Hobart Man Dies Testing Bulletproof Vest

“HOBART, Ind. -- A man whose friends initially said he was killed by gunfire outside a Gary liquor store actually died after he donned what he thought was a bulletproof vest and asked a cohort to shoot him.

“A friend then shot Daniel Wright with a .20-gauge shotgun, but it turned out the vest Wright had put on Thursday was a flak jacket not designed to stop a bullet.”

Read complete story here.

I’m sure there will be no shortage of smartass “Darwin Award” comments among the chatroom/forum warriors, but this is tragic. A young man is dead and his survivors must live on with this senseless and terrible loss.

I did plenty of stupid things when I was young, and am lucky to still be here.

This would not be as likely to happen in a society that inculcated respect for firearms at an early age, with attendant age-appropriate education as young people mature--as opposed to knee-jerk fear, loathing and avoidance.

It’s also illustrative of how uneducated most reporters are. The AP is notorious for ignorant articles when it comes to guns. One would think a professional reporter would learn his subject matter well enough to distinguish “shot” from a “bullet.”

And as we can see from the headline, the editors are no better, as the story clearly indicates that bullet resistant vests played no part in this.

Six Degrees of Hypocrisy

It's gonna be a slow day at the computer--we have company coming and the house and yard are a mess due to jobs, taking care of kids, my writing, etc.

Weren't we supposed to rest on the seventh day? Well I have chores to do.

So I'm gonna cheat and rely on an old effort from GUNS AND AMMO to be my entry for today. If you haven't already seen "Six Degrees of Hypocrisy," just click on the link.

It's about our many good friends in Hollywood. I guess when you're rich, famous and can afford the best personal security money can buy, worrying about "ordinary" people's ability to defend themselves just isn't a priority.

Besides, it's a numbers game--if they lose a few fans out of millions, it won't even be noticed at the box office.

And in the interests of complete disclosure, I have another motive for revisiting this article. I'm working on a piece about an established Hollywood producer/director/screenwriter who is one of the strongest supporters of the Second Amendment I know. I plan on posting more soon, but, alas, my charwoman/lawnboy duties come first.

Does This Make Me a Globalist?

I guess GUNS Magazine has an international presence I was unaware of.

I was totally surprised to find my February "Safe Schools" article reproduced in German as "Sichere Schulen.”

Now I find “Escuelas Seguras” (Spanish) and “Écoles Sûres” (French) as well.

Don't these people realize I barely speak American? Or as Homer Simpson asked: "What do we need to learn English for? We're never going to England."

The Black Arrow

Andy Barniskis has reviewed Vin Suprynowicz’s The Black Arrow.

I haven’t read the book yet, but am looking forward to doing so. Vin holds a prominent place in my personal pantheon of great liberty writers of our time. I’d like to see his column widely syndicated throughout the land--not just so that he would reap the rewards of being a magnificent talent, but because his message is sorely needed by our countrymen.

I hope The Black Arrow sells.

I note Bill St.Clair over at End the War on Freedom is like a kid at Christmas with this book.

Gun Groups Warn Against “National ID Card"

Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership have grave concerns over HR 418, “The Real ID Act.”

I have concerns too. I also have concerns about a wave of uncontrolled criminal migration that is fundamentally changing our culture and adding to the severely overstressed burdens on “We the People.” I know the Libertarian response is to end all welfare programs, but we know that isn’t going to happen any time soon, and we have a crisis NOW. And I know that anything proposed by the feds is going to have a hidden agenda for increasing their power and control at the expense of our freedom.

We must remember in this debate that the Founders ordained and established the Constitution to secure the blessings of Liberty for themselves and their posterity.

CA “Public Nuisance” Gun Lawsuit

Lawyer friend Geordan Goebel calls my attention to The People v. Arcadia Machine and Tool, Inc., et al, with the commentary: “Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of firearms manufacturers, distributors, and retailers and their trade associations in action by cities and counties for public nuisance and violation of the Unfair Competition Law where plaintiffs failed to present evidence that defendants’ business practices caused or were likely to cause the substantial injuries resulting from illegal use of firearms by criminals."

