The Courtesy of a Reply Would be Appreciated

Dear Mr. DiMare,

I hope all is well with you. I haven’t received a reply to my open letter yet, and under normal circumstances, you’ve certainly had plenty of time to give me one.

Has anything changed? Are you still the staff contact for the California Chamber of Commerce for “job killer” bills? Should I be writing someone else?

Please let me know. I don’t want people to think the Chamber would duck this important issue out of political correctness or fear of taking a stand related to guns, but without any feedback from you it’s tough not to speculate.

Are SB352 and AB357 not “job killers” too?

Is the Chamber intentionally ignoring my letter?

Are firearm and ammunition makers not part of the California economy, producing legal products enjoyed by millions of consumers? Are the thousands of direct and ancillary support jobs these industries create not worthy of the Chamber’s concern and support?

Will the Chamber issue a statement on these "job killer" bills or intentionally remain silent?

Sincerely,
David Codrea
The War on Guns

Gun Law News Disagrees With JPFO

Looks like we're gonna have us a debate.

Nice to be a spectator for a change.

JPFO ALERT: Is S. 397 a Trojan Horse?

When JPFO talks, gun owners should listen.

In this case their fears, that S. 397 could result in giving the AG power to ban all rifle ammo capable of penetrating BODY ARMOR, should be looked at very carefully--particularly since this opinion is being given serious credence by Len Savage.

I haven't had time to look into this, so am posting this in the hopes of soliciting informed opinions. Is there an alternative explanation? If JPFO's analysis is accurate, why haven't we heard about this from NRA?

QUICK! TAKE THIS POLL!!!

Do you support the National Rifle Association's boycott of ConocoPhillips?

So far, "No" is leading. Click on the link and vote to help change that, and pass this on to your gun owner friends.

On AHSA

Bloggers are all over the American Hunters and Shooters Association. Aside from posting a few comments on other blogs and pointing out their connections with Crime Gun Solutions, I haven't said much, because I already said it this weekend--in my latest submission to GUNS Magazine.

I owe it to the publisher not to offer essentially the same commentary on my blog that I'm asking them to send me a check for. But it's frustrating to know that by the time my article comes out, much of the same ground will have been covered on the internet for months.

A lot of great research has been independently conducted on this--I don't want to slight anybody else who's commented, but Triggerfinger and Gun Law News offer some of the best analyses.

The source I need to credit for making me aware of AHSA is NRA's Dawson at "Digger's Corner." That's what prompted me to start "digging," which included much of the same methodology used by others--the Whois lookup, finding the DCS connection, etc.

I would like to offer one insight about a front group inserting themselves into the shooting community as if they're on our side, something I like to think of as The AHSA Motto.

No Apologies

Drudge titled his link to this story: "EDITOR: NO APOLOGIES FOR HELEN THOMAS 'KILL SELF' REPORT..."

I think the guy does owe us an apology...for getting our hopes up.

Wrong John Silver's

[Use BugMeNot UserID: none@homee.com / Password: 66666 to bypass site registration]

Rick Stanley reminds me of this story from Oct. 2004. I think it merits being brought up again.

Robbers come into a Long John Silver's restaurant. They order three employees on the floor. They order the supervisor to the back of the store. He thinks he's a dead man and hits one of the robbers with a hammer, thwarting the robbery and causing them to flee.

Long John Silver's fires him for not following company policy. The company flack, an idiot and a weasel, claims their policy outlines the steps he should have taken.

I've written company policies--2 years in pharmaceutical production, 16 years in defense electronics and 3 years in medical practice management--three more heavily regulated and audited industries you will not find--and I helped get my companies through audits conducted by the best (worst) the feds and state could throw at us. There are very few areas where I would have the gall to claim to be qualified to be considered an expert in. This is one of those areas.

Any claim that Long John Silver's has a policy that can effectively deal with an armed robbery is bullshit. It is a lie. Anyone claiming otherwise is either incompetent or a lying corporate whore who will say anything to please his masters.

Sue me, Rick Maynard.

My one and only experience with this pathetic chain went down like this: The kids saw a commercial for popcorn shrimp or some such and wanted to try it. We have one not too far from home and had never been to it, so I took the family there for lunch.

The place was empty as far as customers were concerned, but the counter help was busy chatting with the kitchen help, and decided continuing the conversation was a biggger priority than attending to patrons with money to spend. After about 3 minutes, she finally noticed us and acknowledged our presence. She also wiped her eye with her index finger and looked at the results this yielded.

Sue me, Long John Silver's. I'd swear to that in court and have 3 witnesses who would back me up.

Needless to say, I shepherded the wife and kids out of that disgusting place pronto, and we have never been back.

Long story short: Boycott these creeps.

"Security Guards in California Are Going to be Trained to Help Fight Terrorists."

