And Claire Wolfe says them best:

DOING THE RIGHT THING. If you're a gun person, you probably know all about this weekend's Jim Zumbo flap.

Mr. Famous Outdoorsman, who's been writing about guns and hunting for 42 years, spewed forth an ignorant blurt about "terrorist assault rifles" that put him straight into the Brady camp. After several thousand howls of protest, he followed up with an alleged apology that made matters even worse. Said apology never actually apologized for calling millions of us "terrorists." It simply said (I paraphrase): a) I was having a bad day, b) Ted Nugent's still willing to hunt with me, c) how can you hate me when I'm a member of the NRA?, d) how can you question my patriotism when I fly my American flag every day?, e) I help disabled veterans, and f) if you hunt or shoot, I'm the very best friend you could possibly have.

Seriously. Our Very Best Friend. Never mind that he still believes we're all "terrorists." Never mind that the Brady campaign had already picked up his words and was busily battering us with them. (The link above will take you to all parts of the Zumbo fumble. The original blog entries and the thousands of comments they generated are gone -- more below on that -- but Google still has them in cache. Here's the cached version of Zumbo's original screed. Here's the cache of his self-serving non-apology.)

This arrogant ass sold out millions of gun owners -- sold out freedom itself -- and did it without apparently the slightest concern or understanding that he was, as one commentator put it, "deliberately poking a hole in the life raft we're all floating in."

But this isn't about Zumbo. This is about the companies that made Zumbo possible. The good, the bad, and the ugly.

REMINGTON. I was impressed with Remington -- big time. The Sunday night that Zumbo's sponsors and publisher were being buried in thousands of protest emails, I received a response from Remington's CEO, Tommy Millner, saying his company was already cutting Zumbo loose.

At first I didn't believe the message was actually from Millner; there was some question whether the email address circulating for him was accurate. And after all, how many times have you ever written to the head of a big company and actually gotten a personal repsonse from him? Never, right? Well, make that "at least once." Turns out Millner was in Europe, where he was taking the time to respond to that enormous barrage of mail on his Blackberry.

Now that's impressive.

By Monday morning, still on the holiday weekend, Remington had officially announced it was severing all ties with Zumbo. No ifs, ands, or buts.

GERBER. The blade maker, another Zumbo sponsor, was the next one I heard from. I guess a knife-maker thinks it has less at stake than a firearms manufacturer. Zumbo's sell-out of the Second is no big deal to them. Maybe the Gerberites figure that after "they" come for the guns, Gerber will be able to sell more knives -- for a while.

In any case, a flack sent a carefully innocuous piece of PR spam stating, "...we respect the opinion of our sponsored hunters and users however, we do not necessarily agree with all their opinions, nor do we endorse their public statements. Our presence and development in the tactical and hunting markets is proof-positive we are committed to supporting these industries and all those involved."

Bleah. To add to the unimpressive impression, the flack pointed to Zumbo's "apology" as though it meant something, even though my original message was headed "Zumbo's apology isn't enough."

Well. No more Gerber knives in my future. How about yours?

HI MOUNTAIN SEASONINGS. The Wyoming-based vendor of jerky- and sausage-making products gets my Shining Light Award. They had already announced on their web site that they were severing any relationship with Zumbo when I wrote to thank them. Hans Hummel and his wife Kimberly own the company that -- until today -- helped keep Zumbo's Outdoor Network TV show on the air. They even feature Zumbo on their packaging. Hans sent both his company's official response and a heartfelt personal one.

Here's the official word:

Dear Fellow 2nd Amendment Supporters:

I am writing to thank all of you for your activism in making us aware of the comments made on Mr. Zumbo’s blog. Hi Mountain Jerky and Seasoning has been a sponsor of his hunting show on the Outdoor Channel, but is in the process of terminating our relationship. We do not support his statements regarding his view of the Second Amendment and would not have supported the show or had his endorsement on our packaging in the past had we known this. We fully stand behind the individual right to keep and bear arms as our Founding Fathers intended. It is truly heartwarming to see the grass roots activism in support of our Second Amendment, please know Hi Mountain Jerky and Seasoning stands behind you.

Privately he mourned that it was especially wrenching for him to have to deal with this, given his own passion for freedom and liberty. He also asked everyone to be patient because it could take months for Zumbo to disappear from all Hi Mountain packaging at the retail store level. But the show sponsorship? That's over today.

Hi Mountain is a small, family-owned business. I'm sure this whole thing has been difficult -- and could be costly -- for them. So please go visit their web site and give them the most meaningful sort of thanks. Buy stuff. And tell your friends.

MOSSY OAK, the camo people, didn't respond to my email, but did swiftly sever their relationship with Zumbo via a notice on their (very beautiful) web site.

CABELA'S. I haven't heard from that lovely outdoor superstore yet, either. But a fellow letter-writer has. The official word is that they don't like what Zumbo did, they recognize Zumbo's views are antithetical to theirs and most of their customers'. And their lawyers are looking into the situation. Okay, it's a beginning.

OUTDOOR LIFE. Finally these are the folks who seem to deserve a thorough raking over red-hot coals. I don't think they deserve blame for publishing Zumbo's dumb blurt. They couldn't have expected one of their own "experts" to be not only an anti-gunner but an idiot who can't tell a semi-auto firearm from an "assault rifle." But so far, their only responses have been tepid at best, creepy at worst. First the editor puts up a note on the offending Zumbo blog entry, saying he liked Ol' Jim even if he didn't agree with him in this case. Well, okay, I can see responding like that while you're just trying to catch your breath. It's feeble, but it's something. Next, they discontinue the blog "for the time being." But instead of just freezing the thing, they "disappear" the blog -- and the thousands of outraged comments -- completely.

So, is that a preparation for canning Zumbo? Or is the sudden disappearance a cowardly attempt to shove the whole controversy down the Orwellian memory hole? (Ah, but the memory hole doesn't work so well in a Google-fied, blog-ridden world!)

Outdoor Life has also, to the best of my knowledge, not responded to any of the thousands of furious emails they've received. I've written three myself, copied to various OL addresses (kindly provided by Kregener on TCF) and haven't heard so much as a squeak.

So should Outdoor Life become the next Kmart? That is, the next target for a mass gun-owner boycott? For some, it's already begun. Me, I think they should get another 24 hours' chance to stand up and do the right thing. After all, this whole mess hit on a holiday weekend, and it hit them so hard they're probably still spinning. But heck, with major sponsors pulling out, canning Zumbo's not just the right thing to do for gun owners, guns, and freedom, it's the self-interested thing. So do it already, people. Get it over with.

So ... Mega-kudos to Remington, Hi Mountain, and Mossy Oak. No mucking about, no backpedaling, no compromises, no weasel words or weasel actions. Just respect for gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms. Next time you buy a gun or ammo you know for sure that at least one firearms maker really means it when they say they support the Second Amendment. Next time you buy jerky seasonings and supplies, Hi Mountain's the place to go. You'll know your freedom won't be abused. I hear their stuff is delicious, besides. Looking forward to trying it myself. You now know whose brand of camo you can trust -- and a visit to Mossy Oak's web site is a pleasure all by itself.

Cabela's? We're waiting to hear from you.

Gerber? Well, there are a lot of good knife-makers out there. We really don't need you as long as you give financial and moral support to enemies of freedom.

Outdoor Life? You still bear the major onus here. It's up to you. Hope you do the right thing.

And Jim Zumbo ... May you lie happily ever after in the arms of Sarah Brady, you ignorant, elitist, traitorous, backstabbing scum. Maybe she'll sponsor your program or publish your column now that the whole world knows you're on her side.

 

Titled:   Police: Traffic Stop Leads To Suspicion

A traffic stop in Detroit has led to serious suspicion, police said.

Detroit police officers pulled over a vehicle near Atkinson and Second streets on a traffic stop. When officers questioned the driver, the man said he was from West Africa.

In the trunk of the vehicle, police found license plates from different states, identifications cards and Arabic literature, Local 4 reported.

 

The man was taken in to custody on a traffic violation. Police will not comment on the items found in the vehicle, but did say they are working with federal authorities.

 

 

Titled:   Straight shooting for better gun laws

James Alan Fox of the Boston Herald must be bored:

What is so wrong with ballistic fingerprinting Sure, I’ve heard the argument that gun barrels can be replaced or modified. As a parallel to actual fingerprinting, criminals sometimes wear gloves or alter their fingertips, but that doesn’t discourage us from collecting this kind of forensic evidence.

The ATF tracing initiative has consistently shown that less than 1 percent of gun dealers are linked to a majority of firearms recovered from criminal enterprises. While most of these traces may have involved legitimate transactions, ATF investigations have uncovered thousands of federal law violations by these dealers. Unfortunately, recent congressional legislation significantly limits public and law enforcement access to gun-tracing information, thereby shielding rogue dealers.

Aside from some paranoid view of government intrusion, what really is the danger of firearms registration or of background checks on all gun sales We register automobiles, and qualify and license drivers; why not do the same with guns and their owners It makes no sense to prevent law enforcement from tracking firearms transfers that fuel the illegal market. We could even install LoJack-style, GPS devices into new guns to curtail trade in stolen firearms.

It seems as if his performance objectives for the year include the number of email comments received, and he can only achieve this by trotting out the same old, tired suggestions to infringe our rights yet again.

If you feel like helping the poor guy make a "Meets Expectations" rating, you can write to j.fox@neu.edu

 

Titled:   Granholm Signs Legislation to Strengthen Self-Defense Rights

Fox News:

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed legislation Thursday that supporters say is aimed at strengthening and clarifying self-defense rights in Michigan. People now will be allowed to use deadly force, with no duty to retreat, if they reasonably think they face imminent death, great bodily harm or sexual assault.

They can use deadly force on their property or anywhere they have a legal right to be. The legislation also protects people from civil lawsuits if they have used force in self-defense.

"Law-abiding citizens will have the right to defend themselves against brutal violence without having to worry about being treated like a criminal," state Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, said in a statement.

The law also creates a "rebuttable presumption" -- a legal advantage that assumes, unless there's strong proof to the contrary, that people honestly and reasonably believe they face death, rape or great bodily harm when someone breaks into their home.

The presumption won't apply in domestic violence situations, disputes involving the police and if people using the force are breaking the law.

WLNS:

Mich. Governor Granholm has signed legislation that supporters say will strengthen and clarify self-defense rights in Michigan.

People now will be allowed to use deadly force -- with no duty to retreat -- if they reasonably think they face imminent death, great bodily harm or sexual assault.The law also protects people from civil lawsuits if they have used force in self-defense.

Critics says the law is NOT only dangerous but also unnecessary because prosecutors already don't charge people who have justifiably used deadly force to protect themselves.

Supporters say the law is needed to protect people from getting sued and partly because Michigan law previously required people to first retreat before using deadly force, putting them at a disadvantage.

 

 
The NRA reports:

The UN Small Arms Conference ended Friday in deadlock with no formal conclusions or recommendations. In the final analysis, the complexity of the issue and the concerns of hunters, sport shooters and firearms owners world-wide prevailed. No recommendations on ammunition, civilian possession or future UN meetings, or for that matter any other subjects, were adopted. The failure of this five-year program to impact the legitimate firearms industry, and the 2nd Amendment rights of U.S. citizens was total. Anti-gun NGOs and liberal governments served notice they would not give up and would present all of their issues to the UN General Assembly this fall.

The UN achieves as much as usual - nothing.

 

Titled:   Senate votes to bar emergency gun confiscation

The U.S. Senate on Thursday voted to prohibit the confiscation of legally owned guns during an emergency like last year's Hurricane Katrina, marking another victory for the gun lobby.

By a vote of 84-16, the Senate embraced an amendment by Sen. David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican. He attached his measure to a domestic security spending bill for the fiscal year starting October 1 that the Senate is expected to pass soon.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed its version of the spending bill and negotiators will have to decide whether to keep the gun provision. The House is usually sympathetic to gun owners.

Citing the constitutional right to bear arms, Vitter said that during an emergency people should be allowed to hold onto "legally possessed firearms to defend your life, your property" at a time when telephone lines and cell phones probably are not operating and victims "can't reach out to law enforcement authorities."

Progress - But it is a pity that we have to put into law what is already there.

"Shall not be infringed"

Of course there is always a hopeful idiot at hand:

Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, added, "You send the National Guardsmen in ... and then snipers start shooting at them and the police make it known this is going to be a gun-free zone. We don't want any National Guardsmen killed because of this national emergency, this disaster. Is that an unreasonable thing?"

Yup - law abiding people waiting to ambush the National Guard. Happens all the time... such is the mindset of the crazy left. As if the criminals in an emergency are just going to hand them over peacefully...

 

Titled: Michigan Castle Doctrine Update

The Home Invasion package (a.k.a. 'Castle Doctrine') led by MCRGO Directors/Legislators Senator Alan Cropsey and Representative Tom Casperson is now enrolled and will be sent to Governor Granholm for signature this afternoon (Thursday, July 6th).

After months of behind-the-scenes inquiries and evasion, MCRGO predicted that she would, in the end, sign the bills for political reasons. Her campaign now in overdrive, the Detroit News has already helped 'spin' the inevitable by announcing to the world that (their) Governor Granholm is, '...expected to sign these Bills as they now include “changes that reflect the governor's concerns”'.

She has until July 20th to find a pen. Given her poll numbers, it won't take nearly that long.

From hosting NRA President Sandy Froman in the Capitol last November, introducing the NRA's new staffer to key legislators (January), then negotiating necessary changes to language already introduced, MCRGO attorneys and staff were proud to once again lead the charge on behalf of our membership.

Congratulations to the Legislators that stood up and stood strong--on BOTH sides of the aisle--passing these common-sense measures with overwhelming fashion. Michigan's families thank you!

Lifted from the MCRGO's web site.

 

Titled: Michigan's Castle Doctrine package heading to Governor's desk!

Michigan's Castle Doctrine package heading to Governor's desk!

Earlier this week, Michigan's Castle Doctrine package of House and Senate Bills was overwhelmingly passed by our State Legislators and are now en route to Governor Granholm's desk.

This package will help the citizens of Michigan by clarifying the rights and duties of self-defense and the defense of others while at home, in your vehicle, or anywhere you have a right to be. It will also provide immunity from civil liability for self-defense actions.

Given that Dick DeVos is on record as supporting this package, Granholm is expected to sign it, however, we encourage you to call Governor Granholm and urge her to support this vital piece of legislation!

 

Various House and Senate substitutes/amendments to Michigan's Castle Doctrine package were voted on and passed today. Each House Bill was given immediate effect; bills ordered enrolled for printing and presentation to the Governor.

HB 5143 Self-defense and defense of others.
HB 5142 Criminal forcibly entering or intruding into home or vehicle.
HB 5153 Flight requirement; eliminate.
HB 5548 Civil action against person who uses force in self-defense act.
SB 1046 Passed in the House and returned to Senate.
SB 1185 Passed in the House and returned to Senate.

Source: Michigan Castle Doctrine Update!

 

More self defense goodness from the 2006 Michigan Congress.

First there is Senate Bill 1185, which bans lawsuits in cases of legitimate self defense and then on the CPL side of Self Defense there is House Bill 5217, which makes CPL applicant information confidential.

It seems as though the Michigan congress is on the verge of recognizing the People's absolute right to self defense. I wonder if Governor Grandholm will agree?

 

Michigan's repeal of the Duty to Retreat is making its way though congress.

Senate Bill 1046

Introduced by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on February 15, 2006, to create a new law establishing that a person who uses deadly force for self defense in his or her home, contiguous private property or occupied vehicle need not first flee from a threatening attacker, and that a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters one of these is presumed is to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence, with certain minor exceptions. This would place the “home is my castle” doctrine in statute. Also, to establish that a law-abiding person who is attacked in a place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat, and can “stand his or her ground” and meet force with force, including deadly force if necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Text and Analysis here.

House Bill 5142

Introduced by Rep. Tom Casperson on September 7, 2005, to establish in law that a person who uses deadly force for self defense in his or her home or contiguous private property need not first flee from a threatening attacker.

Text and Analysis here.

 

Titled: Losing Freedom, The UN Attacks the Second Amendment

July 4 is Independence Day. Many across America will celebrate the day that America declared itself a free and sovereign people. People will cook out on the grill, have family get togethers, and just celebrate freedom in general. However, the UN has plans for this day as well - and these plans are not at all celebrating freedom. These plans are sinister in character and threaten our sovereignty as a free nation.

