Suspended For Paper Gun: Zero-Tolerance Insanity

I am speechless. I literally cannot believe this is not an elaborate sick hoax.

So far, I've managed to keep obscene words out of my (public) commentaries. I've got to walk away from this for a while, before I post something I'll regret.

Trouble in Paradise: "The Rules"

Here's an update on the doings at R-Ranch, and the tangled web they're attempting to weave:

Proposed Gun Rules
R-Ranch

These rules apply to all owners and guests of owners as well as employees and their quests, however the Board of Directors may make exceptions for safety and security.

1. All federal, state and county laws must be complied with, as well as forest service rules.

2. No shooting is allowed on the ranch with any type of weapon with the following exceptions:
A. The gun range, or Archery Range.
B. Organize staged gunfights using blank ammunition, approved by the Board of Directors. The Board may delegate this authority.

3. No loaded guns on the ranch. With the following exceptions:
A. The Gun range
B. Organized staged gunfights using blank ammunition.
C. Undeveloped areas of the ranch
D. Board may make future exceptions.

4. No concealed guns are allowed on the ranch. With the exception of law enforcement officers and those who have a valid permit to carry.

5. If transporting fire arms in your vehicle all Federal, State and county laws apply.

6. Handguns if carried must be unloaded and in a holster pointed toward the ground.

7. Rifles and shotguns if carried must be carried in a safe manner either point up in the air or down at the ground.

8. Intentionally pointing any weapon of any kind at anyone is forbidden.

9. Organized staged gunfights using blank ammunition must have the permission of The Board of Director and be announced far enough in advance so as not alarm anyone.

10. Paint ball guns are not to be fired on ranch property.

11. All weapons must be secured when not in use. Cabins are not a safe place to leave a weapon of any kind. All weapons must be secured in your vehicle and out of sight when not in use.

12. Weapons are but not limited to anything that that fires a projectile, such as rifles, pistols, shotguns, B.B. guns, pellet guns, sling shots bows, crossbows etc. Large knifes, swords, spears, axes, anything that can be thrown or has sharp edges.

Without getting into a detailed analysis, these rules are stupid and unenforceable. They result from pure irrational fear that some have when seeing am armed man not in an official state uniform.

If someone is carrying concealed, they will never know. If someone is carrying openly, how will they know if the gun is loaded or not? If they ask to inspect it and are refused, what will they do? More to the point, on what authority would a sheriff's deputy be authorized to conduct an arrest, since no California law will have been violated?

But what really illustrates how this is utter nonsense is the prohibition against carrying loaded firearms except in "undeveloped areas of the Ranch."

The trash bins are all in developed areas.

Guess where the bears are attracted to go?

Guess what Security is passing out at the check-in booth?

I like to think of this as "EXHIBIT A":



"BEARS ARE BACK! Do not feed them! Please be careful when out at night."

In other words, our Board has known for years that there is a very real potential danger to the lives and safety of Ranch vistors. They know there is nothing they do about it. And they insist on creating conditions so there will be nothing anyone can do about it should an attack occur.

I'm not going to reveal my hand here, but I am definitely exploring options on this--beginning with ignoring any stupid rules that endanger my life or the lives of anyone I care about.

RELATED READING:
Trouble in Paradise
A Gathering Storm
Heaven Forbid! More Trouble in Paradise

Toilet Gun Found

Here's an update to Monday's post.

It appears The Mirror doesn't just report the news--they rat out citizens...uhh...subjects to the cops so they'll have something to write about.

I don't get the "theft by finding" charge if the guy phoned in an anonymous tip.

I do agree with the bloke's dad that he is "stupid." The idiot could have liberated a Sig Sauer

"They Made Us Look Like Stooges"

Last night's Boston Legal episode was every bit the liberal polemic I thought it would be.

The statistics mouthed by the actors were right out of the Brady Campaign playbook. The urbane distaste for guns was unmasked. The arguments opposing gun control were vapid, showing the writers never even attempted to understand the true reasons one might do so--and the only character opposed to gun control was a head case and buffoon.

Add to that ridiculously implausible scenarios--like bringing a loaded musket into a Boston courtroom--and the obligatory incompetent handling/accidental shots fired whenever Denny Crane gets his hands on a gun--and you have what we all should have expected.

My oldest boy said it best. They made us look like stooges.

WARNING: Following Post Contains Obscene Material

With all the critical issues on the national agenda, from the Iraq war to hurricane recovery, the House's eagerness is obscene as the gun lobby herds lawmakers from both parties behind a bill to deny victimized families their fair day in court.

No, what's obscene is The New York Times continued advocacy of citizen disarmament while its Chairman Emeritus, "Punch" Sulzberger, has used his elite influence to obtain a concealed carry permit unavailable to the masses.

Boston Legal

Forced by a client to put Denny Crane on the case, Shirley Schmidt reluctantly enlists his help to defend a Democratic Congressman being sued for not keeping a campaign promise to pass a ban on assault weapons. The right-wing Crane is an unlikely defender from the start, but Schmidt really wonders if she made the right decision when he goes missing the day of his closing.

