kroger has to be wondering whether coming down hard on the employee could lead to a boycott, Blickman said — or worse. “What if there’s an organized effort by the NRA?”
There doesn’t have to be an organized effort by the NRA. Word is already circulating in the pro-gun circles. While the NRA could certainly help, enough grass-roots groups can get behind a boycott initiative to make a difference too.
“I would hope that employers would recognize that their employees have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” Tomes said. “If they chose a policy that jeopardizes any of those, they have to accept the responsibility.”
Correct. Companies need to be responsible for their policies. I’ve long been an advocate that if someone is injured or killed in a workplace situation where having a firearm may have made a difference in the outcome, and none were available due to a “company policy,” the company should be held liable for their policy of effective disarmament and failure to provide protection. Companies cannot have it both ways. They cannot hide behind the “liability” argument to keep firearms out of the workplace, then hide behind it again when something bad happens that could have been prevented.
On the other hand, not all shoppers would feel entirely comfortable if they thought the produce guy might be a wanna-be Wyatt Earp.
Ah yes, we need to get the requisite “wild west” comment in. No good gun-rights story is complete without it. Here’s a tip for the journalists who think they need to add a line like this… don’t, because it doesn’t hold water. Shoppers go about their business everyday in stores and malls with people who carry firearms, and nothing bad happens. Most carry the firearms concealed. In some states, they even carry them openly, because that’s allowed and it’s a right. Those who would be uncomfortable with the “produce guy wanting to be a Wyatt Earp” do not understand the reasons why we choose to carry, and they are probably the same people who would cower down in front of an attacker and be happy to give the bad guy anything he wanted – including an innocent life.
Here’s an interesting angle for a story that I bet we won’t get to see. The woman who was taken hostage at the beginning of this incident… was she someone who has been traditionally pro-gun or not? How does she feel about them now that one was used to successfully defend her life? How about her family members? Are they happy that she’s around to see another sunrise?
Atkinson was someone who should not have been back on the streets. He committed an armed robbery two years ago, and yet he was already in work release. He proved that he could not be trusted in public by going back to his criminal ways, and he has now been permanently removed from society thanks in no small part to someone who believed that the ability to defend himself and a co-worker was a higher priority than keeping his job. It will be interesting to see if Kroger’s feels the same way, or if they will take some sort of disciplinary action against Elliott.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. “Like” or “Share” the posts on Facebook, “RT” them on Twitter, and “+1″ them on Google+. All of that will help spread the word! Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
Sheriff Conard Changes His Tune
The Des Moines Register published an article today called ‘Unbelievable’ rise in weapons permits. The article talks about the meteoric rise in the number of Iowa Permit to Carry Weapons (PCW) that have been issued in 2011. As most of my readers know, 2011 is the first year of Iowa’s new “shall issue” law, where Sheriffs were forbidden from applying extra standards over and above what the state requires in order to obtain a PCW. In fact, some Sheriffs simply refused to issue a PCW at all.
In the article, Scott County Sheriff Dennis Conard is interviewed:
Scott County Sheriff Dennis Conard, who has seen a 570 percent increase in permits, said few problems have cropped up despite more Iowans having handgun permits.
He believes people who qualify for a permit are not likely to cause trouble.
“I didn’t expect any problems with the people who qualify, with the gun law or anything else,” Conard said.
This is the same Sheriff Conard who originally required residents in his county to have security, corrections, law enforcement, or military experience; have a membership in a gun club, a collectors organization, or other organization like the NRA; familiarity with firearms and their use; and other factors that demonstrate responsibility in obtaining a PCW. Basically, Sheriff Conard was asking his residents to jump through additional hoops in order to prove their ability to carry a firearm in public. Now that the law has changed and the Sheriff is unable to make these requirements stick, he believe that people who qualify for a permit are not likely to cause trouble. The interesting thing is that the requirements prior to 2011 are not substantially different than the requirements after 2011. Iowa simply removed the ability for Sheriffs to inject their own set of requirements or standards into the process. What’s even more fascinating is that Scott County has seen a 570% increase in permits. This is clearly an indication that there was a great deal of pent-up demand in his county for something that his residents were not able to get otherwise.
But now, there are no problems.
The doom and gloom predicted by the vast majority of Iowa’s Sheriffs has not come to pass. We did not hear about law enforcement officers spending countless hours chasing down calls of “man with a gun” or taxing investigators with shootouts over traffic accidents or parking spaces. We did not hear about criminals or “shady characters” getting their permits and then going out to commit a crime. We did not hear about law enforcement officers finding themselves in more dangerous or deadly situations due to the increased number of permits issued. What we did hear about was a huge increase – 170% according to the Register’s article – of Iowans exercising their right to obtain a PCW.
Many legislators and law enforcement leaders fail to learn from history. They rehash the emotional side of the issue, propagated by The Brady Bunch, claiming that it’s insane to allow citizens to carry guns in public. What they fail to learn is that these fears have never been realized. There is no documented case of more liberal gun laws leading to problems, and there is no firearms law in place today that has ever prevented a crime from being committed.
As we draw near to the start of the second half of the 2011-2012 legislative session, here’s to hoping that as Iowans, we will come even closer to living out our state motto:
Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. “Like” or “Share” the posts on Facebook, “RT” them on Twitter, and “+1″ them on Google+. All of that will help spread the word! Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
Potential Nonsense
The Orlando Sentinel published an editorial today that shows just how far down the path some of our fellow citizens have gone with the hysteria of firearms being “potential” devices of death and destruction.
This bill would add to that list state, local and county government offices. And, most important, child-care facilities. It’s hard to imagine that Florida law would allow someone to take a concealed weapon into a day-care center given the likelihood that such a setting could become the scene of an emotional custody domestic between parents.
It hard to believe that any state – Florida included – would allow someone to operate a device that in all likelihood could create a scene of horrific injury or death. Especially when one considers how many other things people do these days while behind the wheel of their 2 ton death machines on wheels, also known as the family car.
If the hodler of a concealed weapons permit can leave his piece in the car while visiting an elementary school he certainly can do the same when entering day-care. Same goes for City Hall, where a permit or tax dispute could leave public servants vulnerable.
