Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Lie of the Day

College students can now opt for a gun-free environment

No they can't. If someone brings a gun into their environment, they will be utterly powerless to do anything about it.

No law enacted by any politician will change that basic truth.

They may as well have established "Gravity Free Zones".

Muster Call: Chicago ISRA Rally Tomorrow

Gun owners from across Illinois will be descending on the state capitol on Wednesday to express their opposition to slew of gun control bills being pushed by Chicago mayor, Richard Daley.

Let's hope so.

I know "our side" works, but if Illinois gun owners really don't care enough to take a day to do this, then I'm afraid we can't expect anything from them when really serious sacrifices are required.

If you live in or near the "Land of Lincoln," go. Get your gun owning friends, press them if they make excuses, and go.

Shedding Light on Christian Trejbal

I can hear the shocked indignation of gun-toters already: It's nobody's business but mine if I want to pack heat.

Au contraire. Because the government handles the permitting, it is everyone's business.

"Au contraire." Figures he'd use French.

Readers are beating this odious punk up pretty good over in the article's comments section. Hopefully it'll result in some canceled subscriptions.

[Via KABA Newslinks]

De Facto Carry Ban in Santa Barbara County

By Larry R. Rankin, Santa Barbara, California

Life member NRA, Life member GOA, Life member JPFO, Life member California Rifle and Pistol Association, Life member Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Past President of the Grassroots, NRA members’ council, Chairman of the First Friends of NRA dinner in Santa Barbara, Current Chairman of the California American Pistol and Rifle Association for the County of Santa Barbara.

I am to this day licensed to carry a loaded weapon in all of the states below:

1) Alabama, 2) Alaska, 3) Arizona, 4) Arkansas, 5) Colorado, 6) Delaware, 7) Florida, 8) Georgia, 9) Idaho, 10) Indiana, 11) Kentucky, 12) Louisiana, 13) Michigan, 14) Minnesota, 15) Mississippi, 16) Missouri, 17) Montana, 18) Nevada, 19) New Hampshire, 20) New Mexico, 21) North Carolina, 22) North Dakota, 23) Ohio, 24) Oklahoma, 25) Pennsylvania, 26) South Dakota, 27) Tennessee, 28) Texas, 29) Utah, 30) Vermont, 31) Virginia, 32) Washington and 33) Wyoming

You might not like what Sheriff Bill Brown of Santa Barbara County has to say, but he is honest and direct about it. Which makes you wonder why the NRA gave a “A” rating to a man who makes it clear he's proud that he has given out only three concealed carry permits in his many years of service. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Sheriff Brown claims to be a life member of the NRA. Perhaps it is because Sheriff Brown is bright, well spoken and endowed with a certain measure of conceit that so often seems to be the inevitable attribute of a successful politician. It seems that there is something about a successful politician that the NRA finds hard to resist.

When I met with Sheriff Brown this March the 9th, to appeal my denial of my application of my active gun permit that I have had for over ten years (unsuccessfully) he was diplomatic enough to hear me out. He then very clearly and unambiguously laid out a policy of a de facto concealed carry ban in Santa Barbara County. A policy that does not recognize the right of self defense. A policy based on the model of a sovereign who knows what is best for his subjects, not a public servant elected to protect the rights of the citizens who elected him. A policy reminiscent of King George's government that was rejected by our founding fathers, not the constitutional model of government they bequeathed to us. A policy that supports the continued efforts to redefine the Second Amendment in sporting terms rather than in terms of a right of defense of self and property. And finally, if the NRA lawyers are listening, a policy that violates California law on concealed carry, which at least acknowledges that there might be someone qualified to receive a concealed carry permit other than persons associated with law enforcement. While California was careful enough not to craft an outright de jure ban on concealed carry, Sheriff Brown's policy is a ban as a matter of fact, if not of law.

Twenty years ago I might have understood how Sheriff Brown can state "I am a Life member of the NRA, a hunter, a gun collector and we have enough laws, without creating new ones" and yet prohibit concealed carry. But many years of data are available today from states that have allowed widespread concealed carry. Data that show a reduction of crime. Data that show that concealed carry holders are overwhelmingly safe and law abiding. These are facts especially important to the discharge of his duties as Sheriff. Facts that he should have made an effort to investigate before adopting a concealed carry policy. Facts that any NRA member knows. To continue a policy that he has followed for many years with no consideration of contemporary evidence is to demonstrate an arbitrary and capricious exercise of his power as Sheriff.

If enough sheriffs abuse California's concealed carry law in an arbitrary and capricious manner, the argument can be made that California's concealed carry law violates either the California of Federal constitutions. Is the NRA counting?

There is, additionally, another legal reform that the NRA should champion. One concern Sheriff Brown identified, and I have heard this from other sheriffs, is fear of personal legal liability if someone with a concealed carry permit commits a crime with the permitted weapon. Law enforcement is second only to the teachers' unions in political influence in the California legislature. Would not California law enforcement almost unanimously support the NRA were it to lobby for a law protecting sheriffs and police chiefs from liability for issuing concealed carry permits? Would you issue CCWs if it meant you might lose your job, your house, your kids' college money, and a lifetime of savings? If it meant declaring bankruptcy to avoid having a multi million dollar verdict haunting you for the rest of your life?

Sheriff Brown is no Patrick Henry ("Give me liberty or give me death"). But then how many of us are? We have to work with the men and women we have as law enforcement leaders. If the NRA were to lobby for the legal protection California police and sheriffs' needs, perhaps they might not be afraid to take an honest look at success other states have had with concealed carry.

Apportioning the Blame

Suljo Talovic doesn't know where his son got the guns or how he learned how to use them.

Suljo Talovic, Father of Shooter: "Somebody got (the guns)…and maybe (they were) training him and tell(ing) him (to), ‘go shoot somebody.'"

I don't suppose there's any way to console a man who has suffered such a loss. I think the agony and guilt a father would feel over a son doing this could drive the strongest among us over the edge.

But pointing to US gun laws and now at unknown manipulators goes to the crux of the "gun control" argument: freedom doesn't just mean doing what you want. It means being personally accountable for your actions.

It sounds hard, unsympathetic and cruel, but your son did this murderous act. If others influenced him, he chose to heed that influence.

This business of apportioning blame to guns, to the law, to others, has been bought into by a significant number of voters who hold a misguided faith that human evil will end by mandating social change. That they're enablers for further and more monstrous evil does not occur to them because the ones not in on the scam actually believe they're doing good.

[Via Larry Rankin]

This Day in History: March 13

On this day in 1733, Joseph Priestley, supporter of the American Revolution and leader of the Unitarian Church in Britain and America, is born in Birstall, Yorkshire, England.

Joseph Priestley shared the liberal religious and political philosophy of many of America’s revolutionary leaders, including Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, all of whom became his friends and correspondents.

So does that mean modern UNitarian leaders have hijacked the organization, bastardized its principles and deliberately led their flock away from that philosophy?