The United Nations has decided to hosts it annual global gun ban conference called the 2006 Small Arms Review Conference or RevCon during the fourth of July holiday period right here on American soil. The UN ad its liberal allies in Canada, Australia and liberals right here in America would like nothing more than to erase the Second Amendment from the constitution and ban all firearms around the world.

This is a real threat to freedom and I encourage you as a free American to voice your opposition to the UN for its anti-American sentiments and its anti-gun stance. There is no way (under a conservative administration) that America will give in to the UN's demands that America disarm its citizens and destroy a vital part of the constitution. Having the Second Amendment ensures that every American is entitled to won a firearm for hunting, sport, collection, self-defense, or for whatever reason there may be to own one.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." -- Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution

 

Titled: Law-abiding residents should be able to protect themselves

Since the Michigan Legislature is currently considering legislation affecting self-defense measures, Dick DeVos issued the following statement regarding the package of legislation known as the "Home is Your Castle" doctrine:

"There have been and will continue to be many debates surrounding the rights given to us in the Second Amendment.  Let me be clear:  I support the rights granted to us by our Founding Fathers to keep and bear arms, and that is why I support the legislation known as the 'Home is Your Castle' doctrine.

"Protecting loved ones from danger is a natural response and people shouldn't be punished for protecting their family.  Every person should have the right to defend oneself and their family in the case of a forceful and unlawful break-in, without the fear of being sued for civil damages."

Yes indeed! Although he is wrong about one thing. Our rights were not granted to us by the founding fathers. And I quote. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

Titled: Michigan "Castle Doctrine" Package Moving in the State Senate

The Michigan State Senate will hear the “Castle Doctrine” legislation as early as Tuesday, May 23.  This critically important legislation will help the citizens of Michigan in two ways:

• protects your right to self-defense, and ensures you do not have a “duty to retreat” from a violent attacker; and 
• gives immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force.

Lifted from the NRA-ILA Site

 

Titled:   NSA kept domestic calls data: report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The agency in charge of a domestic spying program has been secretly collecting phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, including calls made within the United States, USA Today reported on Thursday.

It said the National Security Agency has been building up the database using records provided by three major phone companies -- AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. -- but that the program "does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations."

USA Today said its sources for the story were "people with direct knowledge of the arrangement," but it did not give their names or describe their affiliation.

The existence of an NSA eavesdropping program launched after the September 11 attacks was revealed in December.

Defending the controversial program, President Bush and his administration officials have said it aims to uncover links between international terrorists and their domestic collaborators and only targets communications between a person inside the United States and a person overseas.

But USA Today said that calls originating and terminating within the United States have not escaped the NSA's attention.

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," the paper quoted one source as saying. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within U.S. borders, it said the source added.

The NSA has "access to records of billions of domestic calls," USA Today said. Although customers' names and addresses are not being handed over, "the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information," it said.

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, who headed the NSA from 1999 to 2005 and was nominated by Bush on Monday as director of the CIA, would have overseen the call-tracking program, the paper said.

Hayden, as well as NSA and White House officials, declined to discuss the program, USA Today said.

Among major U.S. telecommunications companies, only Qwest Communications International Inc. has refused to help the NSA program, the paper said.

Qwest, with 14 million customers in the Western United States, was "uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants," USA Today said.

It said the three companies cooperating with the NSA "provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers."

So they know which numbers you call, when and where. And the data is kept and analyzed. Of course we all guessed this was happening - it's just strange to see it talked about in the press. I had an expectation of privacy on my calls, at least expecting the records to be lost in the masses of data. But if they record every single one...

 

Titled:   A Fair Trade

Wizbang comes up with a novel concept to solve the immigration problem, both legal and illegal:

One of the more popular arguments against a crackdown on illegal aliens has been the "do you know how hard it would be to deport 12 million people?" My standard reply has been "then we better start soon."

Yesterday, I heard an interesting idea on a talk show. A caller suggested that we couple deporting illegal aliens with increased legal immigration. This was not a new idea, but his iteration of it was: a simple one-for-one exchange: for every illegal sent back, one legal is allowed in.

I think this is a good idea, but it could stand improving. Instead of a simple one-for-one exchange, I propose that for every illegal alien deported to their home country, one applicant currently going through the legal process is chosen at random for expedited processing. We, at once, punish the law-breakers and reward those obeying the laws.

(I have no idea how this will also get twisted into some form of racism/bigotry/xenophobia, but I have absolute faith in the illegal-alien advocates to find a way to do so.)

This could also have the benefit of fully splitting off the legal immigrants from the pro-illegal side, as suddenly they have an incentive to turn in illegals. If sending Sven down the street back to Norway means that Cousin Lars will have a chance to jump to the head of the legal line, then that just might do the trick the next time Sven annoys Lars' cousin.

I am loath to use such a cliche' as "thinking outside the box," but this notion is a perfect example of that. It's making the statement I believe we need to make -- we welcome and value immigrants, but ONLY if they obey the rules and respect the law from the outset. It punishes lawbreakers and rewards those following the rules. It's incredibly simple, self-explanatory, and could work wonders for the problem.

Naturally, I expect it to go exactly nowhere.

As a legal immigrant, and now a naturalized, fully-integrated and assimilated US citizen, I applaud this line of thought. Big problems have to be solved one step at a time. And anything that expedites the immigration of those willing to do things in a legal manner is a blessing. The endless forms, embassy interviews, afidavits of financial support, medicals, money and months and months of waiting sort the chaff from the wheat. And most Brits don't qualify to come here unless they get a job first, which is hard if you don't live here and can't legally come here on a visit to look for work. Brits don't even get a chance to play in the green card lottery. Yet they generally have a good education, reasonable health and speak English already.

I know of several families in the UK that are desperate to move to the US and can't. Families that work hard and want to become a part of society. Reform is long overdue.

 

Titled: Michigan Castle Doctrine Approved by House!

Law-abiding Michigan residents who actually and reasonably believe they are facing imminent death, great bodily harm or rape at the hands of a violent criminal are justified in using force to defend themselves and their families. They are no longer required to retreat from a violent attacker in their own home under a package of bills sponsored and spearheaded by state Rep. Rick Jones. The measures were approved today by the Michigan House of Representatives.

“One of Michigan’s most basic values is that a person’s home is their castle,” said Jones, R-Grand Ledge. “This legislation makes it clear that not only do you have the right to stand your ground and defend yourself, but you will not be prosecuted or sued for defending yourself or your family in your own home.”

The “castle doctrine” is enshrined as a sacred right in English common law. It holds if you’re wrongfully threatened or attacked in your home, you may meet force with force.

More at the MCRGO web site.

 

Titled:   Kwame Wallace

The ever-topical Opinion Journal brings us an interesting article on Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick echoing the words of southern segregationists:

In November voters in the Wolverine State will decide whether to approve the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, a ballot measure banning racial preferences by government agencies, including public educational institutions. Similar measures have won approval in California and Washington, both more liberal-leaning states than Michigan, so one would expect the MCRI would have a pretty good chance of passing.

Not surprisingly, the civil rights establishment opposes the Civil Rights Initiative, as the Associated Press reports:

In blunt and passionate tones, officials at a major NAACP fundraiser that drew 10,000 people blasted a ballot initiative that aims to restrict affirmative action programs in Michigan.

"On behalf of the city of Detroit, I say, 'Bring it on,' " Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick said at the 51st annual Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner on Sunday. "If you want a fight, there is one waiting for you right here." . . .

"There will be affirmative action here today," Kilpatrick said. "There will be affirmative action here tomorrow and there will be affirmative action in our state forever."

This puts Kilpatrick at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court, which, although it approved some of the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), also stated that "25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary." That deadline is now only 22 years, one month and three weeks away.

More curious is Kilpatrick's choice of slogans. "Bring it on"? That's how losers talk. The mayor may as well inquire as to the location of the outrage or opine about the riskiness of the scheme.

Even worse is that "affirmative action forever" line, an echo of--of all people--George Wallace. In his 1963 Inaugural Address Alabama's then-governor declared:

In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.

It didn't quite work out that way. Eighteen months later, the Civil Rights Act was the law of the land. The Wallace-Kilpatrick parallel illustrates a point we made in January:

During the decades between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Act, white Southerners were extreme political outliers. Much of their political energy was invested in defending a system of racial discrimination that privileged them. They voted Democratic in overwhelming proportions, sometimes approaching 90%, even during periods when Republicans were the dominant party nationwide. . . . The political behavior of white Southerners then is remarkably similar to that of black Americans today.

Still, it seems odd for Kilpatrick to adopt the rhetoric of an avowed segregationist. Why not instead modify Martin Luther King: "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will be judged by the color of their skin, but not by the content of their character"?

 

Titled: Legislative Update Michigan's 'Castle Doctrine'

After expressing initial concern with language 'substitutes' to the Castle Doctrine, MCRGO quietly set to work on changes acceptable to MCRGO's membership. The first step was MCRGO and Senator Alan Cropsey meeting with one of the sponsors to explore our concerns. The second was working with Senator Cropsey to schedule a Hearing (early March) to review the issue itself. The final step was sharing our specific concerns with NRA liaison Darin Goens earlier this month. He agreed with our assessment. United, we were then able to affect the necessary changes.

We join with the NRA in thanking Representative Jones for his assistance in developing language that everyone can support. Together with the Bills sponsored by Senator Alan Cropsey and State Representative Tom Casperson, MCRGO can now 'endorse' the entire package. With the coalition in place, action will now begin next week in the House under the able leadership of Representative William Van Regenmorter, Committee Chair and long-time 2A supporter.

We also wish to thank you--MCRGO's members--for your patience. While others continue to blindly bang the drum for calls and letters to Legislators, you trusted MCRGO's tried and true method of working respectfully behind-the-scenes with key Legislators in pursuit of effective language. It is this approach--and the relationship with Legislators we have developed--that has allowed MCRGO to build a record of uninterrupted victories in both the Capitol and the Courts.

While this is not over, we can see the light at the end of what's been a relatively long tunnel.

More at the MRGCO's web site.

 

Titled: House Bill 4643 Becomes Law: Public Act No. 92

This Bill was prompted by CPL renewal delay problems. HB 4643, requires that an application for CPL renewal must be either granted or denied within 60 days; failing that, the current CPL is automatically extended for 180 days. This bill was passed by the House in July of 2005, by the Senate in March 2006, and signed into law April '06.

More info at the MCRGO's Web site.

 

Titled:   John Pilger sees freedom die quietly

The UK is making fast moves to complete its Big Brother society. ID cards are imminent. And the British parliament is passing laws to remove debate and oversight of the process. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill will remove the right of parliamentary scrutiny of government legislation under the guise of "cutting red-tape."

From the New Statesman:

It will mean that the government can secretly change the Parliament Act, and the constitution and laws can be struck down by decree from Downing Street...

...The new bill marks the end of true parliamentary democracy; in its effect, it is as significant as the US Congress last year abandoning the Bill of Rights...

...If you fail to keep an appointment to be photographed and fingerprinted, you can be fined up to £2,500...

...Every place that sells alcohol or cigarettes, every post office, every pharmacy and every bank will have an NIR terminal where you can be asked to "prove who you are". Each time you swipe the card, a record will be made at the NIR - so, for instance, the government will know every time you withdraw more than £99 from your bank account. Restaurants and off-licences will demand that the card be swiped so that they are indemnified from prosecution...

Read it and weep.

 

Titled:   The state is looking after you

The Economist carries a disturbing article about the encroachment of government into the everyday lives and choices of its citizens. This newly-dubbed "soft paternalism" carries the promise of self-directed controls enforced by the state. Imagine contracting with the state to fine you if you visit donut shops more than once a week - or having to get a license to buy alcohol. Of course it would be voluntary... but then the most egregious infringements of our rights usually are... to start with.

An excerpt:

Most people would accept that a healthy diet is hard to achieve, financial matters are confusing and cigarettes kill too many. The state is tempted to step in, not only because of the harm that smokers, lushes, spendthrifts and gluttons may do to others, but because of the harm they are doing to themselves. In Scotland last month the government banned smoking in offices, restaurants and pubs. In Massachusetts, the state legislature has passed a bill requiring everyone who can afford to buy health insurance to do so, on pain of higher taxes.

This is hard paternalism. The softer sort is about nudging people to do things that are in their best interests. The purest form involves setting up systems for sinners to reform themselves: in Missouri for instance, some 10,000 compulsive gamblers have banned themselves from riverboat casinos; if they succumb to their habit (and are caught) they face tough punishments. In most cases, though, soft paternalism means the government giving people a choice, but skewing the choice towards the one their better selves would like to make.

Be wary - very wary.

 

Toys in the Attic has a great post concerning the way to achieve our 2nd Ammendment rights - absolutely in one hit, or incrementally.

Towards the bottom of the page I found this, attributed to Tam at View From The Porch:

In 1933, you could send money to Sears and buy a machine gun through the mail, with no questions asked.

In 1967, a fifteen year-old could walk into a hardware store and, showing no ID other than some pictures of Andrew Jackson and filling out no paperwork other than the warranty card, walk out with the handgun of his choice. The only background check might have been the proprietor asking “Is this for you or your dad, Bobby?”

In 1986 a teen could walk into a sporting goods store in a mall and buy a semiautomatic rifle and five hundred rounds of ammunition after filling out one small form and undergoing no background check, and walk her purchase out through the mall, no questions asked.

In 1994 you could drive to Georgia from Tennessee and buy the scariest-looking riot shotgun on the rack with your photo ID and, again, no background check.

In 2006, to buy a simple single-shot .22 rifle, of the type used to teach gun safety and marksmanship to Cub Scouts, here in the gun-friendly state of Tennessee, you must show current photo ID, the address on which must match your current residence address. You must fill out a page and a half of a big tri-fold form, and then wait for the seller to fill out the rest. You must wait while an invasive background check is performed on you and the serial numbers of the gun (even if brand new) are checked to make sure it is not stolen. You must give your thumbprints, for Vishnu’s sake.

...and this, this is “more easily available.”

Progress is being made, albeit slowly. Sometimes we have to remember that we aren't winning all the battles and much work is left to be done.

 

Dave Kopel has written a detailed summary of current Concealed Carry laws.

Nebraska and Kansas have finally joined the shall-issue club, making 40 shall-issue States in the Union.

Progress is slow, but it is being made.

 

Titled: Granholm Signs Guns Transport Bill

Today Gov. Jennifer GRANHOLM signed HB 4642 into law (Now Public Act 75), a measure that would allow an individual to carry, possess, use, or transport a pistol belonging to another individual if the pistol were properly licensed and inspected under the law and the individual carrying, possessing, using, or transporting the pistol had obtained a license under the law to carry a concealed pistol.

More at the MCRGO's Web site.

 

Titled:   St. Paul City Office Boots Easter Bunny

A small Easter display was removed from the City Hall lobby on Wednesday out of concern that it would offend non-Christians.

Tyrone Terrill, the city's human rights director, asked that the decorations be removed. Terrill said no citizen had complained to him.

Council Member Dave Thune called it a shame.

"This has just gone too far,'' he said. "We can't celebrate spring with bunnies and fake grass?''

The council president, Kathy Lantry, said the removal wasn't about political correctness.

"As government, we have a different responsibility about advancing the cause of religion, which we are not going to do,'' she said.

Maybe they should take a few minutes to learn about the Easter Bunny:

The original Easter Bunny myth comes from a pagan holiday which was celebrated on the Vernal Equinox. According to Pagan legend, Ostara, the goddess of spring, turned a bird into a rabbit. The rabbit was supposedly able to fly as fast as the bird could fly, but it was still dissapointed that it was a rabbit and not a bird. Ostara had pity on the creature, and one day out of every year, on the Vernal Equinox, she allowed the rabbit to lay eggs like a bird. Due to the proximity of Easter and the Vernal Equinox, converted pagans continued to associate the myth with their new holiday, and the idea has been passed down ever since.

As a Christian, I find it at least mildly offensive to use an Easter Bunny in the first place. Certainly not enough to go banning a popular symbol that children enjoy. I hardly see how the display of a pagan symbol of fertility is going to offend non-Christians.

In the same manner, it always bemuses me that they often ban Christmas Trees from government sites - again a pagan tradition - to protest against establishment of Christianity.

Don't even start me on Santa, Candy Canes and all the other traditions.

Happy early Easter!

 

Titled:   Nation sees a sharp drop in gun dealers

The number of licensed gun dealers in the US is down.

People who held the government's most basic gun-dealer license totaled nearly a quarter-million in 1994. Last year, the number fell to fewer than 55,000, according to a recent report by the nonprofit Violence Policy Center, based in Washington.