Don’t know about hodlers of concealed weapons, but I do know about holders. (Sorry, I had to poke fun at that. I make typos too, but I’m just me. I don’t have an editorial staff that should be checking what I produce before it gets published.)
Piece? What piece? A hair piece? A piece of meat?
The safest place for a firearm is not left alone in the car, unless it is locked securely in a safe. Plus, in most states, it’s illegal to leave your firearm (not your “piece”) in the car when you’re at a school. Iowa is one of them. (And that is something that needs to be changed.) There is no difference in a person between the time that he or she is outside of a school or a day care center versus when that person crosses the imaginary line and comes on the property. All the editors of the Orlando Sun (and the rest of their anti-liberty followers) want to do is punish you for something that MIGHT happen when a criminal, who won’t pay attention to the rules or laws, carries a firearm on the property anyway and uses it illegally to intimidate, injure, or kill someone.
Once again, we have an attempt at justifying the removal of rights based on “public safety.” You cannot do it, no matter how hard you try.
It is a good thing that people like this were not the ones who traveled west and settled this country. We would still be bottled up in the original 13 colonies.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. “Like” or “Share” the posts on Facebook, “RT” them on Twitter, and “+1″ them on Google+. All of that will help spread the word! Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
You Knew This Was Coming
I just saw a press release from none other than our anti-liberty, anti-freedom, socialist loving Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). As a follow up to the Point, Fire, Click! report that came out last week, the good Senator from NJ has teamed up with a cadre of freedom hater Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL), Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Carl Levin (D-MI), John F. Kerry (D-MA), Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) in sending a letter to the owners of Craigslist telling them that the company needs to do more to keep guns off their classified pages.
This paragraph from their letter was especially highlighted on the press release:
“It is clear that the self-policing methods currently used by Craigslist are insufficient,” the Senators wrote. “Of all the websites investigated by the report, including websites specifically targeting gun buyers, Craigslist sellers sold guns to people they should have reasonably believed were prohibited purchasers at the highest rate – 82 percent of the time. This number is alarming, to say the least.”
In other words… we don’t care what the people want. Craigslist is a self-policed forum where caveat emptor is the slogan of the day. So long as buyers and sellers are not trafficking illegal or stolen items, there is no reason that any particular item cannot be sold there. Firearms included. Here in Iowa, it is a law that purchasers of a handgun (only) have in their possession a Permit to Carry or a Permit to Acquire. Other than that, there’s no reason I shouldn’t be able to go to Des Moines Craiglist and find a gun there.
But I usually can’t because CL prohibits it, and if a listing is found, it is subject to removal by the community. Sometimes.
Furthermore, what is “reasonably believed?” What is reasonable to one person is not to someone else. ”Reasonable” is a subjective term. I reasonably believe that the list of Senators at the start of this post are anti-American and couldn’t properly interpret, describe, or defend any part of the Constitution of the United States. Furthermore, I doubt that any of them have taken the time to actually read and understand that document. But they would disagree with those statements, even though I find them to be “reasonable.”
You knew this was coming. Once this group of freedom hating politicians latched on to the biggest potential scapegoat, they were going to come with (pardon the pun) both barrels blazing. I feel sorry for Craigslist. If they choose to exercise their rights to tell these Senators to take a long walk off a short pier and keep their collective noses out of CL’s business, they will likely find themselves on the wrong end of a smear campaign that only the Brady’s and their lackeys could put together.
Perhaps it’s time to take action and ignore CL’s ban on firearm classified. Take a vow that if you see a firearm listed for sale on CL, you will NOT report it as a violation of their terms of use. Show CL that we are not going to back down, and instead, we will back them. Maybe they will even revise their Terms of Use and actually allow firearms sales again someday.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. “Like” or “Share” the posts on Facebook, “RT” them on Twitter, and “+1″ them on Google+. All of that will help spread the word! Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
The Brady Bunch Needs You
A few days ago, I received an e-mail alert from the States United to Prevent Gun Violence. For those who are unaware, the SUPGV is just lipstick on the pig otherwise and formerly known as The Brady Campaign (or as I like to call them, “The Brady Bunch”).
Here’s the part I found interesting. From the e-mail:
You have already heard from us about the important support SUPGV provides to state gun violence prevention groups across the country. Through our donors’ generosity we’re more than a third of the way towards our goal of raising $10,000!
So if my grade school education is still working well (and I did have to learn simple math facts by rote memory, unlike today’s kids), that means SUPGV has managed to raise a whopping $3,333+ for their drive to spread the word about the atrocities of guns, gun ownership, and the carrying of “hidden guns” out in public.
Do you think they’re getting the message yet? Doubtful. But the message is clear. They are simply not finding the support to advance their agenda. They have trouble raising $10,000 as a national organization. State gun-rights orgs easily raise that money in a year. National gun-rights orgs easily spend that much money on a single campaign.
If the public was truly interested in SUPGV’s mission, they’d have an easier time milking their supporters for cash. That fact that they just can’t seem to get spending money should tell them all they need to know.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. “Like” or “Share” the posts on Facebook, “RT” them on Twitter, and “+1″ them on Google+. All of that will help spread the word! Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
ATF Seeking Gun Control
In what should be a huge surprise to exactly nobody (except for the Geico cavemen who have been living under their rocks), proof has been produced that shows the true nature of Fast & Furious. Drum roll please…..
Gun control.
Take a look at this post over on the Big Government website. Open the copy of the memo they have posted.
Then, judge for yourself.
It’s astounding to me that mainstream media continues to basically ignore this scandal. The lovefest they have for Comrade Obama and his regime is beyond belief. It’s been a year since US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed, and still, nobody is being held accountable.
I would say that I’m perplexed as to how some of these administrators sleep at night, but those who are evil have no conscience, so that must be how they do it.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. “Like” the posts on Facebook, “RT” them on Twitter, and “+1″ them on Google+. All of that will help spread the word! Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
Point, Click, Fire!
