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.

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.

 

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.

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 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.

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:

Titled:   Pivotal Ohio Gun Rights Activist Passes Away

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 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

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!

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?