The gun-grabbing VPC are quick to grab onto this as a victory, believeing it one of the few in a time when they are losing battles left, right and center:

"The sharp drop in gun dealers is one of the most important - and little noticed - victories in the effort to reduce firearms violence in America," said Marty Langley, a policy analyst for the Violence Policy Center.

What they won't say though is that this is mostly due to increased fees under Clinton-era reforms ($30 up to $200) and ATF pressure on dealers that due to local ordinances couldn't get suitable business zoning for their houses.

Many of the kitchen-table top dealers who bought and sold a couple of guns a year to friends baulked at the increased costs, legal hurdles and the photos and fingerprinting required and handed in their licenses.

I see this as a victory in some ways for regular gun owners. All this has done is drive gun sales off the books, with less registration, vetting, tracking and logging by the ATF. Licensed dealers are required to run background checks on new purchases, whereas in most states, unlicensed gun owners can buy and sell rifles and shotguns without checks.

This forms the basis of the mythical "gun-show loophole" in which owners and dealers gather to buy and sell firearms. The gun-grabbers are annoyed that all show sellers don't have to run checks.

Isn't it ironic that the very victory claimed by the VPC is the basis of one of their big headaches?

According to the ATF, the number of guns in the United States was at an all-time high last year, with an estimated 223 million firearms.

 

Titled:   This ID project is even more sinister than we first thought

As we look East to the UK's slow slip into serfdom, as expected, the ID card project continues to become more sinister by the day. The Observer, not know for wild conjecture, brings news of the latest changes, rumors and talk:

It became clear last week that the government will do anything to get this bill through parliament, including ignoring its own manifesto pledge to make the cards voluntary, a fact that we should remember as each of us entrusts the 49 separate pieces of personal information to a national database.

Remember that lesson - agree to something as long as it is voluntary, and soon it is mandatory.

Oddly enough, the compulsory provision of personal information to the government database is not the greatest threat to our freedom, though it is in itself a substantial one. The real menace comes when the ID card scheme begins to track everyone's movements and transactions, the details of which will kept on the database for as long as the Home Office desires.

Lesson two - the initial purposes of the system - preventing terrorism - is soon forgotten as new uses are discovered.

Over the past few weeks, an anonymous email has been doing a very good job of enlightening people on how invasive the ID card will be. 'Private businesses,' says the writer, 'are going to be given access to the national identity register database. If you want to apply for a job, you will have to present your card for a swipe. If you want to apply for a London underground Oystercard or supermarket loyalty card or driving licence, you will have to present your card.'

You will need the card when you receive prescription drugs, when you withdraw a relatively small amount of money from a bank, check into hospital, get your car unclamped, apply for a fishing licence, buy a round of drinks (if you need to prove you're over 18), set up an internet account, fix a residents' parking permit or take out insurance.

Lesson Three - Soon enough you will not be able to live a normal life without the "voluntary" card.

One of the most chilling passages in the bill is section 13 which deals with the 'invalidity and surrender' of ID cards, which, in effect, describes the withdrawal of a person's identity by the state. For, without this card, it will be almost impossible to function, to exist as a citizen in the UK. Despite the cost to you, this card will not be your property.

Lesson Four - Even if you have a card, they can take it away, effectively crippling your ability to function.

ID cards are coming this way too, such as those disguised as federally-approved driver's licenses in the Real ID Act of 2005. Note also that cards of this type are mandated for air travel in other bills up for consideration such as the H.R. 4439: Transportation Security Administration Reorganization Act of 2005. This bill seems to require a passport or ID Card for all air travel, domestic or international.

Remember - it's only voluntary until it isn't.

 

Update: House Bill 4642 goes to Governor

HB 4642 has passed both House and Senate and is now on it's way to be signed into law by the Govenor. This Bill would allow "an individual carrying, possessing, using, or transporting a pistol belonging to another individual (or spouse) if the other individual's pistol is properly licensed and inspected under this act and the individual carrying, possessing, using, or transporting the pistol has obtained a license to carry a concealed pistol."

Lifted from the MCRGO web site.

 

Icarry.org carries the following letter:

Larry R. Buechler

Chief of Police
P.O. Box 121,
Coal Valley,
Illinois 61240
309-799-5416
fax – 309-799-3651
LRBCVcHF@AOL.COM

February 2, 2006

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE

Dear Fellow Chiefs: As our troops fight for our freedoms overseas, as have American troops since the formation of this Republic, I question what freedoms we’ll have left to enjoy, considering the inclination of our several governmental bodies to enact legislation at the urging of every “squeaky wheel” group that comes along.

As police chiefs, it is our responsibility to protect the rights, freedoms, and liberties of those we serve, and I would suggest that the citizens we serve are then ill served by our support of the proposed ban on so-called assault weapons. While it may be true that “no law abiding citizen needs an Uzi or and AK-47 to be safe or to hunt,” as the talking points try to sway us, I would then allow, on the other side of the argument, that it is not our place to say what a law abiding citizen needs, or does not need. Certainly, the law abiding citizen does not pose a threat to our officers, or to the public in general for that matter, through the possession of any firearm. It is the criminal element that poses the threat. If then you consider the statement true, as I do, that if these weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have these weapons, then the legislation proposed does nothing to negate the threat. Indeed, only the law abiding citizen will follow the guidelines of the statute, the criminal will not. What then have we accomplished other than to unfairly restrict or penalize the person that does not pose a threat in the first place?

There are thousands of sportsmen in this state that do nothing wrong other than to immerse themselves in the quiet enjoyment of their hobby or pastime with friends and family. These are collectors, target shooters, and firearms enthusiasts that enjoy the shooting sports, and are not strictly limited to those seeking a method of self-defense, or those with an interest in hunting. Let us deal harshly with the person that possesses or uses any firearm during the commission of a criminal act and leave the innocent man alone. In my opinion, there is no greater misdeed than to punish the many based on the unlawful acts of a few, and, with that said, I will close simply by expressing my best wishes and assurance that I remain,

Sincerely and Respectfully Yours,
Larry R. Buechler
Chief of Police

Hat-tip to TheWarOnGuns

 

Titled: Bill would allow guns in car trunks

Firearms owners would be permitted to carry unloaded weapons in their trunks, even if they don't have a hunting license, under legislation under consideration in the state House.

Rep. Tim Moore, the sponsor, said many well-meaning people are unintentionally breaking the present law.

"We want to make sure that law-abiding citizens don't face penalties," said Moore, calling it a "common sense bill."

The bill would require that all guns be unloaded "in both barrel and magazine and be carried in the trunk of a vehicle."

Currently, gun owners who are transporting guns must either have a hunting license or be en route to or from a "rifle or target range, trap or skeet shooting ground, or archery range." Violations carry a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and a $250 fine.

Rep. Tim Moore, the sponsor, said many well-meaning people are unintentionally breaking the present law.

I work by an indoor shooting range, which is several miles from my home. If I take my pistol with me in the morning so that I can go to the range during lunch or after work I would suddenly become a lawbreaker subject to 90 days in jail and a $250 fine. And only because I didn't go straight to the range. How stupid is that?

I am glad someone in government is using some common sense.

That destination provision makes the law unenforceable, said Sam Washington, executive director of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs. "I could say I was going out to a range, and the officer would have no way of knowing," he said.

Whats his point?

Gov. Jennifer Granholm supports the bill and will sign it if it comes to her desk, said spokeswoman Heidi Watson: "It simplifies current regulations."

The bill is before the House Conservation, Forestry and Outdoor Recreation Committee.

Chairman Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, said he expected the bill to sail through committee and pass the House because he and Moore have seen no significant opposition.

"Nobody's come forward to me to say that they're against it," said Moore.

Casperson said he plans to schedule a hearing this month.

It must be an election year in Michigan or something.

 

Titled:    NJ considers bill to stop anonymous internet comments

This bill would require an operator of any interactive computer service or an Internet service provider to establish, maintain and enforce a policy requiring an information content provider who posts messages on a public forum website either to be identified by legal name and address or to register a legal name and address with the operator or provider prior to posting messages on a public forum website.

The bill requires an operator of an interactive computer service or an Internet service provider to establish and maintain reasonable procedures to enable any person to request and obtain disclosure of the legal name and address of an information content provider who posts false or defamatory information about the person on a public forum website.

In addition, the bill makes any operator or Internet service provider liable for compensatory and punitive damages as well as costs of a law suit filed by a person damaged by the posting of such messages if the operator or Internet service provider fails to establish, maintain and enforce the policy required by section 2 of the bill.

So Liberty1st.org, an operator of an interactive computer service, would have to ensure that it could provide the name and address of commenters from New Jersey who might leave false information about anyone else, upon pain of compensatory and punitive damages and costs?

Is that a chill breeze I feel?

 

Titled:   Military Wins at U.S. High Court on Campus Recruiting

The Supreme Court ruled that universities give military recruiters the same campus access as other employers:

The justices unanimously upheld a government policy of threatening to cut off federal funds, in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars, from universities that don't provide equal access. The ruling reversed a lower court decision said the policy violated university speech and associational rights.

``A military recruiter's mere presence on campus does not violate a law school's right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter's message,'' Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court.

And the $35 Billion question is whether any of the federally-funded schools will now forgo that money to keep recruiters off campus. Those blaming the decision on the "conservative court" will have a difficult argument to make, in light of the 8-0 decision.

Once you dip into the federal trough, it becomes very tempting to keep feeding, despite your stated principles.

 

Titled:   Pivotal Ohio Gun Rights Activist Passes Away

From: Chuck Klein

I am saddened to report that VERNON FERRIER passed away. Vern was one of the original plaintiffs in the Klein vs. Leis suit that challenged Ohio's CCW laws.

Vern died of a hear attack while in his automobile. The following was not reported in the newspaper (but came to me from Tim Smith, lead attorney in the subject suit): Vern was carrying a handgun under his Ohio license and was in compliance with the Ohio requirement to have the gun exposed while in a motor vehicle. While he lay dying in his car - with his gun exposed - a person or persons unknown stole his handgun from his still warm body. Now there is another "illegal" handgun out there all because of the outrageous requirement of the licensee to expose his firearm while in a motor vehicle.

I am confident that Vern would appreciate passing this message along in hopes of waking up Governor Taft and the OSP to the danger and foolish requirement of exposed carry in a motor vehicle.

This is a story that needs exposure. An Enquirer article gives more details of Vernon's story, but this letter from a supporter gives another reason to oppose ill-conceived gun-control legislation.

 

Titled:   Chief’s Counsel: Responding to Gun Possession Reports

A well written and thought out opinion from the General Counsel of Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association on how cops should handle reports of gun possession:

Enforcement Guidelines
Where a police officer receives a report that a person is in possession of a firearm, but the weapon is not visible to the officer, the following options are available:

• Engage in a voluntary contact and simply ask the person if he or she has a firearm.
  
• If he or she confirms he or she is in possession of a gun, the officer may ask the person to voluntarily hand it over just while the interview takes place, or insist that they hand it over if there is a reasonable belief that the safety of the officer or public is in jeopardy, or that the person has used it in a crime or is about to do so.
  
• If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, and the officer does not otherwise have (legally sufficient) reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the officer must allow the person to continue on his or her way.
  
• If the person denies having a firearm or refuses to answer, but the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and presents a danger to the officer or public, the officer may conduct a stop and frisk the person. If the officer finds a weapon, the officer may hold it while conducting the field inquiry. As long as the person is properly licensed, and no arrest takes place, the officer must return the gun at the conclusion of the interview.
  
• If the officer has a warrant or has probable cause to arrest the person for a crime, the officer may conduct a thorough search (not merely a frisk) and take possession of any weapon.
  
• Where the person appears to be a minor and therefore too young to have firearm (in most states), the police may have reason      to believe that a crime is being committed (unlawful carrying of a firearm) and may therefore conduct a stop rather than a mere encounter.

There is more, and it is well worth the read, if only to suggest that not all Massachussettes residents are crazy.

Hat-tip to SayUncle

 

Titled:    Tory plan to kill long gun registry going strong

Canada's new minister of public safety says the government has no plans to back off on its intention to scrap the controversial long gun registry.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced his plan to kill the registry during the election campaign, and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day told CTV's Question Period the plan hasn't changed.

"We're not backing away at all," Day said on Sunday. "We're moving ahead on this. It was an election promise. It's something we've been talking about for years."

...

Day said the total registry costs could be approaching $2 billion, while the registry has not had a positive impact on gun crime.

"It has not reduced gun crime," he said. "As a matter of fact, homicide rates in the last two years have gone up in Canada. And we have committed to scrapping it."

$2 billion dollars, to keep a list that was never accurate and had no positive impact on gun crime! I hope those pressing for a similar registry in the US see what they get for the money.

 

Titled:   Scalia says don't link guns only to crime

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia fondly remembers carrying a rifle around New York as a boy and says outdoorsmen should attack the idea that guns are used only for crimes.

An avid outdoorsmen who has hunted with Vice President Dick Cheney, Scalia spoke Saturday at the National Wild Turkey Federation's annual convention.

"The attitude of people associating guns with nothing but crime, that is what has to be changed," Scalia told the audience of about 2,000.

"I grew up at a time when people were not afraid of people with firearms," said Scalia, noting that as a youth in New York he was part of a rifle team at the military school he attended.

"I used to travel on the subway from Queens to Manhattan with a rifle," he said. "Could you imagine doing that today in New York City?"

We've some edumucating to do.

 

Titled:   Rocketry Hobbyists versus the BATFE

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has handed down a stinger of a decision against the BATFE and in favor of small children, science teachers and boys of all ages. Yes, ever since someone woke up in a bad mood and decided to classify model rocket engines as explosives, this hobby has faced increased regulations and costs. The judges had this to say (emphasis mine):

"The problem in this case is that ATFE's explanation for its determination that APCP deflagrates lacks any coherence. We therefore owe no deference to ATFE's purported expertise because we cannot discern it. ATFE has neither laid out a concrete standard for classifying materials along the burn-deflagrate-detonate continuum, nor offered data specific to the burn speed of APCP when used for its 'common or primary purpose.' On this record, the agency's decision cannot withstand judicial review."

It's a pity it wasn't in reference to "sporting purposes" or the current rules regarding US content of imported firearms, but it's a start in the right direction.

Hat-tip to TriggerFinger 

 

Titled: Castle Doctrine - Michigan Update!

Senate Bill 1046, introduced by Senator Alan Cropsey is moving into Committee.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear Senate Bill 1046 next Tuesday, Feb 21st.

This bill will clarify:

the rights and duties of self-defense

the defense of others

and provide for criminal and civil immunity under certain circumstances

and regulate the investigation of incidents involving self-defense

More at the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners web Site.

Update: Your help is urgently needed to support Michigan's Castle Doctrine Bill

The Senate Judiciary committee will meet Tuesday, February 21st to consider, vote, and make recommendations concerning Michigan's "Castle Doctrine" Bill (SB 1046). This bill will clarify the rights and duties of self-defense and the defense of others and will also provide for criminal and civil immunity under certain circumstances. Please contact your State Senators today and urge them to support this important legislation, especially those legislators that embody the Senate Judiciary committee. More here.

Posted by Asa

 

Titled: Michigan Senate Bill 1046 (Repeal “duty to retreat” in home self defense)

Introduced by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on February 15, 2006, to create a new law establishing that a person who uses deadly force for self defense in his or her home, contiguous private property or occupied vehicle need not first flee from a threatening attacker, and that a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters one of these is presumed is to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence, with certain minor exceptions. This would place the “home is my castle” doctrine in statute. Also, to establish that a law-abiding person who is attacked in a place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat, and can “stand his or her ground” and meet force with force, including deadly force if necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Read the text from the bill, analysis, and comments here.

Posted by Asa

 

Titled:    Civil liberties fear as US terror suspect list rises to 325,000

Now that 325,000 names appear on the US terror suspect list, I'm beginning to wonder where this will end. The numbers have increased four-fold in the last two-and-a-half years. At this rate, in twelve years we will all be on it.

Maybe we could speed things up - If every suspect could provide just a couple of new names each year, we could cut that down to eight years. That would reduce the demand for flying somewhat.

Thousands of Americans have only discovered their name, or a similar one, is on the list when they have been prevented from taking a commercial flight. Senator Edward Kennedy found himself in that position in 2004.

Senator Kennedy has, however, found himself in many positions we wouldn't like to be in either.

And so far, booking a commercial flight, has been the only proven way of finding out if you're on the list.