In re Firearm Cases- filed February 10, 2005, First District, Div. One
Cite as 2005 SOS 818
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0205%2FA103211
(Adobe Reader required)

“Sichere Schulen”

Well, this is a first for me. Somebody has taken “Safe Schools,” my February GUNS Magazine Rights Watch column and translated it into German.

I’m gonna have to reverse-translate it and see how close they came to original intent.

Remind me never to title an article “My Struggle.”

"Lead" Story From LA Times

"Science is clear," says James Birkelund of the Natural Resources Defense Council in the Los Angeles Times' latest editorial hit piece masquerading as hard news. "You need to phase out lead ammunition quickly or the only condors left in California will be stamped on the back of our new quarters."

Sounds serious. Sounds urgent. And, as per the MO of the social engineers at The Times, it sounds hysterical.

"Natural Resources Defense Council"? That sure sounds official, like they might actually rely on hard science instead of being a hobby for environmentalcase dilletantes like some who sit on their Board of Trustees, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert Redford and James Taylor--fine entertainers all, but hardly authorities competent to establish environmental regulations.

If we relied solely on the solons of the NRDC and the trusty public watchdogs at The Times, we'd never suspect that all might not be as they paint it.

For instance, we'd never know about "Two studies done at Virginia Tech [that] showed very little lead damage to the environment from bullets left on battlefields or on a carefully designed shotgun/rifle range."

We'd never know about Professor Donald Rimstidt, from the Department of Geosciences, College of Science at Virginia Tech, who reports " "Lead metal is unstable when it is in contact with air and water. It corrodes and forms hydrocerrussite, the white coating seen on old bullets in museums. That slows corrosion. However some lead escapes, but we learned that it is absorbed in the top few inches of soil and does not migrate beyond that. Lead is not very mobile. It does not wash away in surface or ground water."

We'd never hear about Fisheries and Wildlife professor Pat Scanlon, who before his death, Rimstidt reports,"found no evidence that birds were eating shot."

The alleged lead hazard is more hype and hysteria than anything else. The goal, of course, is to interfere with our ability to buy and use ammunition, as well as being part of a larger agenda.

Just remember that environmentalcase junk “science” was also used to ban DDT--and the result has been a politically-manufactured genocide in Third World nations from malaria.

JPFO Alerts

More Intellectual Ammunition

"JPFO has added more intellectual ammunition to our website!"

Click here to read the alert.

Thanks for the kind words about WarOnGuns, JPFO!

I'm looking forward to receiving my copy of BATFE Fails the Test.

How About Self Control Instead of Gun Control?

[I came across the clipping posted below while going through my research backup files the other day. This was the basis of an open letter I wrote several years ago that has disappeared from KABA, but has been retrieved through the miracle of Google cache.]

"PRESS RELEASE: NEW YORK - Renowned film and television actor Michael Douglas challenged the international community to do more to control the spread of small arms worldwide. Before a unique gathering of foreign ministers, UN officials, arms experts, and arms lobbyists, Douglas, a newly appointed UN Messenger of Peace, relayed movingly the facts that 'speak for themselves which underlie the need for responsible control of small weapons.'"

Click on the graphic to enlarge it.


Reproduced under "Fair Use" Doctrine

Physician, Heal Thyself

The political faction at the Journal of the American Medical Association is sticking their noses into the gun issue (again).

Here’s a form I came up with a few years back based on an article by Risk Manager Joe Horn. Print it out, and if your doctor starts to give you unsolicited and unqualified advice on guns in the home, ask him/her to complete it, sign it, and put it in your file. Then watch them back off.

Rich White People Against Minority Gun Ownership

(It’s For Their Own Good)

Noted Cigarette…I mean, Gun Control Advocate Sarah Brady has joined forces with the Center for Justice & Democracy to stump for suing gun manufacturers and dealers whenever predatory reptiles hurt or kill their victims with a stolen gun.