This almost sounds like something you’d do at your local range, right? Well, hopefully not the “click” part. That’s always a bad sound at the range. Point, Click, Fire is the heading for the latest piece of drivel to come out of the notorious Mayors Against Illegal Guns, headed by none other than our good friend, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
According to this new report, MAIG claims that 62% of private firearms sellers agreed to sell a gun to a buyer that “probably couldn’t pass a background check.” This figure is based on an investigation conducted by 15 investigators, spread out over 21 states, and conducting 125 transactions over 14 days on 10 websites. The investigators discovered a shocking truth: just because federal law prohibits the sale of firearms to anyone who is a “prohibited person” doesn’t mean that private citizens will actually abide by that law.
In other words (and I hope you are sitting down for this part), the laws kept honest people honest, and those who would break the law did so. There is no law written that will prevent a crime from being committed. Laws punish those who act in an illegal manner, and the threat of punishment helps some people stay on the right course. For others, no amount of threats will deter their illegal actions. They will break the law and commit acts of crime due to any number of reasons (opportunity, revenge, personal gain, or even entertainment).
Bloomie and his crew believe that it’s time to toughen up. According to their report, we need to have stricter laws in place, and then enforce them. All of this Internet gun selling is killing people out there. Folks who shouldn’t have guns are getting them because some sellers don’t take the time to check someone’s background when selling a gun.during the course of a private transaction. The vast majority of the country does not regulate the private sales of firearms, and that’s leading to illegal gun sales and prohibited individuals owning guns.
During a private transaction between two citizens in a state where the sale is not regulated, how is the seller actually supposed to check the background of the buyer? Additionally, in the course of this investigation, the buyers admitted to “probably” not being able to pass a background check. Bloomie believes that should have instilled enough doubt in the mind of the seller to stop the sale. But how is the seller supposed to verify the information? Perhaps it would be best to err on the side of caution, as 38% of the sellers did. Apparently the 62% who failed the test believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. What an interesting concept. Or the 62% believe that the concept of liberty means that someone is punished for a crime that is committed – not for the possibility of a crime to be committed at a later date.
Or perhaps the 62% believe that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I still don’t know what is so hard to understand about those four words, but the liberals among us seem to have a difficult time translating them.
Here’s a fundamental question that I like to ask people when we talk about firearms, crime, and criminals. If someone is tried and convicted of a felony, and the person does his time in prison – thus paying his debt to society – and is then released to live among us, is his life worth any less than yours? Does that person have the fundamental, God-given right of self-defense like you do? If not, why not? If so, is it right to deny that person the most effective way to defend his life?
I would surmise that Bloomie and his crew have never heard or considered the fact that those who cannot be trusted with guns shouldn’t be in public in the first place. Unless they are ready to assign a custodian to every prohibited person in America, no law they propose will have the desired effect.
The report also assigned a great deal of the blame to the Internet sites Craiglist, Glock Talk, Gunlistings.org, KSL.com, and Armslist – all of which failed by 50% or more. They contrasted this to eBay, which allows no firearms sales at all, and hence, has no illegal sales to worry about. The contrast is notable, but not for the reason that Bloomie wants to use. It’s notable because sites like Craigslist depend on the public to flag what is inappropriate and undesirable in their classifieds. eBay depends on their staff to determine what is acceptable. So essentially, you have a libertarian site (Craigslist) vs. a tyrannical site (eBay). Which one most follows the ideals of how this country was founded?
In the end, this is all more emotional heart-tugging fluff that will certainly make the Brady Bunch proud. I will not refute the statistics in the report, but I will refute their meanings. When we, as a society, choose to ignore laws that are in place – even under the guise of “public safety” – then perhaps it should be time to reconsider why those laws are actually in place. Liberty means freedom from government interference. Criminals will find a way to get guns, no matter what laws are in place at any given time. The right answer is not to tighten the screws on the public at large, but rather, to punish those who use firearms illegally or recklessly, and to keep locked up those who simply cannot be trusted to walk among us if there is a fear of them obtaining a gun.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
Friday Morning Ruminations
I had two things to contemplate this morning on the way into work.
The first one is a story that’s probably been seen by everyone, and undoubtedly has strong reactions on both sides of the gun rights debate. Four years after Seung-Hui Cho went on a killing spree at Virginia Tech, the school was rocked yet again by tragic deaths at the hands of an unstable man with a firearm. Of course, the Brady Bunch will point to the need for even more gun control laws as a result of this most recent attack. But it is already illegal to possess a firearm on campus. Truth be told, it was illegal to possess a firearm on campus in 2007, too. So with that in mind, will tougher gun laws solve anything? The dirty little secret that the anti-gun side never seems to acknowledge is that firearms free zones have never, ever worked. Chicago, DC, Maryland, New Jersey, California, NYC – all are examples of places that treat firearms like nasty, evil objects – some being banned outright. In spite of their draconian anti-firearm laws, all of them continue to see problems with gun violence.
I don’t want any of my readers to connect the dots into thinking that I believe that allowing firearms on campus would have prevented yesterday’s tragedy. I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that laws which prohibit the owning, possession, or carrying of firearms cannot and will not stop bad things from happening. The liberal anti-gun side of the equation will not admit that fact, and if presented with it during a debate, they will shift the focus elsewhere. That’s a fact that they cannot refute.
I do believe that laws and rules to prohibit good people from keeping and bearing arms simply because they’ve crossed over an imaginary line on the ground – whether it be a park, forest, school, government property, hospital, airport, or any other type of property – is insane. The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Gun laws have been passed and strengthened time and again since the early 1900′s. Yet nothing changes. Bad guys still get their guns, while citizens (and law enforcement officers) suffer the consequences. So who are the insane one? Those who believe in supporting liberty, or those who believe that liberty should be trampled on in the name of “public safety?”
–
While thinking about all that on the morning drive, Rush Limbaugh had a quick story about the Department of Justice sending Alabama police and Sheriff departments a stern letter telling them not to enforce their new anti-immigration laws on Hispanics, or they would face a cut-off of federal funding. Rush went on to say the Alabama police chiefs and Sheriffs should write back asking the DoJ if they were ever going to come clean in their own house, with things like Fast & Furious or the Black Panther scandal.
I have a better idea. The police chiefs and Sheriffs should write back and say “thanks but no thanks.” When you become dependent on handouts from Big Brother, you immediately allow the Fed to tell you what to do and how to run your department. If Alabama law enforcement offices stop being on the Federal dole, DoJ would lose the ability to carry that stick and beat people with it.