 

Titled: U.S. Rep Joe Schwarz ( R-Battle Creek) cosponsors H.R. 4547

U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-Battle Creek) has agreed to cosponsor a bill that would create a national standard in accordance with which states would recognize other states’ conceal and carry weapon (CCW) laws.

H.R. 4547 (Bill Text) would mandate that when a CCW permit holder visits another state with a CCW law, that person’s CCW rights must be respected, so long as they adhere to the restrictions prescribed by the state they are visiting. If a CCW permit holder were to visit another state that does not have a CCW statute, that person would be allowed to carry a concealed weapon everywhere except for a police station, public detention facility, courthouse, public polling place, at a meeting of a state, county, or municipal governing body, in a school, at a professional or school athletic event not related to firearms, in a portion of an establishment licensed by the State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, or inside the sterile or passenger area of an airport.

“I have always been a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, and I believe strongly in the right to protect one’s self and one’s family,” said Dr. Schwarz. “This bill ensures that all states respect a person’s right to carry a concealed weapon for personal protection.”

Dr. Schwarz is currently a cosponsor of H.R. 800, a bill that protects gun manufacturers from liability for injuries due to unlawful use of firearms and H.R. 1288, "The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act, a bill that would restore Second Amendment rights to the District of Columbia.

U.S. Rep. JOE SCHWARZ represents the 7th Congressional District of Michigan, which includes parts of Calhoun and Washtenaw counties and all of Branch, Eaton, Jackson, Hillsdale and Lenawee counties. A practicing physician for over 30 years, he previously served in the U.S. Navy, the Central Intelligence Agency, and in local and state government. He currently sits on the House Agriculture, Armed Services and Science committees.

Lifted from the MCRO (Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners) site.

Posted by Asa.

 

Titled:      The War on the Free Press

Michelle Malkin has been making a principled stand against the Cartoon Jihadists. The news though isn't good.

Malaysia:  Gov't shuts down newspaper the published cartoons.

Yemen: Gov't shuts down newspaper the published cartoons. Arrest warrant issued for Editor.

South Africa:  Johannesburg High Court which prevents the publishing of cartoons found offensive by the Muslim community.

Ukraine:  Editor-in-chief of popular Ukrainian newspaper "Today" apologizes before Muslims for publishing cartoons.

Poland:  Editor of Polish newspaper apologizes for reprinting cartoons.

Canada: Student newspaper that reprinted cartoons has issue destroyed.

Sweden:  "Sweden is reportedly shutting down websites that show the dread Mohammed cartoons."

U.N.:  Kofi Annan criticizes reprinting of controversial cartoons.

Europe:  The European Union may try to draw up a media code of conduct to avoid a repeat of the furore.

Denmark:  At the Jyllands-Posten, Flemming Rose, the culture editor who commissioned the Muhammad cartoons, has been put on indefinite leave

France:  Well, maybe the less said, the better.

Yes folks, they're winning. Just the Great Satan left now to defend free speech and liberty.

 

Titled:   Does the Census Bureau go too far?

SayUncle brings up the American Community Survey. Every year, one in forty households are asked to answer a long series of questions, concering a myriad of topics as diverse as "What time do you leave for work in the morning" to the amount you pay for your mortgage each month. 

You can see the 2005 survey here.

The law, Title 13, Sections 141, 193, and 221 of the U.S. Code, authorizing the American Community Survey, also provides that your answers are confidential. No one except Census Bureau employees may see your completed form and they can be fined and imprisoned for any disclosure of your answers.

The same law that protects the confidentiality of your answers requires that you provide the information asked in this survey to the best of your knowledge.

The GAO published a paper investigating the Legal Authority for the ACS and finds in the conclusion:

For the reasons set forth above, the Bureau has authority under 13 U.S.C. §§ 141 and 193 to conduct the American Community Survey.  The Bureau also has authority to require responses from the public to this survey.  

It does however note the following:

While Census clearly has authority to conduct the ACS, we found no public laws, committee reports, or other congressional actions in which Congress has required the Bureau to develop and implement the ACS. 

So this would seem to be an example of unneccesary prying, though legal, at the behest of unelected and unanswerable bureaucrats. Please note that refusing to answer carries a fine of $100 and that for pretending to be an Eskimo and other false information is $500.

 

Titled:   Why Radical Muslims and the US Don't Mix

The first protected right of the people of the US is the Freedom of Speech.

US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929):

"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate."

When 12 cartoons - published last September by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and republished in a Norwegian paper this month - included an image of the muslim Prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse, the reaction from the Religion of Peace was anything but peaceful.

The religion that thinks nothing of calling for the death of unbelievers, started a string of protests, flag burning and boycotts.

Things took a more sinister turn yesterday when 15 masked gunmen armed with hand grenades, automatic weapons and anti-tank launchers took over an EU office and demanded an apology. They behaved, ironically, much as the cartoon they were protesting against had depicted.

Pakistan's Daily Times reported that they left after half an hour, without an apology, but still angry:

 “We are calling on the citizens of the two countries to take this threat seriously because our cells are ready to implement this all over Gaza,” said one of the militants.

This morning, the UK's Gaudnian (yes, they are bad at spelling) reported a change of mind and a full apology, following further threats and attacks on Danish citizens as far away as Saudi Arabia. 

Denmark's largest selling broadsheet newspaper last night issued an apology to the "honourable citizens of the Muslim world" after publishing a series of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked protests across the Middle East.

Just so you didn't miss it, those are the honorable citizens that threaten civilians with anti-tank missiles.

CNN.com reports that a Danish muslim group has accepted the apology:

A spokesman for Denmark's Islamic Faith Community, Kasem Ahmad, said on Danish radio Tuesday that "we will clearly and articulately thank the prime minister and Jyllands-Posten for what they have done."

But they await the reaction from muslims in other countires.

Can you imagine how this would play out in the US? An armed group of terrorists threatening an office of civilians not even connected with the publication of cartoons? Followed by apologies and retractions from the President and the press? Denmark is in the grip of dhimmitude.

We must ensure we protect the liberties we have before we end up like our European cousins.

Update:    France enters Muslim cartoon row

A French newspaper has reproduced a set of caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad that have caused outrage in the Muslim world.

France Soir said it had published the cartoons to show that "religious dogma" had no place in a secular society.

Under the headline "Yes, we have the right to caricature God", the paper ran a front page cartoon of Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian gods floating on a cloud.

It shows the Christian deity saying: "Don't complain, Muhammad, we've all been caricatured here."

The full set of Danish drawings, some of which depict the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist, were printed on the inside pages.

 

Titled:   GOP Libertarians: Rebels with a Cause

Hammer of Truth shows the latest in the trend of articles about GOP-leaning Libertarians or Libertarian-leaning GOP'ers. This one is from Salon, and seems to be an anti-Bush piece, but nonetheless has good things to say about Libertarianism.

Whether Republican Sen. John Sununu, Idaho’s Larry Craig and their small band will actually be able to make a difference in the fight for Liberty remains to be seen.

 

Titled:     Tiananmen

Ever wonder what it is like living under Chinese-style censorship?

As the world sees Tiananmen on Google

As the Chinese see it on Google
 

Titled:   Wisconsin Governor Vetoes Concealed Carry Bill

Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle says he will veto a bill that would legalize the carrying of concealed weapons in Wisconsin.

"Violence is not the answer," said Doyle. "If we keep guns illegal, the police will know that whoever has a gun is a criminal."

Asked how victims should protect themselves, Doyle responded that they shouldn't. "We have to stop the cycle of violence," said Doyle. "Allowing victims to return fire only perpetuates the cycle. Victims should 'turn the other cheek' to their attackers."

Doyle asserted that most criminals will not shoot unarmed victims unless it is necessary to eliminate them as witnesses. "If you avert your gaze from your attacker he may see that you will not able to identify him and let you live," observed Doyle. "Even if the criminal does shoot you, we will have just a single casualty. If victims return fire we could have multiple casualties."

Where does one start? Perhaps by trying to understand how Wisconsin allows someone this detached from reality to be Governor.

He is quite clearly saying that if you are being shot at, you should remain passive in case the perpetrator gets injured. If, as a CCW holder, I get shot, then surely I am one person who can no longer stop the criminal from harming others.

As for averting your gaze in the hope that a psychotic killer might decide you didn't see anything and let you live - I think Gov. Doyle is just crazy. You cannot project your mindset onto another human who is already working outside of your own frame of thought. In other words, you can't expect someone acting abnormaly to think the same way you do, and have the same morals, ethics and thoughts as you. If you are not the type that routinely attacks innocents with lethal force, then what makes you think you can understand those that do. That is the major mistake people make when dealing with criminals, terrorists, drug users and downright crazies. You cannot assume they will do as you would do.

I refuse to become that "single casualty" whose life is in the control of someone who is deciding whether or not I'm a potential witness. And that's why I also refuse to visit Wisconsin, live in Wisconsin and invest in Wisconsin while people like Gov. Doyle are in power and its citizens support people like him.

 

Titled: Vote early, and often!

What a great country. They let you vote even when you're dead! It seems that in the fine State of Washington, 11,500 dead voters are still registered, and 36,000 are registered in two counties.

What the article didn't say was which party they usually vote for. I guess its a question of getting help to get to the polls.
 

Titled:   Bills give victims more right to use force

An encouraging piece that shows the move towards protecting users of firearms is gaining ground across the nation.

What makes this unusual is that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution starts with a very bi-partisan message:

Republicans, Democrats and the National Rifle Association are backing bills this session that would give people more leeway to use deadly force to defend themselves and others from serious crimes, such as robbery and rape.

A House version, sponsored by Democrats, even offers protections against civil lawsuits.

Democrat support for the rights of gun-owners? Almost enough to make me choke on my cornflakes! So I read a little further and all became clear. Despite the support of a few Democrats, their true nature still poked through:

Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver (D-Decatur), an attorney, said: "I am very concerned about any legislation that expands the perception that people should use guns against other people.

"There's too much gun irresponsibility, and there are too many trigger-happy people for me to feel comfortable giving people the perception they can shoot people in their yard anytime they want to."

Yup - that's a good weekend for us simple gun-owning types - sitting on the porch shooting at passers-by. I don't see anything that says that people should use guns against other people. This is about using guns to protect you and your family against criminals invading your home and car when you are in them. If you shoot without reason, the full weight of the law will still fall upon you. I guess that is just too difficult for this representative of the people to understand. Maybe she went to college recently? 

 

Titled:    More Eminent Domain Thievery

SayUncle points to a worrying article of eminent domain abuse. It seems the Port of Houston is taking someone's land that has been in his family for a hundred years for less than a cent an acre.

The guy concerned is not a speculator or some wealthy investor. The land had been in his family over 100 years. But even if he'd just bought it the week before, he should be entitled to more than a fair price, to make up for the fact that the state is taking it at the point of a gun, whether he wants to sell or not, and his expenses of fighting the condemnation, which he did not ask for, and fairly evaluating the land should rightly fall on those initiating the suit. Last I checked, it wasn't a crime to own land. Even felons and illegal immigrants and foreign nationals who never set foot in our country are permitted to do so. Why are we punishing our own citizens?

Read the rest at Searchlight Crusade while you still have a house to live in.

 

Titled:    Big Nanny Is Watching You

A couple of weeks ago, I interviewed Roger Valdez, director of tobacco prevention for Public Health–Seattle & King County. He is in charge of Seattle-area enforcement of the statewide smoking ban approved by voters in November. I call him the tobacco czar.

We were talking about how enforcement was working out, including the 25-foot rule. In the midst of our chat, Valdez said something remarkable.

"Americans think they have a lot of rights they really don't have. Smoking is one of those things where people think they have the right to smoke, but you don't." He used "you" in the plural. "You have no right to smoke. It's an addiction. It's something you should see a doctor about."

He went on to tell me that people have no right to smoke even in their private residences.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

If Iraq needs a good constitution, written by clever men, guaranteed to provide liberty and justice for all, they could use ours. We don't seem to use it anymore.
 

Titled:     Gun Rights Group Criticizes Illinois Gov's 'Boondoggle'

Blagojevich urged the Illinois General Assembly to pass House Bill 2414, which would ban the manufacture, possession, and delivery of semi-automatic firearms, certain attachments, and the .50 caliber rifle. He is working closely with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley on the bill.

"These weapons fire bullets rapidly and can fire at multiple targets. In addition, the military-style features make these guns even more dangerous," according to Blagojevich.

It is becoming so obvious that gun-grabbers aren't even thinking about what they are saying - they're too busy concentrating on the regurgitation of lies and stale sound-bites.

Look at this: "These weapons fire bullets rapidly and can fire at multiple targets."

I've yet to find a reasonable weapon that fires bullets slowly. Or a weapon that fires bullets on its own, without someone firing it. It's hard to even conceive of a weapon that can only fire at one target. Maybe a one-use Stinger-type missile might just fit that description. Hardly common street weaponry.

As to the old "Military-style features" argument - I would love to hear them explain how a bayonet lug, on its own, can make any weapon more dangerous. Why not just ban the bayonet itself if they fear a rise in drive-by bayonetting? All the lug does is make the barrel a little heavier, making it incrementally more difficult to carry and maneuver.

Hopefully he won't get enough votes to pass these new restrictions, but it is Chicago.

 

Titled:      Michigan officials view anti-terror driver's license law as costly to taxpayers

 DETROIT - Newly obtained documents reveal that Michigan state officials are concerned that federal legislation called the Real ID Act will require extensive changes to existing practices at the Secretary of State Office, will be extremely difficult to implement by the Act's deadline and will carry heavy expenses that will have to be absorbed by Michigan taxpayers and license applicants. 

The Act, passed by Congress last spring, imposes federal regulations on the design, issuance and management of state driver's licenses - turning them, for all practical purposes, into federal identity papers. 

“Civil liberties groups, conservative groups, immigration groups - we've all been saying that Real ID will be a real disaster and needs to be revisited by Congress,” said Kary Moss, ACLU of Michigan executive director. 

“These documents indicate that Michigan officials - the people actually responsible for carrying out this ill-conceived law - also have serious problems with Real ID.”

The documents are part of a national survey of state motor vehicle officials' views and preparation for complying with Real ID that was conducted by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA).

What does Real ID mean for you?

Nothing at all unless you want to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service.

Is this a national ID card? News.com answers:

It depends on whom you ask. Barry Steinhardt, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's technology and liberty program, says: "It's going to result in everyone, from the 7-Eleven store to the bank and airlines, demanding to see the ID card. They're going to scan it in. They're going to have all the data on it from the front of the card...It's going to be not just a national ID card but a national database."

At the moment, state driver's licenses aren't easy for bars, banks, airlines and so on to swipe through card readers because they're not uniform; some may have barcodes but no magnetic stripes, for instance, and some may lack both. Steinhardt predicts the federalized IDs will be a gold mine for government agencies and marketers. Also, he notes that the Supreme Court ruled last year that police can demand to see ID from law-abiding U.S. citizens.

 

Titled:    Stem cell experts seek rabbit-human embryo

British scientists are seeking permission to create hybrid embryos in the lab by fusing human cells with rabbit eggs. If granted consent, the team will use the embryos to produce stem cells that carry genetic defects, in the hope that studying them will help understand the complex mechanisms behind incurable human diseases.

They are having enough trouble with basic rights for humans and now they want to create rabbit-humans? What new rights will be demanded?  Equal opportunity at work?  The pursuit of life, liberty and carrots?

 

 

Titled:    Councilor: Make handguns with GPS tracking chip

Via Wizbang comes a story of a crazy gun-grabbing councilor, so bent on gun control that he wants gun manufacturers to include GPS tracking devices in every new firearm. Mentioning Boston’s adoption of GPS-enabled school buses and snowplows as an example, his call ignores the reality of criminally-held firearms. Apart from almost doubling the weight, I can't imagine an entirely tamper-proof GPS system surviving for more than a few minutes. Even leaving it sitting around for a few days until the batteries are flat would work around that one.

The original story from the Boston Herald quotes:

The city councilor picked Smith & Wesson because it’s a Massachusetts-based company. “I’m calling on them to step up to the plate,” he said. The company has yet to respond.

Sure, if they want to lose a large portion of their customers. The police add to the rosy picture:

As for the GPS idea, police said they “support any type of gun control.”

Wouldn't it be cheaper just to force manufacturers to paint each firearm pink, and have it play "Kumbaya" over and over?

 

Titled:    From North of the Border

mAssBackwards brings us good news from the state of New Hampshire:

House Bill 1639-FN, prohibits the confiscation of lawfully owned and lawfully carried firearms during a state of emergency, making a felon of any law enforcement officer who attempts to seize such a firearm during a disaster.