“Center for Justice & Democracy.”

Typical socialist buzzwords. Kind of like “Progressive.” They, of course, play the race card, gleaning statements from Progressive Caucus Reps. John Conyers and Sheila Jackson-Lee against tort reform on the grounds that it disproportionately harms minorities. But curiously, every picture in CJ&D’s “List of Participants” report on the families who traveled to DC is one of white people.

And while principled, federalism-centered arguments can be made against national government-mandated tort reform in general, and as it relates to gun lawsuits in particular, the Brady Center, CJ&D and Progressive Caucus have a different agenda—this is just another tactic to help them achieve their goal of citizen disarmament.

Can you imagine having so little faith in your constituents that you feel compelled to drive the cost of guns beyond their economic reach? Because that’s what the nuisance lawsuits are designed to do.

As for being egalitarian, you can become a CJ&D member for $100, but you will “NOT HAVE FULL ACCESS TO [their] WEB SITE” [emphasis theirs]. To get that, you’ll need to pony up $1,000 and become an “Associate.” And if you want “inside information,” you’ll need to become a “Fellow” and pay them $5 Grand. [WarOnGuns offers a similar program—send me $5 G’s and I’ll send you all the inside information I can think of.]

I wonder how many of Rep. Conyers’ and Jackson-Lee’s constituents are in the Fellowship? Or how many will be able to afford a gun if their overseers get their way?

JPFO Promotes "War on Guns"

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has noticed this blog and features a link to it at the top of their home page.

Thanks, Aaron Zelman!

The incomparable Claire Wolfe recommends JPFO's new video, "BATFE Fails the Test" on her blog, and while I haven't seen it yet, her testimonial is good enough for me. You can order it here.

A JPFO video I have seen is "Innocents Betrayed." You can read my review of this powerful documentary here.

Parker vs DC: Next steps?

TriggerFinger has a good analysis of the latest legal wranglings in DC with the Seegars and Parker cases.

Go read.

BREAKING NEWS: Update to Indiana Gun Confiscation Bill

In my "There's a Reason Why They Call Us 'Gun Nuts" commentary about an Indiana bill proposing to confiscate guns from individuals that a police officer deems to be mentally ill, I cited The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette's claim that "Rep. Larry Buell, R-Indianapolis, who authored the bill, says that he consulted with the National Rifle Association when he drafted the bill and that it supports the legislation."

I spoke with Stacey Stumpf of the Journal Gazette and asked her if this was correct.

"Yes," she replied. "I spoke with Rep. Buell the day before the article."

I then spoke with Buell spokesman Graig Lubsen, who also confirmed NRA support for the bill.

He informed me that the bill is undergoing changes, where the police would "need a warrant to take any weapons, and the person is entitled to have a hearing within 14 days."

He also informed me that the legislature was "talking about--but it hasn't happened yet--on second reading, an amendment that one year is the longest the state can hold the weapon. Then the person can reapply to have the weapon returned. If they reapply and are denied, the state can hold it for another year."

Mr. Lubsen assured me that Rep. Buell is a stong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, and wanted to make sure I knew about the incident that precipitated the bill, the fatal shooting of the police officer son of a friend of Mr. Buell by a mentally ill person.

Editorial comments:

That is unfortunate. It is tragic. But it's also the rationale used to pass the Brady Law, the "assault weapon" ban, and many other gun control laws.

If a person can't be trusted with a gun because they are a danger to themselves and others, they can't be trusted without a custodian.

"Strip Search Yields Gun In 'Unusual' Place"

"LAWRENCEVILLE, GA -- -- A police spokeswoman called it 'unusual' that a 19-year-old almost smuggled a loaded pistol tucked between his buttocks into a county jail this week."

"Unusual." Now there's an understatement. Do you think they just put the gun in a Ziploc®, or did they make some poor deputy clean it before signing it into evidence?

