So much for disarmed subjects of the crown relying on the police for protection. But what could be more important than an octogenarian under potentially lethal and immediate attack? Police departments, after all, have limited resources. Perhaps there was a critical emergency endangering more lives and a tough decision had to be made? A riot? A terrorist act? A fire?
Well, no, actually.
"Not Obliged," with special guest star Cryptic Subterranean, is my Rights Watch column for the December 2007 issue of GUNS Magazine, on sale now at obliging newsstands throughout the Republic.
WarOnGuns regulars will recall our coverage of the Thames Valley Police. This is an expansion on that story that illustrates how outrageous the bureaucratic arrogance and incompetence really is.
Can't wait to read it! I'll be browsing the nearby B&N during lunch today, thanks for the heads-up.
ReplyDeleteGreat article as usual David.
ReplyDeleteI've subscribed to "Guns" magazine because of your column and because of the pro RTKBA stance of the magazine in general.
Some firearms magazines today have a decidedly military/ LEO only mentality. "Guns" seems to realize that the 2nd Amendment is part of a citizens Bill of Rights, the RTKBA belongs to us.
Keep up the good work. I'll keep up my subscription it's a great read.
As a part of The Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment only applies to cops or other government thugs since it is a prohibition on government laws regulating weapons; not a permit for Americans to own arms.
ReplyDeleteI subscribe to "GUNS" and always look forward to my new issue.
Now if only all gun magazines would stop printing that disgusting phrase "legally licensed" when speaking of concealed carry....
1894C, write Guns Magazine and tell them David is the reason you subscribed, I did. They need to know what ground their subscribers occupy and are willing to defend and they need to know which of their contributors speak to that body of subscribers.
ReplyDeleteKent, I agree with you, but I don't know if it is for the same reason. I tend to think of the situation you mentioned as "illegally licensed". A right cannot be licensed, only a privilege can. Further, licensing is an infringement which is prohibited by the supreme law of the land.
Are we in agreement? Or do you have reasons for your dislike of that phrase which I have not considered?
StraightArrow,
ReplyDeleteI think I'll do that.
Great idea.
straightarrow-
ReplyDeleteI just hate the term because the gun magazines should stop acting like the licenses are necessary. They should just drop the term altogether and only speak of "concealed carriers".
Hi David,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the mention- just ordered my copy of the magazine today and am looking forward to reading the column!
Jay.Mac--I lost your edress when I got a new computer--please email me:
ReplyDeletedcodreaAthotmailDOTcom