Answering the DoJ letters with admonitions to get their own act together will solve nothing at all. The DoJ, led by Comrade AG Holder, has no conscience. They are part of a Federal machine that has grown too large, and has lost sight with the concepts of liberty and freedom. To them, along with their lap dogs the TSA, you and I are guilty until proven innocent. As long as the Alabama Sheriffs and police chiefs (and law enforcement offices across the country) accept money from the DoJ, or any other Federal entity, they cannot complain about having policy dictated to them. That’s common sense, and it’s time that they wake up and smell the coffee.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
Sanity in New Jersey
For the record, I hate Mondays. Especially Mondays that start out cold and grey, almost smelling like it wants to snow outside. I almost wish I enjoyed drinking coffee on days that look and feel like today.
So it was a breath of fresh air – even a glimmer of bright light, perhaps – to read a report out of the People’s Republic of New Jersey that highlighted some top law enforcement officials quoted as saying that the problem with gun crimes is not the guns but the criminals and the laws that don’t keep the criminals in jail.
Imagine that. Has sanity suddenly spread to The Garden State? (I know, don’t get carried away. Three police chiefs does not a wave make. But perhaps a ripple?)
Bridgeton Police Chief Mark Ott is of the opinion that no matter what is done to stop them, criminals will always be able to gain possession of a gun if they really want it.
“Here’s one way to look at it. If criminals can import tons of illegal narcotics into the country they can import tons of foreign firearms,” he said.
“People get what they want if they’re determined to get it. Kind of like the old phrase ‘Locks are for honest criminals.’”
You might want to read that again. It says exactly what you think it says. Honestly.
Because stopping firearms from coming into the county completely does not seem like a realistic goal, Haas, Ott and Gaimari agreed on one solution to reducing crimes committed with the guns if not the actual number of guns.
“I think the best method of protecting society from having someone commit a crime with a gun is to incarcerate that person for the maximum time allowed by law. Then you know for certain that person is not breaking into homes, they’re not committing armed crimes,” said Ott.
Punish those who use a firearm illegally, not those who carry and own firearms legally. What a concept! I bet the Brady Bunch is absolutely beside themselves over this story!
“Parents aren’t teaching their children how dangerous a weapon can be. What you will find are that most of the people committing these crimes do not have a good upbringing. Everybody wants police and the schools to take care of all the problems, but it’s a good parenting background that really does it.”
Totally unbelievable. Put parenting back into the equation. For too long, some parents have pushed the job of parenting off to the school system. The schools are NOT a substitute for parents! Schools need to teach our kids to read, write, and do arithmetic. Could this be a by-product of the welfare system, where some parents have kids just to collect the handout from the government and really don’t have the parenting skills (or even the least amount of care) to take care of the soul that they’ve placed on the planet?
Once again, we hear that guns do not commit the crimes. It’s the people who use them in an irresponsible or illegal manner that injure or kill others. That much is already known to those of us who are active in the gun rights movement. What’s nice to see for a change is the acknowledgement of that simple fact from deep inside the enemy lines. Here’s to hoping that common sense continues to spread in New Jersey.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
My Wish List
As we move from November into December, the start of the next legislative session is just around the corner. On the way into work, I heard a news story on WHO radio about an economic coalition making their “wish list” for the upcoming session known. So in the spirit of Christmas, here’s my wish list for the upcoming session.
For starters, we need to get the Right to Keep and Bear Arms on the Iowa Constitution. Iowa is one of only a few states that does not specifically address this right in the state Constitution. Since our sessions technically run for two years, and any attempt to get an amendment added to the Iowa Constitution takes a vote in two separate session, an even number year is the time to do this. Getting a vote in 2012 could be followed by a vote in 2013 (which would be the “next” session, as we’re still technically in the 2011/2012 session right now) is the most expedient way to get the accomplished.
Next up would be taking care of the insanity we saw earlier this year when jurisdictions seemed to race each other to put unenforceable and illegal anti-gun bans in place. They were all going off a flawed opinion issued by Comrade AG Tom Miller back in 2004 and then updated (somewhat) at the end of 2010. It’s time for the elected officials under the gold dome in Des Moines to put an end to this once and for all, and reaffirm that firearms laws get promulgated at the state level. 724.7 and 724.28 specifically give that power to the state, not the local jurisdictions, and it’s high time to put some teeth in that. Holding local jurisdictions – and their elected officials – accountable both financially and perhaps even criminally for violating preemption would go a long way toward that goal.
Permit costs are another sore spot. The law specifically says that permits will cost $25 for renewals, and $50 for new issues. That doesn’t stop some counties from charging anywhere from $5 to $15 extra to cover “supplies and administrative” costs for issuing a permit on a plastic card as opposed to the blue slip of paper. Some, like my own county of Polk, don’t even give you the option of taking the blue paper for the price prescribed by the law! A fix for this would be pretty simple. Tweak the law to say that the costs are $25 and $50 respectively, period, with no extra “fees” allowed. It would be interesting to see if a class action lawsuit could be initiated against the counties that have been intentionally overcharging residents to get a refund. That would make them think twice about pulling stunts like that again.
An irritant for me this year was the fact that I was out of town when it was time to renew. I knew I couldn’t produce training docs from the previous 12 months, so I was going to have to get a new permit based on training I received previously. However, since I was going that route, I was forced to wait until I was inside the “30 day” window before my permit expired. Unfortunately, I was out of town for several days when that window opened, and since Polk County takes the better part of 3-4 weeks to issue a permit, I was concerned that I would not get the new permit in time before the old one expired. In the end, it worked out OK. But there’s no reason that someone couldn’t come in and ask for a new permit outside of the 30 day window. I’m not sure what the purpose was for making that distinction, but it really needs to go away. If I come in early to ask for a new permit, the Sheriff gets more money and I lose a few days or weeks off my permit. It’s a win situation for the Sheriff – so what’s the problem with allowing it?