And why can't I get the "Lemmiwinks Song" out of my head?

GunTruths Myths

I've been discussing bringing back GunTruths.com with my friend Russ Howard.

We did a lot of original things on that site, had a lot of fun, made a lot of friends, and a spinoff team launched the Citizens of America advertising campaign that ran pro-2A radio spots in every State of the union.

We may yet resurrect GT, but it won't be soon. In the meantime, I've been crawling back through time via the Wayback Machine and managed to retrieve the old GT "Myths" section. We created this figuring there's a finite set of arguments the antis use against us, and if we anticipated and recognized them in advance, it could be a useful tool for responding to their lies and for honing our debating skills.

There’s a Reason Why They Call Us “Gun Nuts”

NRA Backs Indiana Gun Confiscation Bill

“[A]s one reads the literature espoused by gun nut organizations,” University of Connecticut editorialist Robert Schiering tells his readers in The Daily Campus, “the reasoning behind this term becomes startlingly clear. Gun nuts are called as such because they are incontrovertibly insane.”

“People who bring guns into public buildings shouldn't have permits,” editorial letter writer and former mayoral candidate Charles Nance tells The Richmond Times-Dispatch. “They should have their heads examined.”

How often have we heard from the anti-choice in defense crowd that concealed carry will lead to Dodge City shootouts over fender-benders?

How often have we who warn against gun control’s “slippery slope” leading to confiscation been dismissed as paranoid?

The message is clear. Gun owners are psychotic, violent, out of control. We need to be treated for a mental disorder. And if we think anyone is trying to confiscate our guns, we’re paranoid to boot.

Enter Indiana Rep. Larry Buell, R-Indianapolis, who authored a bill that “would permit law enforcement officers to confiscate firearms from individuals for 45 days when an officer thinks the person is mentally ill and dangerous.”

Buell tells the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette “that he consulted with the National Rifle Association when he drafted the bill and that it supports the legislation.”

Buell was endorsed and given an "A" rating by NRA-PVF in the 2004 campaign--which means if you contributed to it, you enabled him. Buell says NRA supports this confiscation without due process scheme—which means if you contributed to them, you have helped finance this edict.

So now we’re supposed to buy into street cops having the professional qualifications to adjudicate a person mentally ill, and then empower them to confiscate guns WITHOUT DUE PROCESS? What is this, Gitmo? And NRA “supports the legislation”?

Furthermore, the Buell/NRA Firearm Confiscation Bill gives the cop immunity if he makes a bad call:

“6. (a) A person who without malice, bad faith, or negligence acts according to this article and…(3) participates in…(A) a proceeding under this article for the seizure or retention of a firearm possessed by an individual alleged to be mentally ill and dangerous…is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be imposed as a result of the person's actions.”

Here are a few questions I’d like to see NRA management and their slate of candidates for the upcoming Board of Directors election address:

Does NRA really support this legislation as A-rated Rep. Buell claims?

Does Indiana have no laws providing for the restraint and arrest of someone acting violently? If arrestees behave bizarrely, are there no statutory provisions to place them into an evaluation facility? Is there no current lawful means of removing a person deemed harmful to himself and others from the general population into custodial care and treatment?

Or do we just let a cop—any cop—declare a citizen unfit to keep and bear arms, and then implement that decision under color of authority and force of arms—with guaranteed immunity?

While some will no doubt argue the bill has provisions guaranteeing the suspect individual a hearing, how many gun owners faced with such allegations are financially able to prevail against the unlimited resources of the state?

What guarantees are there, especially with the vague criterion of “reasonableness” cited in the bill, that this confiscation edict will not be exploited by anti-gun police administrations in the guidelines they establish for its execution? Is it not apparent that there is tremendous police management opposition to citizens keeping and bearing arms, that they are looking for an excuse—any excuse—to disarm them? Doesn’t the same hold true for many of their political masters?