The reporterette on KFI radio actually said that as the lead-in to a news story.

I laughed so hard and so long my ribs hurt. Other drivers on the 91 Freeway must have thought I was nuts.

Our tax dollars at work.

Good Lord, we are so doomed.

Shameless Plug: California Dreamin'

It’s not about public safety—it’s about harassing gun owners and political opponents. That’s why we see endless proposals designed to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms—something Attorney General Bill Lockyer denies exists.

California Dreamin’ is my “Rights Watch” column for the September issue of GUNS Magazine, available now at visionary newsstands throughout the Republic.

The issue also features my review of Vin Suprynowicz’s futurist liberty novel “The Black Arrow.”

Look Who’s Demanding Gun Control

Guess who thinks YOU can't be trusted to own and use firearms responsibly.

My August "Rights Watch" column for GUNS Magazine is now online.

"What's Wrong With Gun Laws?"

The August 1955 issue of GUNS Magazine is now online. A Chicago cop, of all people, makes a statement against gun control--and you'll recognize many of the same arguments used today. The photos of New York and Chicago cops dumping confiscated firearms into the water should interest gun control historians.

Also in this issue:
"Why Cops Get Killed"
"How Dick Tracy Gets His Man"
"The 20,000 Guns of Jesse James"
and more.

And There Was War in the Heavens...

Some folks are taking me to task for yesterday's post.

In a nutshell: No, I am not "for" private employers banning guns, searching cars for them or firing employees who have them in their car trunks. I'd like to see company policies welcoming employees to carry on premises.

What concerns me is the method for achieving this--and whether the chair we pick up in this particular barfight is also used to smash rights to property and freedom of association. I see grave danger in ceding more power to government in these areas.

Under my argument, if you don't bend to my will, the worst that can happen is that our association is terminated. By entering government into the mix, the element of coercion is also introduced. Now, if I don't bend to your will, you can call in the JBTs to seize me and my property, and to destroy me if I resist.

That does not seem to me to be a formula for freedom.

But that doesn't mean we're powerless to retaliate against private parties that have anti-gun policies. Companies generally have a comparatively small profit margin--the difference of a percentage point or two can make a difference between thriving or succumbing, especially when they face a lot of competition.

That's why, while I fully support NRA's call to boycott ConocoPhillips. And while there are other companies that also deserve this response, I think it's smart strategy to focus on only one to make an example out of for the rest.

I challenge you who feel strongly about this to contact ConocoPhillips management. I'm not going to give an email address, because that's too easy to do--it will make more of an impression to contact them directly, either by mail or phone:

600 North Dairy Ashford (77079-1175)
P.O. Box 2197
Houston, TX 77252-2197
Phone 281.293.1000

Contact them today. And do it once a week until this is over. If you have one of their gas cards, cut it up and return it with a note telling them why. Make good on the boycott--refuse to buy their products. And spread the word--get your gun owner friends involved.

DeWine Whines

"In a lengthy speech on the Senate floor, the former Greene County prosecutor lashed out at the bill, which would require gun victims to prove that a crime had been committed before they could bring a civil lawsuit against the firearms industry." [More]

We can't have that, can we? No, we want to sue people who have complied with all the state and federal laws.

I'm originally from Ohio. If I still lived there, I'd be doing my best to put this fascist out to pasture--even if it meant letting a Sara Brady democrat win for a cycle. There is no other way to teach Ohio republicans the lesson that a choice unacceptable to gun owners will always lose.

I wish there was a way to convince all republicans of the same. Some of us do what we can, but fear of democrats seems to cow most people into settling for a perceived lesser evil.

Until we change that, nothing else will change. It doesn't have to.

Just What We Need:

NRA stumping for edicts to tell people what they can and cannot do with their private property. [More]

As loathsome as it might be, if I own a piece of property and you want to access it, and as long as I'm not forcing you to do so, I have a right to set the rules. You then have the right to tell me where to stick those rules, bypass me and mine in your commercial dealings, and rally people of like mind to do the same.

You do NOT have the right to impose your rules on my property under force of government arms.

The proper response to corporate anti-gun policies is exposure and consumer activism. I fear the use of state-enforced coercion over private property decisions provides too much potential to blow up in our faces, what with precedent and legal penumbras and all.

Vendetta

Angry Engineer joins other bloggers in expressing anticipation for the upcoming "V for Vendetta" (based on the graphic novels by Alan Moore).

What's not to like? The slogan: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people;" the trailer ending with a line from the Guy Fawkes poem...

I want to see it, too. Let's just not forget that the Chairman and President of Time Warner, and the conglomerate itself (of which the film's production company, Warner Bros. is a division) all made the gungrabber list.

Rule of thumb: rich and powerful Establishment types have no incentive to change the status quo.