After the Katrina debacle, someone with common sense has realized that having firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens during an emergency can be a useful thing.

If only we can now get that introduced in every state.
 

Titled: Assembly Bills Target Gun Violence

New York gives notice that it intends to commit suicide deepen its problems in this article outlining new proposed gun ban control laws.

Cracking Down on Illegal Street Gun Trafficking
The bill, sponsored by Assemblywoman Amy Paulin (D-Scarsdale), requires stringent recordkeeping and reporting to prevent gun sales to criminals. Additionally, under terms of the legislation, gun dealers must implement a security plan, require employee training and prohibit minor's access to guns.

Besides the fact that selling guns to criminals is already a crime, records are already kept and the FBI is consulted on every dealer sale, this is just futher harassment of dealers and owners. I can't imagine a gun dealer that doesn't already have a security plan, training and access policies. 

Banning Armor Piercing Ammunition
This measure, sponsored by Assemblyman David Koon seeks to rid New York streets of deadly armor piercing ammunition and ammunition that is designed to fragment or explode upon impact.

Most rifle ammunition pierces the type of armor issued to the police. Fragmenting ammunition is a safety feature designed to avoid pass-through injuries to bystanders and explosive ammunition is already strictly regulated.

Tracking Guns Involved In Crimes
Another bill included in the package would require law enforcement personnel to submit ballistic information to the new State Police Ballistic Identification Databank whenever spent bullets, shell casings or guns come into their possession.

And what a success all the other databases have been! Even country wide systems like Canada has have been huge, expensive failures, reducing funding for more traditional and effective policing.

Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Violent Felons
Another bill would eliminate a loophole that allows a convicted violent felon to obtain a firearms license and possess a gun after being granted a legal waiver.

This should be a question for the issuer of the waivers, who should set fair policy, not a blanket law that allows no exceptions.

The Children's Weapon Accident Prevention Act
This legislation, sponsored by Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg (D-Long Beach), seeks to protect children from accidental shootings. Five new categories of crime would be created under the bill's provisions for negligent storage of a weapon.

Lock 'em up, unloaded, with the ammo stored elsewhere to avoid fines and jail time. Making self-defense weapons all but useless. Nothing like trying to unlock a gun, find the ammo, load and aim while someone is threatening you and your family.

Childproofing Firearms
This bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Steve Englebright (D-East Setauket), would seek to reduce child-related shootings, particularly those tragedies of children shooting children. This bill would make it a Class A misdemeanor to sell guns without childproof features. Covered under provisions of the bill are pistols or revolvers manufactured 12 or more months after the effective date of the bill. Design features could include making the weapon more difficult to fire by adjusting the trigger resistance of the gun to at least a 10-pound pull, altering the firing mechanism so that an average five-year-old child's hand would be too small to operate the gun or to require a series of multiple motions in order to fire the gun.

10 pound trigger pulls make for lousy handguns, increasing the risk of badly-aimed shooting. This law is aiming to make guns more expensive, more difficult to use under stress and is a roundabout way of forcing manufacturers to make firearms just for New York or lose the right to sell there. With over 200 million firearms in circulation already in the US this is just another step onto the slippery slope of a total national ban.

Stopping Assault Weapons
This legislation, sponsored by Assemblyman John Lavelle (D-Staten Island), would ban assault weapons. Seeking to address the void when President Bush and Congress allowed the federal assault weapon ban to expire, the Assembly proposal would expand the definition of assault weapon to prohibit more of these deadly guns in New York - including guns that have been modified to work like assault weapons.

Under the gun-grabbers definition of "assault weapons", this would cover just about any semi-automatic firearm.

Banning 50-Caliber Weapons
Another proposal, sponsored by Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington (D-Patchogue), would ban 50-caliber sniper weapons, which can be used to disable commercial aircraft and helicopters and are powerful enough to penetrate steel plating.

Another law attempting to follow The Peoples Republic of California. Our right is to have military grade weapons, not sporting arms. The 2nd is NOT about hunting. 

Domestic Violence
Sponsored by Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell (D-Manhattan), this measure seeks to protect victims of domestic violence by requiring criminal or family court judges to inquire about the existence and location of firearms owned or possessed by a defendant when an order of protection is sought.

Pick a crazy partner who thinks a piece of paper is going to protect them and your rights are gone forever. Not only will the court take away these rights, it will now be forced in enquire about the locations of all weapons in your possession. 

 

Oh, how deluded these lawmakers prove themselves to be over and over again. I know I'm undoubtably preaching to the choir here, but laws do not affect criminals. That is why they are called criminals. Laws only affect victims, making more of them and making their right to a peaceful and safe life more difficult.

One argument is to allow the states to pass whatever they want and then see where the people move to as the cities decay into chaos. Unfortunately while we can use information to choose a place to live, once you are there, it is a significant burden to uproot and escape the madness. Once one state starts to impinge on our rights, the others often follow. 

Please do whatever you can to stop the madness now, before it is too late.

 

Titled:   The End of Blogs?

Say Uncle reports on what may be the end of blogs as we know it. Aparently on January 5th 2006 H.R. 3402, the “Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005″ outlawed any anonymous comment on a blog that "annoys" another party.

According to CNET News.com:

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

Because the penalty is up to two years, that is enough to ensure you would lose your Second Ammendment rights too.

The word "annoys" is clearly a problem too, being so vague and not specifying even a reasonable level of actual harm and distress.

It looks as if the Right to not be Annoyed has trumped at least the First and Second Ammendments.

 

Titled:   No ID card? Hand over £2,500 then!

Samizdata highlights the slippery slope of liberty infringement in the UK. First there is floated the idea of a voluntary card for security purposes, with public consultation. Then despite an overwhelming outcry, the project gets moved ahead anyway, with assurances that no-one will be forced to have one. Then the cost comes in: about $150 per card. Which will now be required if you want Government "Services". Then local government is given sweeping new powers to heavily fine people if they don't have one when their homes are searched. Full story here.

 

Titled: Gun Control: The Promotion of Denial

Have you ever asked yourself: Why, when evidence overwhelmingly shows gun banners are wrong, do they persist in making outrageous claims about law-abiding gun owners? There may finally be an answer, so read on.

“Protecting your proverbial castle would not only include your home, but also your car and any place you are legally allowed to be. "It would decriminalize the use of deadly force or lethal force in self-protection circumstances," said Wayne Groth – a supporter of [Michigan] state House Bill 5142 and House Bill 5143.”

“There is no reason to pass a law that sends a signal to the most aggressive people in society that they can act more aggressively than they can now,” said Peter Hamm, Communications Director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Michigan House Bill 5142 would allow the use of “deadly force” without first trying to retreat if a law-abiding gun owner is attacked in their home or on their surrounding land. House Bill 5143 goes further by stating that the defender does not have a duty to retreat and is also free from prosecution and civil action if their actions are found to be lawful. Such defense would be allowable in a “dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle.” This bill also mentions conditions under which the use of deadly force is not acceptable. For instance, in the case of simple trespass, the defender may not use deadly force. Thus, the law-abiding gun owner or Right-to-Carry licensee is responsible to understand and follow the law or suffer terrible consequences, which is simply a continuation of current law.

As to Mr. Hamm’s implication that gun owners are “the most aggressive people in society,” we should at least try to determine if Michigan RTC licensees make the state more violent. After all, Oxford English Dictionary defines aggressive as: “ready or likely to attack or confront.” Therefore, there should be some statistical record to show that violent attacks or confrontations increased after Michigan enacted its RTC law in 2001. Instead, what we find is that from 2001 through 2004, Michigan’s homicide, robbery, and assault rates dropped more than the national average.

Michigan Vs. U.S. Violent Crime, 2001-2004
	Violence	Homicide	Rape	Robbery	Assault
Michigan	-10.0%	-4.5%	+2.8%	-13.6%	-13.1%
U.S.	-7.7%	-1.8%	+1.3%	-7.9%	-8.6%

Read the rest at the Chron Watch Blog

 

Titled:    Americans Okay With Current Balance Between National Security and Individual Liberty

Americans are generally comfortable with the current balance between national security concerns and individual liberties. Nearly a third of the respondents in a Rasmussen Reports survey (32%) say that our legal system worries too much about individual rights at the expense of national security. A similar number (29%) say there is too much concern for national security at the expense of individual liberties. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say that the current balance is about right.

So about a third are happy, and two thirds are unhappy. And this makes the current situation OK? I don't think that is what the results say. To me, it shows a broadly divided opinion, in which the views spread from the far laft to the far right, resulting in the mean and median being near the center. "Americans Broadly Divided Over Current Balance Between National Security and Individual Liberty" is nearer the mark. Mind, I'm not a polling expert like Rasmussen, so believe who you like, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.

Posted by Dave the hyphenated American


 

Titled: When Being Pro-America Makes You Anti-Democrat!

Every now and then you come across a well-reasoned and well-crafted piece that just seems to fit the way you think. You read through it, nodding as you go, excitedly waiting for the conclusion and for the words to sink in. Then, having digested the message, you sit back and a profound sense of sadness comes over you. Why didn't I write that? It says what I think. It captures how I feel right now. But then I realize that I don't need to write it. All I need to do is find it, and help it find its way to a larger audience, to ensure that it isn't lost among the flotsam of the blog world.

Here is an excerpt:

Free unfettered self-determination, through personal (including economic) liberty, a free market capitalist economy, freedom OF religion, freedom OF speech, freedom OF thought and expression, the right to fail or succeed at one’s own hand, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the right to one’s own earnings, the right to a safe secure nation, to raise our children as we see fit and the right to self-governance accordingly, these are the fundamental principles America was founded and built upon.

 

The simple fact is, most Americans are not anti-religion or religious speech, not anti-capitalism or free market society, not anti-military or national security, not federal dependents and not interested in relying upon any commune to raise their young or determine their place or worth in society. Today, this also means that they are not Democrats…

 

Though Democrats bristle at any suggestion that they are in any way anti-American, the fact is, their agenda is at odds with nearly every American principle today and average people able to see that, just can’t get over it, no matter how bad the alternatives might appear.

 

Read the rest here, then come back and leave a comment or two.

 

Titled: Lansing prepares for stand your ground' bill - Part 1

After the law (concealed carry) was passed, many people had concerns of out-of-control violent crime, and western style gunfights in the streets.

That didn't happen, and, according to the 2003 Michigan Uniform Crime Report, Michigan experienced a 10 percent drop in violent crime between 1999 - a year before the CCW law was passed - and 2003.

For now, an individual can still be held responsible for taking a life, no matter what pretenses surround the death. The people who received a CPL know this and have serious concerns about the price that they would pay if forced to defend themselves or their family.

"I could be perfectly justified in what I've done," said Rick Hansen, co-owner of Silver Bullet Firearms, located at 5121 S. Division Ave. "And Kent County could burn me on a criminal trial which could cost as much as $50,000 in lawyer fees, even if I'm not convicted."

"Then a year and half down the road, say a relative comes up to me Are you Rick Hansen?' And because some kid strung out on drugs came into my home, and I defended myself, I could be sued in a civil trial, which could cost another $50,000," Hansen said.

A bill introduced to the State House Judiciary Committee, HB 5143, would exonerate an individual from criminal and civil charges if a shooting meets the bill's definition of self-defense.

Titled: Lansing prepares for stand your ground' bill - Part 2

Because violent crime rates continue to decrease in Michigan, coinciding with the CCW law passed in 2000, it is hard for the pro-gun community to understand the concerns gun-control advocates still harbor.

Lt. Ralph Mason, public information officer for the Grand Rapids Police Department, hasn't seen any of his initial concerns about the CCW law come to fruition.

"We really haven't had the problems that some people thought we would. I'm still not in favor of it. But I personally thought we would have a significant problem," Mason said.

A decrease in violent crime doesn't mean people are ready to loosen gun laws, according to Shikha Hamilton, state president of the Michigan Million Mom March, a chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

"Unless gun bills relate to hunting, generally the general public doesn't support it. We don't take an anti-gun stance. This is just an unreasonable bill," Hamilton said.

"That is the biggest challenge working in Michigan," Hamilton said. "When you have the legislature falling in line with the gun lobby and not representing their constituents."

A bill introduced to the State House Judiciary Committee, HB 5143, would exonerate an individual from criminal and civil charges if a shooting meets the bill's definition of self-defense.

 

Titled: Martin backs effort to keep gun-crime suspects in jail; race tightens

Martin agreed to support "reverse onus" bail conditions, which would require those accused of gun crimes to demonstrate why they should be released. The promise was part of a pledge during a Saturday phone call to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Toronto Mayor David Miller, who have vowed to end the gun violence that most recently claimed the life of a 15-year-old Toronto girl...

...Reid acknowledged that the reverse onus provision will require justification under the Charter of Rights, but the Liberals believe the courts will recognize that "the importance of protecting citizens against gun violence is paramount."

Canada seems bent on blaming the US for their current violence, rather than addressing their own drug and gang problems. Now, in addition to calling on a handgun ban, they plan to detain suspects until they can prove they are not a threat to society. This obviously runs afoul of the current habeas corpus provisions contained in the Canadian Charter. Yet the Liberals believe this is justified for the good of the people. While being tough on criminals is a standard plank of libertarian policy, this seems to be so far off base to be crazy. Does this really carry such an appeal to the Canadian electorate to help them win?

Dave the hyphenated American

 

Titled: MCRGO wins in Kent County!

Today, MCRGO Counsel David Bieganowski called with very good news: MCRGO has prevailed in its lawsuit against Kent County!

You may recall that some time ago MCRGO challenged Kent County's arbitrary requirement that all CPL applicants complete and submit additional 'customized forms'. Chief among them was a form--requiring a physician's signature--attesting to an applicant's 'mental health'.

Predictably, physicians routinely refused to sign such a form. Without a 'Doctor's note', applicants would then be required to attend a gun board meeting in person or even denied their CPL effectively undermining the intent of the 'shall issue' clause within State's statute. Note that Kent County was the only one of Michigan's 83 Counties to adopt such a requirement.

Based on statute, Kent County Chief Circuit Court Judge Paul Sullivan has ruled as follows:

"Mental Status Verification Forms are 'void and unenforceable".

His ruling also negates Kent County's additional requirement that applicants disclose name or address changes for the past 8 years.

We are pleased that the Michigan CPL statute MCRGO worked so hard to implement continues to withstand such legal challenges. Our goal then was to pass crystal clear language that would withstand 'creative 'interpretion' later. Judge Sullivan's ruling demonstrates once again that MCRGO has succeeded.

We thank Judge Sullivan for his jurisprudence and stand by our fundamental position:

Once an applicant has been 'cleared' by the F.B.I. and completed the intensive training required by law, s/he shall be granted their constitutional right to self-defense.

See the original news item for more info and how you can help win these battles over individual liberty.

 

I have had one for a couple of months now and just haven't got around to bragging blogging about it yet. It was my first semi automatic purchase and I absolutely love it. Prior to purchasing it I had considered a Springfield Armory XD40 but a friend of mine had this Sig, which at the time had only had 100 or so rounds run through it that he wanted to sell on the cheap. Anyway, long story short, it was an offer I couldn't refuse and now I am very glad I didn't.

Suddenly I am a Sig P229 enthusiast (read obsessed). If you are a Sig enthusiast also be sure to check out the Sig Forum here.

 

 

Titled: Mi. House votes to place Second Amendment plaque on Capitol grounds

A plaque honoring the right to bear arms would be placed near the state Capitol under legislation approved Wednesday by the state House.

The House voted 108-0 to send the Senate a bill that would require the Michigan Capitol Park Commission to place the plaque near the Capitol or in the adjacent mall area. The plaque would be installed once enough private money is collected for a foundation to which it could be attached.

The plaque, which was created by the Iosco County-based gun rights group Brass Roots, is made of more than 18,000 empty shells collected at a 1994 rally at the Capitol. It measures 4 feet by 6 feet and is inscribed with the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment and a similar provision in the state constitution.

Rep. Leon Drolet, a Republican from Macomb County's Clinton Township who sponsored the bill, said the intent is for the monument to be funded completely with private dollars

The best part of that is that it was done with private money. Awesome!

 

Titled: THE BATTLE LINES HAVE BEEN DRAWN

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Gun control advocates failed earlier this year to stop a Florida law allowing people to use deadly force to defend themselves without fear of prosecution from being signed by Gov. Jeb Bush.

They aren't going to let it happen again.