“Stand Your Ground” legislation needs to be reintroduced. As a citizen, you should never be required to prove that there were other courses of action available to you before you decide to use deadly force to defend yourself or your family. If you can clearly articulate that you were in fear of your life – or the life of someone else – that should be the only litmus test required. Proving that there were other ways out is irrelevant. When seconds count, you’re not always looking for the least effective way to get out – you’re looking for the most effective way to survive the attack.
Statehouse carry should be permitted. If you go through the process of getting a permit, you should be allowed to carry at the Capitol. It’s a convenience thing as much as it’s a self-defense thing. Other states allow this with absolutely no ill effects. If the legislators in Des Moines force everyone else in the localities to allow carry in government buildings, it should be good enough for them in their own house.
Here’s one that I harp on from time to time but never see it get any traction. If you are a parent and you’re dropping off or picking up your kid from school, and you’re carrying… what do you do? Do you go home first and drop off your weapon? Do you carry anyway and risk getting caught? Virginia passed a law many years ago that allowed parents to drop off or pick up their kids while armed, on school grounds, so long as they didn’t exit the vehicle. This is a good idea, and it would be really nice to see gun rights activist groups in Iowa pick up on this one for action sometime soon.
Finally, it would be great to see Iowa join the ranks of nearly the entire nation in allowing citizens to own suppressors and automatic weapons. There is no reason that they are treated as prohibited items, especially when it comes to suppressors. You have a muffler on your car, right? That’s being a good neighbor. The same thing pertains to suppressors. Using one when you’re shooting is just common courtesy.
There are probably a few other things I’m missing, but these are the big ones that I think of right off. Let’s see how many we’re able to accomplish before the session adjourns in the late spring.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
More Criminals Abuse a No Firearms Zone
You just knew it was going to happen, right? According to a report on Fox News, two students in a dorm at Fayetteville State University in Fayetteville, NC were robbed at gunpoint this weekend. The students resisted, shots were fired by the assailants, and $500 of cash, a debit card, clothing, and a computer were taken. Kudos to the two for trying to stand up for doing the right thing, but they were outnumbered (the assailants numbered four to six men), and obviously, they were outgunned. Firearms are forbidden on college campuses, because we can’t have those dirty, nasty, noisy, deadly things on the campuses of higher learning!
Oh, that’s right… the criminals didn’t really care about that law. They brought their guns to a gun fight anyway, preyed on the two students who had no way to defend themselves with similar weapons, injured both of them and made off with their belongings. But campuses are a safe place, and there’s no need for our students to be able to defend themselves when help is as close as dialing 9-1-1 on your phone. Fayetteville State University PD and Fayetteville PD are both investigating the attack; another example of the fact that police are primarily there to investigate a crime after it occurs. It is rare that they are actually on the scene when such an attack takes place.
For all of the liberal readers out there, once again, laws prohibiting the possession of firearms DO NOTHING to reduce crime. The criminals in this story had no trouble ignoring the law and victimizing two students. The ability of these two students to produce a firearm in self-defense may or may not have made a difference in the outcome, but we’ll never know, will we? All we know for sure is they never even had a chance to defend themselves with a like amount of force.
And please, do not preach to me about “just giving the attackers what they want and they’ll leave.” Hello? This is America. The last time I checked, we were supposed to be a nation that was built on the principles of taking care of ourselves, being strong, and not putting up with criminal actions. Those who would advocate turning the other way and just giving the robbers what they want are a poor example of the American spirit. That kind of thinking is what begets the continuation of criminal activity. Why should a criminal stop what he’s doing if there’s no resistance? Punch them in the nose, hurt them, make them bleed, or as a last resort, take their life, and criminals will begin to think twice about the prospects of preying on others.
Weapons Free Zones – catering to criminals at a college campus (“an institute of higher learning”) near you.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
Do As We Say, Not As We Do
I saw an interesting story this morning from Ohio. Apparently, the Ohioans for Concealed Carry is considering suing the State of Ohio over rules that prohibit the carrying of firearms on statehouse property other than the Capitol itself. This would be places like the grounds outside the building and the parking garage. According to the article, Ohio lawmakers recently changed the law to allow peace officers to legally carry their firearms in those places, but they continued to exclude firearms legally carried by citizens.
This sounds very much like the situation in Des Moines. In Iowa, citizens who have an Iowa Permit to Carry Weapons (PCW) can legally carry throughout the state, and it’s illegal for jurisdictions to prohibit the carrying of firearms on local government property. (Although many have passed rules and ordinances to keep their government fiefdoms “safe” from criminals by illegally banning firearms.) The hypocritical part of this is the fact that the State Capitol – and the grounds and buildings that surround it and make up the “Capitol Complex” (including the main parking garage) are all “weapons free zones” right now.
This needs to change in 2012. Several states (Texas and Virginia are the first two that come to mind) already allow permit holders to carry firearms in the statehouses. In fact, they don’t even have to pass through the metal detectors. In spite of that, how many state legislators have we seen killed in Austin or Richmond? If you need help, it’s a number less than 1.
With the passage of SF 2379 in 2010, Iowa legislators said that they are friendly to law abiding citizens who desire to carry firearms in the state. Just don’t try carrying them where the laws are actually made and debated, though.
It’s high time that the legislators in Des Moines get out of the elitist culture and remove this law from the books. They already force that on the cities, towns, and counties throughout the state. They need to abide by it themselves.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
An Interesting Search
I mentioned this in a post quite some time ago; one of the things I like to do is look at the search terms that create “hits” for the Right of Middle blog. It helps me figure out what people are looking for, and perhaps every so often, gives me something new to write about.
I noticed this search that popped up this evening:
what is the middle between rigths and gun control
That is easy to answer.
There is none.
Rights are non-negotiable. For a long time, we’ve allowed our Right to Keep and Bear Arms to be negotiated away in bits and pieces, or taken away in huge chunks. Now we are faced with the fight to get our rights restored small little chunks at a time, as we continue to “negotiate” our position with legislators who believe that firearms rights need to be balanced with public safety.
That’s a bunch of steamy, fetid manure. As soon as you try to balance firearms rights with public safety, you are immediately destroying the fabric of liberty that this country was founded upon.
“But Sean, we can’t exercise our First Amendment rights to yell FIRE! in a crowded theatre!”