As for Natalie Portman, the film's star, let's hope she's grown up some since I wrote "The Fandom Menace" for the Nov. 1999 issue of GUNS AND AMMO Magazine:

So there is no apparent disconnect when anti-gun Rosie O'Donnell displays armed "Star Wars" figurines while praising this newest release. There is no incredulity when "Phantom Menace" co-star Natalie Portman (the lightpistol-packing Queen Amidala of Theed) tells Rosie "I'm proud of you, your power, and talking about what you believe in."

As someone who has played the title role in Broadway's "The Diary of Anne Frank," you'd think Ms. Portman would know only too well the evil real life consequences of population disarmament. Instead, she vacuously asserts, "I'm in high school too, and I know what you're talking about...this stuff is hitting my school now too. Somebody's got to say something about it and not be afraid to do so."

And the audience cheers. After all, she's beautiful, successful, self-assured– what more do you need to be considered an authority in this era of image over substance? Yet they can't wait to see this privileged dilettante lead a make-believe armed retinue against the forces of darkness (as opposed to hiding in an attic with her unarmed family before being dragged off to a death camp).

We'll see how close the film "gets it," and I'll suspend judgment 'til then. But I am concerned that the guy in the comedy mask is bringing throwing daggers to what should be a gunfight...yeah, I heard the story takes place in a futuristic UK, but if the yobs in "Gunchester" can get 'em, why shouldn't revolutionaries?

If You Can't Stand the Heat...

Jed points us to a "spirited discussion" as well as a related thread at The Claire Files about Claire Wolfe's August "Enemy at the Gate" column in SWAT Magazine.

Conservatives, Guns, and Drugs

Sheldon Richman treats us to a great exercise in logic and truth.

People-Tracking RFIDs

Claire Wolfe tells us it's begun.

At least now we'll be able to keep track of Tommy Thompson.

The High and the Mighty

[WARNING--CONTAINS MOVIE ENDING SPOILER--PROCEED WITH THAT KNOWLEDGE]

Turner Classic Movies has been playing a resurrected John Wayne film, just recently released to DVD and apparently seen on TV for the first time: "The High and the Mighty."

I enjoyed it--from the soapy melodramas among the passengers, to scenes that were obvious sources* for the "Airplane" parodies, right down to Robert Stack thanking John Wayne for slapping him when he lost his cool: "I needed that."

I half expected to see Lloyd Bridges declaring it a bad week to give up sniffing glue, or Stack warning "That's just what they'll be expecting!" when the control tower ordered the runway lights turned on.

But what really struck me were the assumptions of the time: A stewardess (before the pc days of "flight attendant") lighting a passenger's cigarette--indeed, the pilots smoking in the cockpit. Not that I miss that, but you know what?--that choice ought to be determined by the market rather than dictated by the fedgov.

And then there was the handgun--carried by a passenger who was stalking a man he believed to be his wife's lover. He carried it right in his coat pocket.

He got on a plane without going through metal detectors. TSA didn't grope him or wand him down or make him take off his shoes. The other passengers took it away from him. One kept it in his pocket for safekeeping, and gave it back when the guy promised to be good! And because there was no harm/no foul, no SWAT team was waiting to take the guy out when he got off the plane--he disembarked down the stairs and walked across the tarmac to the terminal. In San Francisco!

I was two years old when this movie came out. I see the changes in assumptions that have happened in my lifetime, and wonder what assumptions will change when my sons are my age.

I guess that all depends on what we as a culture will tolerate and allow, doesn't it?

And the sad thing--a real letdown for me--is knowing guys like John Wayne and Charlton Heston paved the way for this to happen by supporting GCA '68.

* The main plot and inspiration for many scenes was from "Zero Hour!" which is now a hoot to watch.

UPDATE: To my knowledge, Wayne did not come out and publicly support the bill. But Heston, Jimmy Stewart, Gregory Peck, Hugh O'Brien and Kirk Douglas did.  High and mighty, indeed.

S.397 Passes Senate With Bike Lock Amendment

I'm sure there are a hundred-and-one uses for the damned thing as long as it never touches a gun.

Plenty on "our side" have already begun minimizing the impact on blogs and in forums, the apologetics centering around how most manufacturers already include locks with their products anyway.

Ain't that a shame? And why do they do this?

Oh, yeah, to keep from being sued.

How very circular.

The thing is, most gun owners feel this is no big deal, and the general public has been conditioned to respond that gun locks are only common sense. The mandate is acceptable to more people than it's not.

Let's see what else is tacked on in the House. I think the real question here is, do the powers pushing for this want it bad enough, and do they think they can sustain the fallout if they make a few other tiny concessions that are acceptable to more people than they're not?

Things like closing "the so-called gun show loophole" and regulating those icky .50 BMG rifles.