The battle in Michigan over the so-called deadly force legislation is an important one for both sides. It could open the doors to similar laws across the country - a top priority for the National Rifle Association - or stop the effort in its tracks.

 

Titled: Michigan Bills would allow deadly force on intruders

Michigan residents could fatally shoot someone who breaks into their home or vehicle without facing criminal or civil prosecution under new legislation.

A two-bill package introduced today would assume that a person who forcibly enters or intrudes in a home or an occupied vehicle intends to kill or hurt the owner or occupant. It is patterned after a law signed earlier this year in Florida.

The bills also would eliminate the requirement that people who are being attacked have to retreat before responding

 

 

Last month I posted this, Canada Blames Us. Well here is the rebuttal.

Any urge to point the finger at the U.S. for weapons smuggled across the border is simply misguided, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins diplomat said Thursday. "I don't think it's fair," he told The Canadian Press in an interview.

Canadians seeking a scapegoat should look in the mirror, he suggested.

"The majority of guns coming from the United States are purchased by Canadian citizens," Wilkins said.

"(This is) in violation of our state laws - and (they're) smuggled back across the border in violation of your laws."

Isn't that the problem with all gun laws? Law breakers, by nature, don't obey them anyway.

 

Titled: Thoughts on the wording of the Second Amendment

Most of the controversy over the Second Amendment arises from the fact that it has both a "militia clause," stating that a well regulated militia is essential, and then the "right to arms" clause. Prof. Volokh's article The Commonplace Second Amendment points out that the use of a prefatory clause stating a purpose was quite common in State constitution drafting of the time. (This makes sense. The idea of judicial review, of a court striking down laws as unconstitutional, was undeveloped at the time. As the Jefferson-Madison letters on the idea of a bill of rights suggest, a bill of rights could be seen as establishing certain rights beyond controversy, not to guide the courts, but to let the people know clearly when rights had been infringed, so that they might vote the scoundrels out, rise up in arms, or otherwise react en masse. So why not state why a right was important?)

It turns out Madidson did. Read the rest of the post to find out what it is he said.

 

2005 House Bill 4977 (Make CPL expire on birthday)

Introduced by Rep. Dave Hildenbrand on June 21, 2005, to revise the expiration date of concealed pistol licenses (CPL) so that they are the same as individual's date of birth. Specifically, the license would expire on the first birthday that occurs starting five years after the date the license is issued.

• Referred to the House Conservation, Forestry, and Outdoor Recreation Committee on June 21, 2005.
• Reported in the House on September 8, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.

2005 House Bill 4978 (Ban CPL for illegal alien)

Introduced by Rep. Dave Hildenbrand on June 21, 2005, to prohibit issuing a concealed pistol license (CPL) unless the issuing agency has determined that the individual is not barred under federal law from possessing or transporting a firearm, and is not an illegal alien.

• Referred to the House Conservation, Forestry, and Outdoor Recreation Committee on June 21, 2005.
• Reported in the House on September 8, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.

2005 House Bill 4642 (Allow spouse to transport pistol)

Introduced by Rep. Rick Jones on April 20, 2005, to allow an individual to carry or transport a pistol belonging to his or her spouse if it is properly licensed and inspected, and if the individual carrying or transporting it has also obtained a license to carry or transport.

• Referred to the House Conservation, Forestry, and Outdoor Recreation Committee on April 20, 2005. Reported in the House on June 23, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
• Substitute offered in the House on September 8, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that does not limit its application to a person's spouse, but instead allow an individual to carry, possess, use, or transport a pistol belonging to another individual, if the other individual's pistol were properly licensed and inspected, and the individual carrying or transporting the pistol had obtained a license to carry a concealed pistol .
• The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on September 8, 2005.

 

Titled: Michigan Bills would allow deadly force on intruders

Michigan residents could fatally shoot someone who breaks into their home or vehicle without facing criminal or civil prosecution under legislation introduced Wednesday.

The two-bill package would assume that a person who forcibly enters or intrudes in a home or occupied vehicle intends to kill or hurt the owner or occupant.

Although I think it is ridiculous that we need our legislatures permission to defend ourselves. I am happy they are writing it specifically into Michigan law.

The bills also would eliminate the requirement that people who are being attacked have to retreat before responding, as long as they're in a place they legally have a right to be.

Republican Reps. Tom Casperson of Escanaba and Rick Jones of Grand Ledge introduced the bills. They said the legislation will prevent residents from having to worry about whether they are justified in using force to defend their families and property.

"This legislation makes it clear that you will not be prosecuted or sued for defending your life, family or property in your own home," Casperson said in a written statement. "This will prevent criminals or their families from suing victims for injury or death."

That sounds about right. Of course not everyone in Michigan agrees with it or shares my enthusiasm for this legislation.

Carolynne Jarvis of the Michigan Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence criticized the legislation. She was an outspoken opponent of a 2001 law that made it easier to get a license to carry a concealed weapon in Michigan.

"When concealed carry was expanded in Michigan, the rational was that guns only would be used as a last result. This is basically saying guns are going to be the first resort," she said. "It's more likely you're going to end up shooting your son coming home late from a date ... than you are an intruder."

Sound familiar? Its the same kind of nonsense we heard back when the whole CCW debate started. The MCRGO has more info here.

 

2005 Senate Bill 688 (Authorize CPL extension for delayed renewals)

Introduced by Sen. Michael Prusi on August 31, 2005, to extend the expiration of a concealed pistol license (CPL) for those who apply for a renewal at least 60 days before the expiration date, if the CPL board has not renewed the license before that date. The person would have to request the extension, which would remain in effect until the renewal application is approved or denied. The renewal application receipt would become a part of the license in the meantime.

 

Titled: USA Today, accidents, and "unsecured" guns

USA Today reports, with customary horror, that 1,700,000 children are in homes with unsecured guns, and that one-third of American homes have firearms in them. It goes on to say 1,400 "children and teens" are shot to death each year, and pumps for laws on gun storage (i.e., to criminalize failure to store in various ways). "It's a frightening problem," says Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a lobbying group that favors limiting gun ownership.

Let's look at the figures. Actually, in 2003 762 Americans of all ages died in gun accidents, according to the National Safety Council. USA Today gets a higher number by including teens (i.e., up to age 20) and gang-banger homicides, which are hardly revelant to safe gun storage.

Economist John Lott calculated the actual number of child gun accidental deaths, and found it was about 30 per year -- lower than the number that die of drowning in buckets.

If about ninety million Americans are in households with guns, and 1.7 million kids are in households with "unsecured" guns (however the study defines that), yet only 30 a year die in accidents .... doesn't it stand to reason that the vast, vast majority of gunowners, and even "unsecured" gun owners, are doing something right? (One useful comparison: lots of houses have "unsecured" chemicals and medicines as well -- and 17,000 people die annually of poisoning accidents). If anything, the figures suggest gun owners display a truly exceptional degree of personal responsibility.

Bookmark Of Arms and Law now.

 

Titled: Texas Extends Right-to-Carry Reciprocity to Michigan and Virginia!

Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) has negotiated, and Governor Rick Perry (R) has signed, concealed handgun license reciprocal agreements with both Michigan and Virginia. For more information, please visit: www.txdps.state.tx.us.

These agreements were made possible by the passage of HB 225 by Representative Joe Driver (R-Garland), Representative Glenn Hegar (R-Katy) and Senator Bob Deuell (R-Greenville) during the 2005 session of the Texas Legislature, which made key improvements to Texas' reciprocity law.

More info on Michigan reciprocity can be found here.

 

Titled: Canada Blames Us

The experiences in the U.K. and Australia, two island nations whose borders are much easier to monitor, should also give Canadian gun controllers some pause. The British government banned handguns in 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned. Yet, since 1996 the serious-violent-crime rate has soared by 69 percent; robbery is up 45 percent, and murders up 54 percent. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen 50 percent from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost to its 1993 level.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey completed, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate of that in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out later this year, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35 percent, while those in the U.S. have declined 6 percent.

Yea like facts are going to matter to gun grabbers.

 

Titled: New CCW law hasn't resulted in 'Wild West'

There have been no shootouts at local fast-food restaurants following disputes over who was in line first, nor has there been vigilante justice carried out by armed citizens since a signficant change in the state's approach to issuing concealed weapons permits four years ago.

The Dodge City, OK Corral, and Wild West-style gun fights in the street predicted by those opposed to a change in the concealed weapons law have failed to materialize. The naysayers who voiced opposition to the new law, which opened the door for more individuals to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) have been silenced — not literally, but figuratively.

I don't think anybody worth taking seriously ever really believed that Michigan or any other "Shall Issue" state was going to turn into the wild west. It was nothing more then fear mongering.

It seems concerns about simple disputes being solved by gun battles in the streets were overblown. Even Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard says concerns over the CCW reforms — and the potential for gun violence — was more hype than reality.

"I don't think there have been many problems at all," Bouchard said. "We are one of the largest issuing counties in the state in terms of raw (CCW permit) numbers. Typically, what you find is that people that are law-abiding individuals are the ones that are going to go through the process to be licensed to carry (a concealed weapon)."

Well duh. By definition a non-law abiding citizens are not abiding by the laws anyway. A prohibition to carry a weapon would mean nothing to them.

Bouchard admits that the uproar over the new CCW law was blown out of proportion. The fear that traffic altercations would end up in gun battles never materialized.

"There was a lot of misconception about what would go on," he said.

Most local law enforcement officials agree.

West Bloomfield Police Lt. Carl Fuhs said he's not aware of any problems related individuals with CCW permits within the township.

"(There have been) none," Fuhs said.

How can anyone be surprised that people who generally obey the laws are in fact generally obeying the laws and not using their guns to settle arguments.

I am sure there have already been CPL holders who have used their guns wrongly (and lost the right to carry) but obviously they are the exception and not the rule. You just can't argue with reality. Well that is unless you are a part of the Brady campaign and then you not only argue with reality you twist it to fit your narrow view of the people's right or non-right, as the case would be, for self protection.

This is a great article detailing the post "Shall Issue" condition of Michigan. I wish there were more like it from main stream media outlets but that just aint gonna happen. Not in my lifetime anyway.

Oh yea there is this also

Jones has also introduced legislation that would allow permit holders carry a concealed weapon registered to their spouse. That bill, House Bill 4642, was introduced earlier this year and sent to the House Conversation, Forestry, and Outdoor Recreation Committee.

"Rather than make a husband and wife buy another gun, we let the CCW holder carry their spouse's," Jones said. "This is just plain common sense that makes the CCW permit more user-friendly to the good, law-abiding residents of Michigan."

It does make good sence. I am really excited by this one and hope that it does make it into law.
 

Say Uncle has a run down of some good news concerning eminent domain. Hopefully this is just the beginning of the backlash.

For more information concerning eminent domain issues be sure to check out the eminent domain blog here.

 

Titled: Libraries vs. guns

The words are still there in red on the Ferndale Public Library's front door.

"Absolutely no weapons including those permitted by concealed weapons law may be brought into this facility."

The statement remains, even though the courts have said the rule is not enforceable for properly registered concealed weapons.

In 2001, Ferndale's City Council took a bold stand and voted to ban guns from its city buildings.

The move - called groundbreaking by some - spurred other cities to take similar stands. Soon Detroit, East Lansing, Saline and others had passed their own bans.

Two words. Civil Disobedience.

 

Titled: Worker right or workplace danger?

In an effort to keep weapons out of the workplace, his employer, ConocoPhillips, is challenging state law and has forbidden workers to leave guns in their cars in company parking lots. Now, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is encouraging gun owners to stop buying ConocoPhillips gasoline.

The boycott is the latest skirmish in an expanding battle over gun control. Now that many states allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, the NRA is pushing to eliminate remaining restrictions on where those guns can be taken. Gun-control groups - and some employers - are fighting back.

I am not a member of the NRA but I am joining the boycott. I can certainly understand if a place a business wants to keep weapons out of their buildings but a person's vehicle is their private property. If you are licensed to carry a weapon in the general public why shouldn't you also be able to keep one locked in your car at your place of employment? A ban will not stop someone from using a weapon to harm someone if that is their intent.

 

House Bill 4643 passed on the House Floor today

HB 4643, Sponsor Rep. Rick Jones. Weapons; licensing; issuance of concealed pistol license renewal; require within certain period of time. Amends sec. 5l of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425l).

This Bill involves CPL Renewal Delay Problems. If the concealed weapon licensing board does not issue or deny issuance of a renewal license within the 60-day period, the period for the original license is extended for 180 days or until a renewal license is issued or denied.

The full text of the Bill can be read at the following link: HB-4643 MCRGO continues to develop, monitor and advocate legislation consistent with our Mission Statement: "Promoting safe use and ownership of firearms through education, litigation, and legislation"

 

Titled: Gun Owners Should Worry About Property Rights Ruling

The recent 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court legislating away property rights in the United States should give pause to all gun owners, as well as all Americans.

The plain language of the Fifth Amendment limits eminent domain to the taking of private property for public purposes. "Public purposes" has been understood for more than 200 years to consist of roads, government buildings and similar public uses. This is still the general understanding by all but a handful of folks in black dresses.

The idea that the owner of a higher tax-yielding use should be able to get the government to grab another owner's property and give it to the user that pays higher taxes is quite simply a theft. In one afternoon, the Supreme Court has done away with private property in the U.S.

Do gun owners think they will remain immune from such tyrants? Already, at various times, six of the nine justices have said that U.S. law should conform to foreign law -- especially European law and UN treaties. How long until our gun laws are made to conform to say, England's, where they have an almost total gun ban?

Just adding another whack to the dead horse. This was also posted at the Liberty1st forum.

 

David Codrea asks a great question.

If real property can be taken away from its owner by a community based on the plunderer's definition of "public good," why can't tangibile property be similarly confiscated?

Things like guns...?

He's right. Using the term "public good" as loosely as the court did to take away someone's property opens up a door that we may never fully shut again. If they can take someone's home what's to stop them from taking anything else? Nothing.

 

Titled:  U.S. Gun Sales on the Rise

Gun sales in the United States are shooting up, according to current and projected firearms sale figures from gunmaker Smith & Wesson Corp.

The 153-year-old Massachusetts company Wednesday said firearms sales for fiscal 2005 are expected to increase by approximately 11 percent over fiscal 2004 levels.

Hey I am part of a trend.

 

Arkansas and Michigan now have an official reciprocity agreement.

 

Some follow up to the CPL legislation mentioned yesterday.

 

Titled: Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

We The People have a Constitutional Right and Duty to protect our families and ourselves. Had this woman a pistol and the will to use it for protection the only one dead would be the estranged husband.

 

Titled: 2005 House Bill 4643 (Revise CPL renewal deadlines)

Introduced by Rep. Rick Jones on April 20, 2005, to require a county concealed pistol licensing board to approve or deny a concealed pistol license (CPL) license renewal application within 60 days of its submission, and if they do not, extend the original license by 180 days, or until the renewal application is approved or denied.

Titled: 2005 House Bill 4642 (Allow spouse to transport pistol)

Introduced by Rep. Rick Jones on April 20, 2005, to allow an individual to carry or transport a pistol belonging to his or her spouse if it is properly licensed and inspected, and if the individual carrying or transporting it has also obtained a license to carry or transport.

Titled: 2005 House Bill 4522 (Exempt veterans from CPL training)

Introduced by Rep. Joel Sheltrown on March 17, 2005, to exempt honorably discharged veterans from the state’s Concealed Pistol Permit (CPL) safety training requirement.

 

Aphapatriot does a nice job of comparing strict gun laws in the UK with a rise in violence there. Read part 1 here.

Stay tuned for part 2.

 

Say Uncle, a long time eminent domain abuse protagonist makes note of some events surrounding the recent Kelo decision. For more information on this topic there is an Eminent Domain Blog here as well as an activist website here.

It's a start.

 

I am not sure if Zendo Deb meant to do this or not but she provides a great juxtaposition of how Britain and the U.S differ when it comes to self protection.

First we have Brits may get right to fight back followed by Oklahoma defends right to Keep and Bear Arms. In the first example the question is whether British citizens should be allowed to defend themselves against intruders. The fact that this question has to be debated at all is mind blowing enough. However when you consider that previous legislation was defeated because the Attorney General argued that burglars have rights also, you really have to question whether the end of Western Civilization has already begun. In the second example the Oklahoma legislature signed into law a bill that would prohibit cooperations from limiting an employee's right to self protection (in America). Maybe there is hope for Western Civilization after all.

 

Denise from the Ten Ring does a nice job of categorizing anti-gun people here. In part II, which can be found here she offers some suggestions in how to deal with arguments from each group.