What if a woman is hysterical because a stalker or a vengeful ex-partner is threatening her? Seeing only the snapshot of her behavior at the moment, can we be assured the responding officer will not see fit to disarm her—for her own good? But, oh yeah, she can pick her gun back up in 45 days—if she can afford a lawyer, if she can afford a battery of self-financed psychological evaluations and if she hasn’t been attacked and killed in the interim.

Or how about a devastated individual grieving over the loss of a parent, spouse or child? Might there be instances where their behavior might indicate they are not in complete control of their emotions?

Is it not manifestly evident that the mere desire to own and use firearms is looked upon by anti-choice in defense advocates as a sign of mental instability? Doesn’t no less an “authority” than the American Psychological Association advise parents “Don't carry a gun or a weapon. If you do, this tells your children that using guns solves problems”?

What do you think the APA would say about someone who believes the reason the Founding Fathers wanted an armed citizenry was so that tyrannical leaders and their agents could be lethally repelled?

It has been my longstanding contention that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. After all, if we are to believe the Establishment Media (and, gee, why would we doubt them?), the single biggest mass murder in our nation’s history was initiated with mail room tools, the second biggest with fuel oil and fertilizer, and the third biggest with a dollar’s worth of gasoline.

How can any sane person advocate taking away a madman’s gun, but then leaving him free to wreak mayhem with box cutters and matches?

If the Buell/NRA Firearm Confiscation Bill becomes law, look for it to spread to other locales, and even to be proposed at the national level. After all, George Bush, who NRA reportedly amassed a $20,000,000 reelection war chest for, has introduced his Orwellian-titled “New Freedom Initiative,” which recommends mental health screening of the entire US population, from pre-school children on.

These are some of the reasons why I came up with my NRA BOD Candidate Questionnaire, to support those who will use their office to rein in the “Winning Team’s” baffling affinity for subverting “shall not be infringed,” and to expose those who will not.

So here’s another question for the candidates: Will you be an apologist for this outrage, or will you publicly and vocally condemn it?

Good For Me, But Not For Thee?

"California's secretary of state announced his resignation Friday amid investigations into his handling of federal election funds and questionable campaign contributions," The Washington Post tells us.

Let's see if the government screws him over anywhere near as bad as it did Russ Howard.

I mean, we're all s'posed to be equal under the law, right?

First Responder

The first response to my NRA Board Candidate Questionnaire has been given by Joel Friedman. It’s posted over at The High Road.

That’s a good start, and I appreciate his not only meeting the challenge, but being the first to do so. As I mentioned in my earlier article, the questionnaire was adapted from one I have sent to politicians in the past, and with very few exceptions, most of them have ignored, evaded or weasel-worded.

If you’re a voting member, you’ll need to decide if his answers match how you would have responded, or if there are any you’d like to have clarified. I encourage you to take him up on his offer to answer more questions. After all, the NRA is the most influential of the "gun groups"--policies they set and endorsements they make end up affecting all of us.

Clarifying questions that immediately come to mind:

* Do you agree with the way NRA assigns political ratings? If not, what would you change and why? Who would you have given a different rating to, what would it been and why?
* Do you disagree with any policies being promulgated by NRA management? What is you biggest area of dissent? Have you offered superior alternatives and worked with others to implement them?
* Have you ever publicly spoken out against an NRA position because you thought it was wrong? When, where, and what were the results?
* What reforms do you think are needed at NRA and why?
* If elected, how will you inform members of your performance and voting record? Will you let us know when you dissent and why?

You can learn more about Mr. Friedman, including his contact information, at:
http://www.joelforboard.com/.

Addendum since first posted:
From Mr. Friedman's Mission Statement: "I fully support the successful NRA Winning Team philosophy that has been responsible for NRA's unprecedented growth and effectiveness and promises to continue throughout the next century. I look forward to being elected to the NRA Board of Directors and helping NRA leaders, like Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox, Kayne Robinson, and Sandy Froman, preserve the Second Amendment."