No, you can’t. You have the right of free speech, but you cannot use that right to incite a dangerous situation by creating a false panic. Just like you cannot print a lie about someone, falsely attack someone’s character in print or over the airwaves, plagiarize someone else’s work, or otherwise use your freedom of speech to wrongfully harm another person, whether physically, mentally, or in a way that would harm that person’s character.
It’s no different with firearms. A properly holstered handgun, or properly carried rifle, poses no threat to the public. It is how one chooses to use that firearm that matters. Therefore, any talk of “balancing public safety with firearms rights” is a farce from the inception of the phrase, because it presupposes that someone will do something wrong with a firearm just because he actually owns or carries one in public. If you want to juxtapose that with the Freedom of Speech, it would be like telling someone they could not speak in public because there’s a chance that the person will say something that will be illegal or get someone hurt or killed through the reckless use of words.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to get the liberal left to understand this concept. They believe that only the military or police should be allowed to carry firearms in public, because only they have the knowledge and power to do the right things with firearms. Unfortunately, that could not be further from the truth. Our founding fathers did not write the Second Amendment with just the keepers of the peace in mind. They wrote it to be applied to all citizens of the new nation, and it is just as relevant today as it was in the late 18th Century (contrary to what some of the “new age” curricula might profess).
No, there is no middle ground between rights and gun control. You either have freedom and liberty, or you do not.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
NRA Still Backs HR 822
In a recent NRA-ILA update, the NRA is still putting all of their horses behind HR 822. Doing a quick Google search for “HR 2900 NRA” returns no returns for any official NRA position on that bill.
I have to wonder why that is.
HR 822 promises many good things for firearms owners, but HR 2900 is clearly the better piece of legislation. Yet the largest group defending our rights at the national level continues to put all of their horsepower behind HR 822 and offers no press at all to HR 2900.
Is the NRA afraid to admit that they’ve been backing a bill that has been trumped by something better? Perhaps they feel like HR 822 has the better chance at passing, so they want to keep pushing it for the “win” statistic? Or maybe they don’t care which one they back because realistically, we’re not going to see either of them get a signature by Comrade Obama.
I can’t figure it out. What’s I’d be really happy to see (as would many others who have been following this situation) is a detailed paper put forth by the NRA think tank showing why they believe HR 822 is superior to HR 2900. Everything they publish lists why HR 822 is good, but they never address why they think HR 2900 is unworthy of their support or even a passing mention. I doubt we’ll get that out of Fairfax, but it would be a refreshing change of pace.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
California Slides Further Down the Slope
I really do feel sorry for the few people I know who live in the People’s Republic of California. Today is a truly sad day for all of the citizens who live in the Golden State. Unfortunately, most of them don’t realize it yet – and some may never realize how far down the slope they have fallen. But I can’t help going to be tonight feeling truly frustrated at the amount of liberty that they’ve lost in one day. If there’s an earthquake out there in the next couple of days, it’s going to be our founding fathers not just turning over in their graves, but beating on their caskets to come out and start trying to knock some sense into the politicians who (supposedly) swore to uphold our Constitution.
For starters, Comrade-Governor Brown signed into law today bills that makes it illegal to carry a firearm openly (the only way most anyone could actually carry a firearm, even though it had to be carried with an empty chamber) and that now requires the registration of long guns (previously only handguns had this requirement). Two huge steps backwards that of course has the Brady Bunch crowing from the highest mountain about how much safer the subjects who live in California have now become. There’s plenty of chatter over on the CalGuns forums about this turn of events.
Right.
Adding insult to injury, Comrade-Governor Brown also vetoed a bill that would have required law enforcement officers to get a search warrant before searching cellular phones of arrested citizens. He paid no attention to his own legislature which overwhelmingly (nearly unanimously) passed the legislation over to him for a signature. Instead, he sided with the California Supreme Court, and as I reported earlier, the Fourth Amendment ended up getting soundly trashed and cast aside.
All of this is further proof that our politicians have no concept of what liberty and freedom really means. They care about ensuring that government is alive and well in every part of our daily lives, and with scant few exceptions, will stop at nothing to make sure that all decisions are controlled by the those who know better than we do.
Think it won’t happen here in Iowa? Don’t bet on it.
I’m seriously afraid that the country that our founding fathers had in mind for us, for generations to come, is no longer possible. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is nothing but meaningless words on an ancient scrap of paper that many of our teenagers and young adults could never even identify in the first place.
I go to bed this evening with a heavy heart, and wonder if America the Beautiful really exists any longer.
George Orwell and Ayn Rand should be proud of how accurately they predicted the future.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
Sioux City Journal Calls for Enforcement
In today’s Sioux City Journal, the Op-Ed piece is headlined as:
OUR OPINION: Put some enforcement teeth in county ban on guns
In a nutshell, the editorial staff of the SCJ is bemoaning the fact that the new (illegal) ordinance in Woodbury County that prohibits firearms in county buildings, in direct violation of 724.7 and 724.28, needs teeth to make it truly effective.
Really.
While Woodbury County defied logic and used lemming philosophy to enact their rule (“All of the other jurisdictions are acting like idiots and ignoring state law, so we should do it too”), they at least get one thing right – they don’t have any way of enforcing their illegal policy, nor are there any criminal penalties attached to it.
But this isn’t good enough for the freedom hating staff at SCJ. They remind their readers through the use of fear mongering that a man walked into a county building in Arkansas, looked for a judge, shot the judge’s secretary, and was killed in a shootout with police. Because of that incident (and presumably, the chance that it will happen in Woodbury County as well), enforcement of the gun ban needs to be stepped up. We can’t have the citizens of Woodbury County exercising their rights, mind you!
What’s overlooked by the well-heeled editorial staff is the fact that shooting another human being is already a crime (if not done for self-defense). So is brandishing a firearm. So is negligent discharge, and assault. All crimes committed by the attacker in their example, yet he didn’t care. He broke the law on several fronts; carrying a firearm into the county building was the least of his concerns.
The same will hold true in Woodbury County, or any other locality that believes simply banning firearms will make the sheep inside the building safer. The only people that give a rat’s hind end about their illegal bun ban are the people who obey laws in the first place.