A couple of really great posts I found via Say Uncle.

 

Titled: Michigan's threat from concealed weapons

If you plan a trip to Michigan, you may want to check your life insurance policy, update your will and don your body armor. Come Sunday, unless the state supreme court intervenes, it will start letting residents get permits to carry concealed weapons. Gun-control advocates are braced for the worst.

"I can guarantee you that I've honked my last horn at an intersection in Michigan," former prosecutor L. Brooks Patterson told the Tribune's Tim Jones. A disgusted Oakland County official threatened to put up billboards saying "Welcome to Dodge City." Police groups say their members will be in jeopardy from "more guns in more and more locations."

Of course Michigan is already a risky place to honk your horn. Its homicide rate has long been well above the national average. Detroit currently places third in the ongoing competition to be the murder capital of the United
States. And things can only get much worse if lots of Michiganders take to packing heat, right?

It's a little dated but makes a great point anyway. You have to read the whole thing because the teaser is a bait and switch for anti-gun propaganda. It was written just prior to the time the "Shall Issue" law went into effect in Michigan. Four years later it hasn't gotten more danerous. In fact the statistics show something quite dfferent.

I am not saying that one is related to the other but those are the numbers. You can see the numbers yourself on the pdf file that the State of Michigan compiled them on.

 

Well after procrastinating for the last eight months I am going to, in a matter of speaking, bite the bullet and apply for my CPL. I took the course back in October of 2004 but just haven't got around to applying for the license. Anyway I'm starting the paperwork now. I'll let you all know how it goes.

 

Everything you wanted to know about Michigan's CPL but didn't know where to ask.

 

Michigan House Bill 4694

(Authorize concealed pistol for certain state employees): Introduced by Rep. Leon Drolet on April 28, 2005, to allow state workers with concealed pistol permits (CPLs) to carry a concealed firearm when doing off-site inspections on private property as part of their duties. Under current law, CPL holders doing inspections for the state (such as Family Independence Agency workers making home visits) are not permitted to carry while on duty.

Text on the bill can be read here.

 

For immediate release

Michigan residents with CCW permits now will no longer have to worry about their permit lapsing during renewal process and will be able to carry their spouse's registered weapon under legislation introduced by Rep. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge.

Under current law, if the board does not decide on renewal or rejection prior to the expiration of the CCW, the permit holder can no longer use the permit until renewed. Jones' measure would extend the existing permit until the board issues or denies the renewal.

"Renewal applicants are law-abiding people. If they were going to commit a crime, they wouldn't be applying for a renewal," Jones said. "This decreases the amount of bureaucratic red tape and worry placed on residents when renewing a concealed weapons permit."

Jones is also introducing legislation to allow permit holders to carry a weapon registered to their spouse.

"Rather than make a husband and wife buy another gun, we let the CCW holder carry their spouse's," Jones said. "This is just plain common sense and makes the CCW permit more user-friendly to the good law-abiding residents of Michigan".

Text and Analysis:
House Bill 4642 (2005)
House Bill 4643 (2005)

Link and text via the MCRGO.

 

Rep. Ronald Paul from Texas has introduced H.R. 1703 to restore the second amendment rights of all Americans. The text of the bill can be found here.

 

Some firearm legislation that is currently being considered in the Michigan House.

House Bill 4650 (Expand "strawman" firearms purchase ban): Introduced by Rep. LaMar Lemmons III on April 21, 2005, to explicitly define as a crime purchasing or attempting to purchase a firearm with the intent of furnishing the firearm to a minor or any other individual prohibited from having a firearm, and establish penalties. Note: "Straw-man" gun purchases in which the buyer of record is actually acquiring the firearm for another are already prohibited. This bill adds provisions regarding minors and ineligible buyers. Details and Comments here.

House Bill 4651 (Expand "strawman" firearms purchase): Introduced by Rep. LaMar Lemmons III on April 21, 2005, to provide sentencing guidelines for the crime defined by House Bill 4650 of purchasing a firearm with the intent of furnishing it to a minor. Details and Comments here.

House Bill 4653 (Require pistol sale registration): Introduced by Rep. LaMar Lemmons III on April 21, 2005, to require sellers to register pistol sales with the state police. Details and Comments here.

House Bill 4654 (Repeal "duty to retreat" in home self defense): Introduced by Rep. Tom Casperson on April 21, 2005, to establish in law that a person who uses deadly force for self defense in his or her home or contiguous private property need not first flee from a threatening attacker. Details and Comments here.

I am glad they are considering repealing the "duty to retreat." portion of the law. As far as I am concerned if someone is in my house to do harm to my family or me, my only duty is to protect my family. It is the attacker who has a duty. His duty is to get out of my house post haste, like his very life depended on it because it may.

 

Titled: Retooling CCW zones

Pack heat in your house of worship? Carry a concealed handgun to your child's teacher conference in a school or day-care center? What about a pistol in the hospital emergency room?

Since July 1, 2001, Michigan residents licensed to carry a concealed pistol have been prohibited from carrying it in these and several other pistol-free zones. Now, a Michigan lawmaker -- state Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt -- is conducting Senate Judiciary Committee hearings into revisions of the CCW law. One proposed change is to ease up these no-carry zones, possibly dropping some of them.

Gun-control advocates argue that licensed handgun bearers would provide security that does not exist under the present law. And they have a point.

In recent weeks a trio of unrelated attacks killed three people in an Atlanta, Ga., courtroom on March 11; seven in a Milwaukee, Wis., church on March 12; and eight at Red Lake High School in Minnesota on March 21. Would some of those people be alive today if someone had been armed and able to disable or obstruct the gunmen?

It's an interesting question. The article does a pretty good job of just presenting the information without pushing the reader one way or another. I really wish more of the main stream media would present news stories in this way.

For the record I believe I should be able to openly carry my firearm with me where ever I go.

But thats just me.

 

Titled: Stop Unjust Forfeiture of Motor Vehicles According to Speak Out Michigan there are bills that would force the police to return a vehicle of a car if the owner is not convicted of a crime. I am not sure how long they will keep this particular text up so I am going to post the whole thing. Afterword I will post a link to the bill's text.

Michigan law allows the police to confiscate a motor vehicle if they suspect that anyone used the vehicle for an illegal purpose. It doesn't matter whether the owner gave consent. It doesn't even matter whether someone stole the vehicle.

For example, if the police claim that they found any marijuana in your car, they can seize your car. How the marijuana got there doesn't matter. Maybe it fell out of the pocket of an auto mechanic, valet parking attendant, or auto thief. Or maybe the wind blew a miniscule amount of marijuana through an open window. The police can confiscate your car.

Although the government sometimes is required, and often is willing, to return the vehicle to an innocent owner, the owner must pay a large fee. In Wayne County the fee is $900.

Senate Bills 138-143 will help protect innocent owners from unjust forfeiture. These bills will require the government to return a motor vehicle, without any fee, if (A) the owner is not charged with a crime, civil infraction, or civil violation, or (B) the owner is charged with, but found not guilty of, a crime, civil infraction, or civil violation.

Please ask your state senator and state representative to support Senate Bills 138-143.

SpeakOutMichigan provides an easy way to send e-mail to them. It provides a prewritten letter, to which you can add personal comments. Type in your zip code and SpeakOutMichigan will identify your state legislators and send them the letter. It takes only a minute or two.

SpeakOutMichigan also provides an easy way to send e-mail to your friends, so that they can contact their state legislators. Again there is a prewritten letter.

Help protect yourself and other innocent owners from unjust forfeiture.

Support Senate Bills 138-143.

Here is the text of the bill(s).

 

Senate Bill 374 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State)

Introduced by Sen. Bruce Patterson on April 13, 2005, to require a court to notify the Secretary of State when it issues a personal protection order prohibiting an individual from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Under current law a court must notify the county weapons board. The bill is tie-barred to Senate Bill 375, which would eliminate the county weapons boards and transfer the responsibility for issuing concealed pistol license (CPL) licenses to the Secretary of State. Details and Comments here. 

Senate Bill 375 (Move CPL issuance to Secretary of State)

Introduced by Sen. Michelle McManus on April 13, 2005, to eliminate county concealed weapon licensing boards, and transfer the responsibility for issuing concealed pistol license (CPL) licenses to the Secretary of State. Details and Comments here.

Other Michigan CPL bills can be found here, here and here.

 

Sarah Brady's press release to the U.S. Newswire dated 4/11/2005.

"The Kansas Legislature last week passed a bill that should be called the 'No Local Rights' bill. If Senate Bill 195 becomes law, no city or town in Kansas would be able to pass its own regulations about guns, if those regulations are stricter than state law. That's a lot of nonsense, and Governor Sebelius should veto it, and the legislature should uphold her veto.

Nonsense? Exchange any other unalienable right with the right to bear arms and tell me this is nonsense. What if a city in Kansas decided that there is no explicit freedom of religion and that everyone in the city must worship at a Church of their choice each Sunday from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm. Still think it's nonsense?

Why is it OK for local governments to regulate guns but not religion or speech? I mean why do we have a Constitution proclaiming and protecting the rights of the individual if some local politicians can remove them with a majority vote?

"Since 1860, local communities in Kansas have been regulating firearms because locally elected officials understood that different laws are necessary in different communities.

Is Mrs. Brady saying that some people in Kansas do not deserve the right to self-protection? How does one determine such a thing? Americans, are supposed to have equal protection under the law. Shouldn't we also have the right to equally protect ourselves from those outside the law?

People can feel the way they want about gun laws, but we should all agree that in a democracy, the people of a local community should be able to take the appropriate steps to ensure their safety locally. That's what democracy is all about. To pass this wrong headed language into law is contrary to democracy."

Pet peeve alert!!! I wish that people who insist on characterizing our form of government as a democracy would, at the very least, add the word constitutional to the beginning of their sentence. This would help ensure they realize there is a difference between a democracy and a Constitutional Democracy.

Mrs. Brady is a little confused by our system of government. We are not a democracy. We are a Representative Republic and the distinction is important. The founding fathers knew the danger that a majority or the mob, if you prefer, could pose to the minority. They set up a government where the individual would have equal access to everything America offers. When that access is encroached on by a third party such as the governments the individual can seek relief through the courts.

She may be right about putting such wording into the law. It may be anti-democratic if, in fact, the majority does disapprove of it. However it is not unconstitutional and that is all that should matter when it comes to such things.

By the way, I found this press release via this post from the War on Guns who follows it up today with this one.

 

Titled: Online Freedom of Speech Act Introduced in House

In short - if this bill passes both houses and becomes law in the next 50 or-so days, the disastrous FEC rulemaking process will be rendered moot. Remember, the FEC is only creating regulations for Internet activity because Congress didn't specifically mention the Internet at all, and a federal judge ruled that even in the absence of specific direction of Congress, the FEC had to do so anyway.

This bill provides that direction, and creates that exclusion. It might not solve *all* the problems of regulation, but it's miles and away the best solution right now. I've already heard from some liberal colleagues in the blogosphere, and we're going to push this bill - and hard.

Redstate has more.

 

It is clear to me that Dr. Zen has never faced a rapist, or a gay basher. What should I do, Dr. Zen, if faced with a rapist? Give him what he wants? Sorry, but I would rather give him what he deserves - a couple of hollow point slugs carefully aimed.

Yea what she said.

 

Titled: Michiganders to face tighter border rules

Metro Detroiters might need passports to re-enter Michigan from Canada under new federal rules being phased in by 2008.

Such a regulation would represent a significant tightening of a border that has been one of the world's freest for more than two centuries.

According to Bush administration officials, new passport regulations -- designed to curtail terrorism -- would apply to Americans returning to the United States from Canada, Mexico, Panama and Bermuda.

I don't know. Is this a bad thing? On one hand it seems like another worthless measure that will do nothing to prevent bad guys from getting into the country. On the other hand I do appreciate the attention that borders are receiving.

 

Yea but was there a  proper two day waiting period? You know a cooling off period so that the purchaser doesn't do anything rash like help start a new government or something.

 

Titled: Status of Current Firearms Related Legislation

The new Michigan Legislature has two years to complete passage of bills before a new Legislature takes office in 2007. It is not unusual that bills from the previous session that were not given favorable treatment would reappear in this session. As of the date of this writing, three old anti-rights bills and one much-needed bill have been introduced.

More about those bills here.

 

Today I ran into the Michigan Coordinator for the Michigan Chapter of the Second Amendment Sisters. I was reminded of what a great origination that is. If you are interested you can find out more about them from their main site or if you are from Michigan you can check out the Michigan Chapter here.

I love their Mission Statement. So simple yet so powerful.

"Second Amendment Sisters, Inc. is a women's advocacy group dedicated to promoting the basic human right to self-defense, as recognized by the Second Amendment.

We believe in personal responsibility, education, and enforcement of laws against violent criminals."

 

I ran across a new Blog, well new to me, called "Of Arms & the Law." It looks like its going to be a great resource for those of us interested in the the preserving the 2nd Amendment. This post "A complete understanding of the Second Amendment" is a great place to start. Read it.

 

Titled: The unlikely ACLU-gun-nut alliance

When the American Civil Liberties Union and gun-nut lobbies make common cause, it is time to pay attention. That is exactly the case with the new Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, an improbable coalition of liberal and conservative - nay, arch conservative - organizations cobbled together to contest the thoughtless renewal of the Patriot Act that President Bush has called for.

Why are the pro gun lobbies described as nuts? And why does the ACLU get a nuttiness pass? Could it possibly be a bias on the part of the author?

The ACLU is bedded down here with, among still more, the American Conservative Union, the Eagle Forum, the Free Congress Foundation and Citizens for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Republican former congressman Bob Barr chairs the unlikely affair.

I get the feeling this author don't think much about those of us on the conservative side of politics.

Unlikely but welcome. Slammed through Congress in panic and without serious hearings or debate in just six weeks after 9/11, the act mowed down traditional civil liberties wholesale and concentrated new, dangerous powers in the executive branch.
  
Key provisions, particularly ones dealing with surveillance, are scheduled to sunset at the end of this year unless Congress extends them. Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales are pushing for a quick endorsement of the act as it is.

Blah blah blah

Some of the innovations in the act are reasonable and probably were overdue even before the terrorist attack - roaming wire taps under judicial supervision, for instance, that focus on the subject and are not limited to just this or that form or place of communication.
  
But many provisions are way over the top. Section 802 defines terrorism so broadly it could be used to criminalize ordinary political activity and subject citizens who are exercising protected political rights to secret surveillance and their political organizations to police infiltration.
  
Section 215 allows the government to rummage through citizens' medical, library and gun-purchase records without probable cause and without informing the subject of the snooping. Section 213 allows secret searches of homes and businesses - "creep and peep," in opponents' shorthand. Gag orders keep even legal challenges to parts of the act secret, a truly Orwellian scenario.
  
Barr's organization argues that America "can wage an effective war on terrorism without locking up its own citizens without access to their families and attorneys, and without trial or charges."

Yup.

Barr was one of the howling right-wingers of the GOP's Gingrich generation, but out of office he has become arguably the leading conservative voice for principled defense of individual liberties and for protecting citizens' besieged zone of privacy.

So why all the "attacks" on conservatives in the beginning of this article?

Conservatives should oppose much of the Patriot Act just on principle alone. However as the author of this article pointed out not all of it is bad and some of it is way over due.

I think the preservation of Liberty is one area where conservatives, libertarians and liberals should join forces. Save the "attacks" for the social security debate.

 

Titled: Concealed Pistol Permits: Renewal Date

This is a great bill, and much needed. There is no reason why a renewal CPL cannot bear an issue date that is the same as the previous CPL's expiration date. Other licenses, such as drivers' licenses, do exactly this. With passage by the House in a vote of 109-0, MCRGO is confident that the Senate will also agree.

BRIEF SUMMARY: The bill would set the issuance date of a concealed pistol permit as the same day as the expiration of the preceding permit, if the permit were renewed prior to its expiration date.

Source: MCRGO. The full text of the bill can be read here.

 

Titled: Michigan and South Carolina Sign CPL Reciprocity Agreement

MCRGO has just been notified by the Michigan Attorney General's office that Michigan and South Carolina have signed a mutual reciprocity agreement. This should become effective when the information is posted on South Carolina's web page. (Michigan already recognizes South Carolina CPLs, as long as the licensee is a SC resident.)

.....[Snip].....