The SCJ editors do get it right when they ask:
What is the best way to enforce the Woodbury County gun ban? Metal detectors? Armed officers? What other options exist? What would be the costs?
Without any of these solutions, the Woodbury County ban is nothing more than a useless request to kindly leave your firearms outside. Once they begin to use metal detectors or armed officers, they are at that point doing several things. First, they are adding more cost to their daily operations, and that cost will be passed on to the citizens. Just what they need when the economy is on life-support in the first place. Secondly, they would be trying to enforce a rule that is illegal under current Iowa law. That leads to the third thing, which would really jack up the cost to the citizens of Woodbury County: the opportunity for a citizen who find himself turned away from any county property due to their illegal rule to sue Woodbury County.
If the editors of SCJ or the politicians in Woodbury County believe that a lawsuit wouldn’t happen, they are delusional. The citizens of Iowa who understand the law and believe in the preservation of our rights would love to make a test case out of some jurisdiction. Perhaps Woodbury County would like to step up to the plate and out a strain on their county treasury? Perhaps the editors at SCJ could pitch in for their defense costs since they are the one pushing so hard for some sort of solution?
“Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain.” This slogan is printed on every Iowa flag. The editors of the Sioux City Journal should reacquaint themselves with what that really means. Then again, so should the politicians in Woodbury County.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. Comments are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
HR 822 vs. HR 2900
Fellow Gun Rights Examiner Chris Woodard has a nice little write-up on his blog today about the primary difference between HR 822 and HR 2900. It would appear that folks with some good Constitutional sense have gotten together and addressed the shortcomings of HR 822 and produced a bill that would go a long way to setting things right with our firearms rights.
The big question is, will gun rights groups take notice? From NRA, SAF, and GOA, down to the smallest local or state group, all have a decision to make. Do they continue to support HR 822 and the shortcomings of the bill, or is it time to pull out of that one and go full steam ahead with HR 2900 instead? It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s a great social network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. Comments and ratings are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
Saturday Afternoon Catch-Up
It’s been a few days (more like nearly all week) since I had a chance to sit down and put a few thoughts together for the blog, so I’m going to hit a few at one time.
–
For starters, welcome to 1984. The ability to spy on and report your neighbors and friends to the regime of Comrade Obama just got a little bit easier. With the click of a mouse button, you can head over to AttackWatch.com and report all of the attacks on the Comrade-in-Chief and get the “truth” about all of the misinformation and flat out lies being spread about our fearless leader.
I see you all heading over there now.
Do you think this kind of thing would have been allowed under the watch of any of our former Presidents?
–
Eugene Volokh has an interesting article over on The Volokh Conspiracy about a felon’s right to keep and bear arms in Colorado. I’ll let you do the full reading on it, but in a nutshell:
Viewing this testimony in the light most favorable to defendant, we conclude it constitutes some credible evidence that he carried his handgun for the constitutionally protected purposes of defending his person and his property.
All of the arguments in the case were made at the state level, not the Federal level. The Second Amendment was never even brought up, apparently.
I’m sure it won’t take long for the Brady Bunch to howl about this one. But in reality, this is not such an illogical ruling.
To begin with, I go back to the adage of “anyone not able to be trusted in public with a gun shouldn’t be in public in the first place.” Criminal or not, those who really want a firearm (for legal or illegal use) will find a way to get one. All of the laws on the books were put there to discourage criminals and to regulate the law-abiding. None of them have worked to eradicate crime in the past, and none of them will do so in the future.
In addition, there is a more fundamental question of the right of any person not currently incarcerated to defend himself or his property. If someone is in public, regardless of his past, does he not have the right of self-defense granted to him simply by being alive?
I do not want to see violent rapists, murderers, robbers, or gang-bangers carrying firearms in public. But my aversion to that runs deeper. I do not want to see them in public at all, regardless of their ability or inability to carry a firearm. If they’ve done their full time and paid their full price to society, that might be a different story – but again, if we cannot trust someone like this to be in public with a gun, then we cannot trust them to be in public at all.
Then there’s the whole issue of non-violent felonies, such as the example given on the Volokh page of simply transporting a lobster under two inches across state lines. Is someone who is convicted of that crime the same person that should lose his right to self defense once he has paid his debt to society? What makes that person’s life less valuable than anyone else’s once he’s back in public?
This is an interesting case, and one that bears watching.
–
KCCI is reporting that Iowa Governor Branstad has appointed State Senator Swati Dandekar (D-Marion) to the Iowa Utilities Board. This is very interesting, because prior to this appointment, the Democrats held a 26-24 advantage in the Iowa Senate. With this appointment, there will now be a special election to fill Senator Dandekar’s seat. According to the article, the perception is that Dandekar’s district is leaning toward the Republican side.
A 25-25 split in the Senate would make for some interesting politics in Iowa once the 2012 session starts up. The big question is, can the Republicans take advantage of it if it comes about? With control of the House and the Governor’s mansion, getting a split in the Senate would be huge – but only if Republican leaders actually do something with it. For gun rights supporters, a huge victory in the 2012 session would be getting the process started for the addition of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms added to the Iowa Constitution. Here’s to hoping that NRA and IFC are successful in getting that done, among other things.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s another great network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. Comments and ratings are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
HR 822 – Hearings Set
According to an update from the NRA-ILA, HR 822 is scheduled to have a hearing on September 13, 2011. For those unfamiliar with this legislation, HR 822 would require all states to honor the carry permits of all other states.
I touched on this in a post back in May, so I’m not going to rehash a lot of it here. Rather, I want to remind everyone that while we, as gun owners, stand to gain something from this legislation in the (unlikely) event that it is signed into law, the process by which we gain it is terrible. As soon as we allow the federal government to dictate what permits are required to be reciprocal across the country, we allow the feds that much more power into our daily lives. I don’t care if it’s driving, plumbing, electrical, medical, or firearms. Our founding fathers build a republic based on a weak central government and strong state governments. That’s why we were founded as the “united States” – capitalization intended.
As soon as something like HR 822 is foisted upon us, we immediately give the feds that much more power into our state governments. That cannot be allowed to happen! The right way for this to move forward is to push for state governments to do what Iowa and Missouri (among others) already do on their own: accept permits from all other states, no questions asked.