South Carolina is thus the 28th state where Michigan CPLs are valid. Congratulations to all, especially to Attorney General Mike Cox, who from the very earliest moments of his 2002 campaign for AG promised MCRGO that he would work aggressively to obtain all possible reciprocity agreements for Michigan's citizens. He has certainly kept his promise!

28 states now. That is great news for CPL holders who like to travel. The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners keeps an updated map of states with reciprocity agreements with Michigan. As of now this is how it breaks down.

 

 

This really should not be that big of a deal. It is, after all, the 2nd Amendment to our Bill of Rights found at the very beginning of our Constitution. To me, the big deal is that we let this right slip away in the first place. Shame on all of us.

The above graphic and more info can be found at Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners.

 

I read several Pro Gun Bloggers, a few of which you can find on my Blogroll to the right. I just added one more to my reading list and the Blogroll. The Blog is named "The Ten Ring". The authors describe themselves this way.

A blog by two self-described gun nuts. One who started as a liberal and the other who started as a conservative. We helped each other grow and thrive over the past nine years.

It was a great find and is a great read.

Oh yea, Say Uncle's referral logs are what initially led me to The Ten Ring. I really love the whole Blogging phenomenon. I wonder if it will catch on?

 

Titled: Blogging ... Blah, Blah, Blah

U.S. News & World Report reported last week that several senior Republican senators — upon hearing that "blogs" had uncovered the Dan Rather scandal, helped to defeat Tom Daschle and pushed for the resignation of CNN executive Eason Jordan — demanded that "blogs" be added to their official Web sites.

Even though, as a Capitol Hill Web consultant told the magazine, most of them hadn't the slightest idea of what a "blog" actually is.

Nor would they be all that happy with all that is said on many of those Blogs. Most of the Conservative Bloggers, at least the ones I read, and I suspect many of the liberal bloggers are more libertarian in their political philosophies. In the last election there were many Conservative Bloggers who endorsed Republican candidates somewhat reluctantly are were not shy about talking about where they differed from various candidates.

To be successful in this arena you have to stand out and being a political party cheerleader is not enough. I cannot think of too many politicians with the political courage to stand by unrestricted political speech when a Blogger they have linked to happens to disagree with them on some issue. I suspect in such a case the politician will suddenly learn a new "Blog" term. A term known as delinking.

It's an amusing story, but the more I read about the weblogging phenomenon from traditional media sources — the more I hear about it from talk show hosts and pundits, and the more triumphalism, tribalism, and group hurt we're starting to see from the "blogosphere" — the more I'm convinced that even "hip" reporters and tech-savvy bloggers themselves don't really "get" blogs any more than those senior Republican senators do.

In truth, "blogs" are nothing more than a relatively new way of distributing information, just as radio, television, newsprint, and conventional Web sites once were. Blogs differ from other media in that they provide links for easy referencing, they're more easily and quickly updated (and, consequently, many times less carefully edited), they allow for more interaction between reader and publisher, and there's virtually no barrier to entry — meaning just about anyone can start his or her own blog. You don't need to win the approval of an editor. You don't need start-up money from a publisher. You don't need a radio tower.

The Blogosphere has given birth to millions of independent self publishers. Instead of a printing press a connection to the internet and some space to fill is all that is required.

I think the Founding Fathers would be proud.

 

Titled: No Encryption for E-Passports

Despite widespread criticism from security experts that a proposed high-tech upgrade to Americans' passports actually introduces new security risks, the government is declining to encrypt data on new high-tech e-passports, according to proposed new rules published last week.

..... [snip] .....

The new passports will include a radio frequency identification tag, a chip that will store all the information on the data page of the passport, including name, date and place of birth, and a digitized version of the photo passport, according to the proposal in the Federal Register.

..... [snip] .....

The lack of encryption baffles privacy advocates and security researchers, who say the new passports are vulnerable to "skimming," an attack that uses an unauthorized reader to gather information from the RFID chip without the passport owner's knowledge.

The State Department concedes that skimming is a legitimate threat, but says the chips will have a read range of inches, that eavesdropping at border stations would be very conspicuous and that the passports will have a shielding mechanism -- perhaps a foil case or a weave in the cover that will cloak the chip when the passport is closed.

At least they're taking security seriously. Or not.

 

One of the things that has always bothered me about the ACLU, and there are a lot of items on that list, is that they never seem to apply the same passion for the 2nd Amendment as they do the 1st. Well apperently someone from the local ACLU is out to change that (well that is my hope anyway).

Is there a Right to Keep and Bear Arms in either the Federal or Michigan Constitutions? This is a question that will be presented at the Bill of Rights Program, sponsored by the Southwestern Michigan Branch of the ACLU. This program is to help educate the community about the Bill of Rights, the issues involved and merits of the positions on all sides. The March 16th portion of this program, presents our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and would be of interest to Michigan gun owners. Past president of MCRGO, David Felbeck will be one of the participants. You are cordially invited to attend and participate.

Check out the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners web site for more info.

 

Titled: The Right to Carry. An Awesome Responsibility

From Southwest Michigan's premiere training center comes the self-study book for individuals wanting to meet their legal obligations for training for the renewal of their Michigan Concealed Pistol License. In addition to allowing you to self-study, there is also a suggested course of fire, a multiple choice test, and an option to send that test in for scoring and thereby receive a certificate of completion for your records. Praise for The Right to Carry: An Awesome Responsibility comes from: "The Michigan Concealed Pistol Law has made it possible for thousands of law abiding Michigan residents to safely carry a concealed pistol for self protection.

I applaud the efforts of sportsmen, like Joel Fulton, who have trained so many applicants on the safe handling and proper use of pistols. His course book provides the right emphasis on the need to avoid confrontations, for each licensee to constantly train and become familiar with his or her pistol, and to safely store firearms from children." --Mike Cox, Attorney General of the State of Michigan "The Right to Carry: An Awesome Responsibility by Mr. Joel Fulton is a "must read" for every law-abiding Patriot of the American Constitution. Extensively researched, the author provides with crisp, concise clarity, everything a loyal Michigan Resident must know in exercising his or her 2nd Amendment right.

This is a guidebook your personal library must not be without." --Charlie Bassett, NRA Training Counselor Program Coordinator "Serving as Chairman of the Calhoun County Gun Board in which Joel and Jared Fulton train the majority of their students, the level of excellence with which this book is written comes as no surprise. Students of this book will walk away in the same fashion as students of the Fulton's classes: Prepared and Well-Informed!" --John Hallacy, Calhoun County Prosecutor

If that reads like an editorial review it's because that's exactly what it is. I copied / pasted the whole review from Amazon.com. This is a book I am going to purchase soon. I happen to live in Southwestern Michigan and coincidently am in the process of applying for a concealed pistol license. What timing!

 

Titled: Gun law had little effect on crime

Police say there's little evidence gun use is up in crimes or that permit holders have prevented violence.
 
Opponents warned of vigilantes run amok, more accidental shootings and road rage escalating to gunfire.

Backers of Michigan's expanded concealed-weapons law talked of thwarted attacks by thugs, reduced crime and personal safety.

Three years of experience in Jackson County and statewide indicate the biggest impact of the July 2001 shall-issue law is peace of mind for some 110,000 people packing heat.

See I told ya. The article claims that there was no positive effect on crime either. However, if you check out the stats you will see that there has been a pretty steady drop in the violent crime rate as CPLs have been widely available in Michigan. I am not saying there is a definite correlation but the numbers are available. You can judge for yourself.

 

Titled: Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies

While it is an article of faith among gun-control proponents that government restrictions on firearms reduces violence and crime, two new U.S. studies could find no evidence to support such a conclusion.

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.

The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control.

Another non surprise.

 

Titled: The False Hope of Gun-Free Zones

Few people remember the school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi that took place in October 1997. Fewer people remember how it ended.

This episode came to a close when Pearl High School Assistant Principal Joel Myrick sprinted a quarter mile to retrieve a personal handgun from his car and confronted the shooter who was unwilling to continue the attack against an armed victim.

Myrick parked so far away from the school to keep from violating federal gun free zone statutes. By the time the shooting spree ended, two students lay dead and seven others were wounded. Myrick's heroic defense of the children at his school was sparsely reported, going mostly unnoticed by the establishment media who were unwilling to report that he used a gun to end the mayhem and murder.

They were also unwilling to ask the hard question - how many children died while Myrick sprinted to his car?

Why doesn't anyone in the media ever ask such questions? It's a great question especially when you consider this.

Past instances of mass shootings, and common sense, teach us that when a victim resists with a firearm the violence ends quickly. Arguments claiming armed intervention by citizens leads to higher death tolls do not stand up to scrutiny. Death tolls are demonstrably higher when victims are unable to fight back as compared to cases where an armed victim resists.

It's time to ask how many more people must needlessly die before gun control activists and legislators realize that disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them easy prey to criminals.

I didn't cut and paste the text covering recent events involving the use of firearms in defense. I recommend you follow the link and read the whole thing. One more teaser.

A similar scenario unfolds in nearly every massacre committed with a firearm across the United States. Most take place in what gun-rights activists call victims-zones; areas deemed too dangerous, either by government or a private business, to allow legal firearms.

What gun-control advocates fail to grasp is criminals, by definition, do not follow the law and therefore any attempt to keep them from carrying a gun into a given establishment will fail, often with tragic results.

The goal of legislators nationwide shouldn't be to keep armed law-abiding citizens from bearing arms in restaurants, bars, schools and so forth. It should be to keep criminals with guns from entering such locations.

Posting signs designating an area as "gun free" does not keep criminals from entering with a gun; they invite criminals who know nobody can stop them.

How true. Not ten minutes after I read that article I came across this short editorial from the Review Journal.

EDITORIAL: Gun ban

The only major American city that prohibits private citizens from owning guns is Washington, D.C. -- and we all know our nation's capital has a reputation for being a pastoral, crime-free paradise.

And now the deep thinkers in San Francisco hope to follow suit.

On Tuesday, The Associated Press reports, five of the city's 11 city supervisors submitted a measure to the Department of Elections that would prohibit the ownership, "sale, manufacturing or distribution of handguns, and the transfer of gun licenses."

If voters approve the plan in November, residents would have 90 days to turn in their guns. Good luck.

There are some exceptions to the proposal. Law enforcement officers, members of the military and security guards "actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment" would be free to keep their weapons.

Oh, yes, and so would one more favored class: violent and petty criminals.

Yea. What he said.

 

Titled: Accidental Firearm-related Fatalities Drop to All-time Low

A report from the National Safety Council shows that accidental firearm-related fatalities continue to decline and are at the lowest level in the history of record keeping. Statistics in the council’s “Injury Facts 2004” reveal a 54 percent decrease over a 10-year period ending in 2003.

Last year, 101,537 U.S. residents died in accidents of all types. Less than one percent, 700, involved firearms. The most common deadly accidents involved motor vehicles, falls and poisonings, claiming 72 percent of all accidental deaths.

“The continuing decline is good news that’s attributable to a number of factors, but certainly the overarching theme is increased awareness of gun safety and responsibility,” said Doug Painter, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearm industry.

The numbers of fatilities have decreased as the number of CPLs and States that allow them have gone up. I, for one, am not surprised.

 

Some tweaking of the Michigan CPL law.

Introduced by Rep. Gene DeRossett on June 9, 2004, to require concealed weapon licensing board to issue or deny a concealed pistol license (CPL) renewal within 30 days after the application is properly submitted, and if they do not do so, to extend the original license for 180 days or until the renewal is issued or denied, whichever comes first. Also, to waive the fingerprint requirements for CPL renewals, and not charge fees for fingerprints required for a CPL. Referred to the House Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Committee on June 9, 2004. Reported in the House on November 10, 2004, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass. Substitute offered in the House on December 2, 2004. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on December 2, 2004. Amendment offered by Rep. Gene DeRossett on December 2, 2004. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on December 2, 2004.

In short the bill requires the CPL board to grant or deny an application within 30 days. It also drops the requirement for a second set of fingerprints during a renewal, which in turn will lower the cost of an application. The latter change will decrease the cost of the CPL by $15.00.

There is a $105 fee both for the original application and for the renewal; this fee includes the cost of fingerprinting. The fee is disbursed as follows: $26 to the county clerk, $15 to the county sheriff, and $64 to the state police. The state police use its disbursement to process fingerprints and reimburse the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its costs. (The FBI charges a $24 fee to conduct a comprehensive national background check.) If fingerprints are taken by the local police agency, the applicant must pay an additional $15 fee. Some people contend that having a set of fingerprints taken for renewal applications is unnecessary because a set has already been taken for the initial license and the applicant's identity can now be established by photo identification. The renewal fee could be reduced if fingerprinting was not required.

Makes sense to me.

 

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of theSecond Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Find out the answer from the Unabridged Second Amendment via the Second Amendment Sisters. I am not even sure why someone has to go through all this trouble to prove we do, in fact, have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms but there it is.

 

Recently I bought my first firearm. Before I purchased I had no idea of what to buy so of course I Googled "purchase my first hand gun." There were thousands of sites to choose from and I must of went through about twenty of them. Anyway to make a long story short, based on all my research I settled on a revolver for my first gun. I did so because it seemed safer for a newbie, its ease of use and the reliability factor.

This is what I purchased. A Taurus Model 66 .357 Magnum

 

Sure it may not be as cool looking as some of the semi-automatics out there but I absolutely love my revolver. My only issue with this particular firearm is that it is way too big to conceal. It is however an awesome target shooting pistol. I'm hooked. 

This post was inspired by another blogging revolver enthusiast. Check out her site. It is a great site for 2nd Amendment and self-protection information. 

 

Titled Rethinking Libertarian Minimalism

That's the proposition I put forward earlier this week on my blog, Miscellaneous Objections, as part of a broader discussion of the future of libertarianism, and it has drawn a number of interesting -- and often heated -- responses.

Questions of foreign policy have always been difficult for those of us who espouse a philosophy of limited government domestically, and they have only grown more difficult, though at the same time more critical, since September 11, 2001.

Unfortunately, instead of reassessing their minimalist instincts when it comes to intervention abroad, many in the institutional centers of the libertarian movement -- principally at the Cato Institute and, to a lesser extent, at Reason magazine -- have remained mired in a pre-9/11 mindset.

Here, I would like to address some of the key arguments people are making against both the need for a coherent (or at least vaguely cohesive) libertarian foreign policy and the premise that one doesn't exist already.

Right after the 2000 election I made up my mind that I would never vote Republican straight ticket again. From that point forward I was going to split my ticket among conservative/libertarian Republicans, like those from the Republican Liberty Caucus or for the Libertarian candidate.

Unfortunately 9/11 happened and that did change everything (for me). After 9/11 many in the Libertarian Party made it clear, to me anyway, that hawkish Libertarians were not welcome. I tried to stick with them for a while anyway by continuing to receive several different email newsletters from several Libertarian Think Tanks or advocate groups. However, I have cancelled or don't read most of those anymore because the anti war rhetoric coming out of the Libertarian camp sounds so much like that coming from the far left.

I still agree with 85% of what Libertarians believe but until they take national security seriously I am going to vote Republican Liberty Caucus or for the most conservative candidate Republican or Democrat.

 

Apparently not everyone shares my enthusiasm for CCW permits. While I was looking for information concerning crime stats in Michigan since the Shall Carry law was enacted. I ran across this.

May police limit carrying concealed handguns?  No

Michigan - State law forces police chiefs and state sheriffs to give concealed carry permits (CCW) to anyone who can buy a handgun, allowing them to carry loaded, concealed handguns in public (known as “shall issue”). State law allows residents of some other states to carry concealed weapons in this state without informing local police.

Emphasis mine. I wonder if they know this. Our Michigan State Constitution Reads:

Article 1, Section 6 Bearing of arms: "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."

Sounds like another law, which forces government officials to allow anyone who can purchase a firearm to own one. The horror of it all.

 

So far there are a total of 111620 people in Michigan legally able to carry a concealed weapon.

2001 - 2002
Applications Received	62902
Applications Issued		53000
Applications Pending			9072
Applications Denied				830
Licenses Revoked					55
2002 - 2003
Applications Received	29914
Applications Issued		27499
Applications Pending			1871
Applications Denied				514
Licenses Revoked					52
2003 - 2004
Applications Received	35585
Applications Issued		31121
Applications Pending			4152
Applications Denied				312
Licenses Revoked					119
Totals	128401	111620	15095	1656	226

These stats were lifted from the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners, who pulled them from the Michigan.gov site. Another interesting set of statistics that can be found on the Mich.gov site are these (pdf file). Notice that as the number of concealed weapons increased the number of violent crime went down. Imagine that.

I hope to be 111621