If you are just seeking a desired result and don’t care about the rights you will give up in the process, then HR 822 is a winner. If, on the other hand, you want to keep the federal government in check and believe that we need to keep our state governments strong, then HR 822 is a poisonous piece of legislation that does nothing but open the door for the feds to stick their collective noses into state affairs whenever they feel like it.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s another great network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. Comments and ratings are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
Self-Defense is Not a Race Issue
Across the Mississippi River from my home state of Iowa is the last bastion of total anti-gun bigotry. While there are states like Hawaii, California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York that work hard to stay in the good graces of the Brady Bunch, none of them have an all out ban on firearms in public like Illinois. 48 states have some form of carry permit system in place. Two do not. One because they trust you (Vermont), and one because they don’t (Illinois).
As I’ve been watching the wind direction across the river, it seems like a gentle zephyr is starting to rustle the leaves a little bit in the windy city. Slowly but surely, the anti-gun zealots are beginning to realize that their position is surrounded, they do not hold the high ground, and their defeat is all but inevitable. The only variable left is – when.
So it’s with great interest that I read stories about politicians who seem to be “getting it” in Chi-town. What troubles me, though, is a story that puts the focus more on race than on rights. Case in point is a story by Mark Brown in today’s Chicago Sun-Times.
AWest [sic] Side state legislator with a predominately African-American constituency says he is leaning toward breaking ranks with his fellow Chicago lawmakers to support allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons in Illinois.
Super! Another legislator is seemingly on board with the fact that carrying a firearm for protection by peaceful, law-abiding citizens is not a problem! Oh, but wait… why does it matter that his constituency is mostly black? I thought we were supposed to be an enlightened people, and not so focused on race. Surely the issue of gun rights is one that transcends the race card. White, black, red, yellow, green… doesn’t matter what color you are. The right of self defense is a human right, not a color-based right.
Rep. La Shawn Ford, a third-term Democrat, told me he is prepared to become the first black legislator from the city to vote for a concealed carry law — if sponsors of the bill will add a provision requiring the National Rifle Association to pay for sensitivity training for police officers.
This really doesn’t pertain to the subject of my post tonight, but I thought it was interesting anyway. NRA paid sensitivity training for the cops in return for support for gun rights? Please. Like the two really have anything to do with each other. But I digress.
Ford, who hosted a spirited town hall meeting last week at which supporters and opponents debated the advisability of a such a law, said he believes a majority of his constituents want the right to own a gun.
Superb news! One more chink in the armor of the anti-gun anti-civil rights crowd!
“Black people want guns, and I know that sounds bad,” Ford said.
Ahem… so do white people. And yellow people, brown people, and red people. Again – who gives a rat’s hind end what color they are? People are people. Rights are rights. If folks want to make the race card stop showing up in the game, here’s a hint: stop playing it.
Earlier this year, Chicago legislators led the way in defeating the first concealed carry proposal to come to a vote in the General Assembly in many years. Both outgoing Mayor Richard M. Daley and incoming Mayor Rahm Emanuel put on the pressure to hold Chicago area legislators in line. At the time, Ford shocked gun control advocates by voting “present.”
Daley and Mayor Emanuel-Obama know that they only thing they can do is use pressure to hold legislators “in line.” But that’s starting to wear thin. Legislators and the people they represent are getting tired of business as usual. Eventually, Emanuel-Obama and the rest of his cohorts are going to get tired of pushing the string and seeing it go nowhere.
But I recognize there is another point of view, and it intrigues me to see that other perspective being expressed in minority communities that bear the brunt of the impact of gun violence.
There’s a very easy answer for this phenomena. It’s called “waking up” and understanding the reality of the situation. Nothing special, no rocket science. It’s only amazing to those who still can’t see the forest for the trees.
“The city of Chicago is standing in the way of concealed carry,” Ford complained.
Yep – enough said.
Obviously, many of us prefer it that way.
And you are the ones who are increasingly in the minority, yet you foist your hoplophobia on the rest of us who see the reality of life. If you choose to not carry a gun, that’s your decision and we will respect it. Heck, we’ll even come to your rescue if necessary. But don’t tell us that WE cannot carry a firearm for protection just because YOU are not comfortable with it.
[NRA Lobbyist Todd] Vandermyde said he understands the concerns of some African Americans “about what happens when you have a black man with a gun” stopped by police, assuming that individual was legally permitted to carry a gun under the proposed law.
This just astounds me. A police officer should never, ever care what color a person is. He should never care that a person is carrying a gun, if it is properly holstered and not pointed at him or being used in the commission of a crime. And he should always assume that every person he makes contact with, for any reason, will be armed and ready to take his life at a moment’s notice. That is the only way that a police officer can do his job every day with any level of success.
Colleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said she believes the NRA stacked the audience at Ford’s town hall meeting (Vandermyde denies it), and that Ford is mistaken if he thinks a majority of his constituents support legalizing concealed carry.
Of course they did, Colleen. But here’s something you can do next time – stack the next meeting in your favor.
If you can.
Betcha can’t.
“You’re not going to get another black official to say he’s leaning ‘yes,’ ” Ford said. “It is a big deal to say I would vote for it.”
I don’t know if it’s such a big deal. Ford just has one vote, after all. But it could become a big deal if he gave cover to other African-American lawmakers inclined to follow suit.
I’m just repeating myself, but why? Why? Stop playing the race game! Unless there is some desire to keep a racial division in place in this country, why do we keep bringing it up?
Among those who did [speak] was a retired Oak Park police officer who got big applause by telling the crowd: “God created man, and Smith & Wesson created all men equal.”
Truer words never have been spoken.
I can pretty much assure you that is not a widely held point of view in Oak Park, a portion of which is in Ford’s legislative district.
Prove it. Hold your own little meeting and put your money where your mouth (or keyboard) is.
—–
HEY! You there, reading this post!
If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to share it on your favorite social network. (Google+ isn’t shown there yet, but that’s another great network to use.) I depend on word of mouth to grow my readership. Comments and ratings are also welcome, and don’t forget, you can subscribe to my blog to get instant updates when I make a new post.
Recent Comments