Right. "The right-wing Crane" portrayed by the left-wing Shatner. And we know how skillful media liberals are at not portraying conservatives as stereotypical caricatures.

From the Boston Legal website's "Crane, Poole & Schmidt" General Office Folder, filed under "Announcements":

No Guns Allowed in the Office

All Partners and Associates are reminded that guns are prohibited in the office. Even though recent visits from armed ex-clients have alarmed some CP+S employees, carrying weapons within the confines of Crane, Poole and Schmidt is strictly forbidden (Accept [sic] for Denny Crane who was a Marine Sharpshooter, or a Navy Seal, but either way is trained in the use of firearms and has shown reasonable restraint when discharging them in the office.)

I've never seen the program, but I understand it's popular and many think it's funny. I guess I'll need to watch it tonight (ABC, Tuesdays, 10/9c) to do a propaganda check.

PD Safe Despite Loaded Gun

That is, if you define "safe" as whistling through a graveyard or pulling the covers over your head.

I wonder how the Student Crime Stoppers would stop an actual violent crime in progress against students.

Oh well, at least the gun-free school zone crowd agrees with Sandra Froman and Wayne LaPierre. So that should be seen as a victory of sorts for gun owners, right?

Right?

Spotting Shots

The quick response - within seconds - came because a nearby sensor picked up the sound of the muzzle blast, pinpointed the shooter's location to within 10 feet and alerted police dispatchers of the address...The ShotSpotter system is only triggered by gunfire and it can discern the type of weapon (rifle, shotgun or handgun) being used. The software in the sensors also commands the surveillance cameras to rotate and focus on the spot where the shot was fired.

Shades of "The Black Arrow."

I wonder what would happen if someone played some of these through loudspeakers...

[Via KABA Newslinks]

Flush That Gun Goodbye

A soldier's weapon has been missing for two days after it was left in a supermarket toilet during a military exercise...

A supermarket toilet? Were they on maneuvers to practice looting stores?

Looks like here's another one for the "We're the only ones professional enough" files...

Anyone with information of the pistol's whereabouts is urged not to touch it but to contact police immediately...

Right-o.

We Have Been SO Blind

Dear kindly social worker,
They say go earn a buck.
Like be a soda jerker,
Which means like be a schumck.
It's not I'm anti-social,
I'm only anti-work.
Gloryosky! That's why I'm a jerk!*

And to think that the problem all along has been anomie!

*GEE, OFFICER KRUPKE: Music by Leonard Bernstein, lyrics by Stephen Sondheim.
© 1956, 1957 Amberson Holdings LLC and Stephen Sondheim. Copyright renewed.
Leonard Bernstein Music Publishing Company LLC, Publisher.

"Gun Czar" Needs More Power

Leave it to the "Watchdog Press" to complain that government doesn't have enough authoritah.

How come they never say "Gun Führer "?

Correct Definition of "Assault Weapon"

Police found a knife believed to be the assault weapon inside the apartment, Moran said.

Finally the establishment media gets it right.

The WarOnGuns Bedwetter of the Week Award...

...goes to Mark Medford, Chairman of the York County, VA School Board, who wants state law rewritten to ban the means of self defense at public meetings.

"We're not infringing upon people's rights to bear arms," Medford newspeaks. "[I]f someone decided to snap or got angry about a decision we make, we don't want the worst-case scenario."

Not much trust in your constituents there, eh, Medford?

Not quite. We learn the board "made arrangements to have two deputies present" when they learned they were going to be visited by a free man.

Terrified of the possibility, they needed the assurance of uniforms and badges, because as we have seen time and again, the police are the only ones professional, moral, wise, trained and rational enough to keep and bear arms.

Now Raise Your Right Hoof and Repeat After Me

Baaa, baaaa, baaaaa...

""The value of this pledge can be taught at home," Sparks said.

Huff agreed, and said parents need to pay attention if their child doesn't want to sign the pledge.

That's just plain evil.

The gun court, organized in 1995, is a nationally recognized model hailed by former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Why does that not surprise me?

I LOVE It...

...when anti-gunners devour each other.

UN Drafts New Gun Treaty

The U.N. is trying to ban guns again. The latest "small-arms treaty" seeks to abolish the right of any citizens to own virtually any kind of firearm. In the U.S., such an effort would strike at the heart of the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

Molon Labe, Baby!

UPDATE: It looks like someone at FreeMarket News Network took it on themselves to edit/censor my comments--not sure what they're afraid of or why, but they left out key parts and weakened the rest.

Here's what I posted in its entirety:

The UN is utterly powerless unless the US allows its sovereignty to be encroached. A constructionist president would find real work for Bolton to do and withdraw from this power-mad gang of kleptocrats and genocidal thugs.

LaPierre makes great noises about the UN threat to scare the membership into further donations. A real gun rights leader would fold up the NRA's NGO and lead his millions of members under the unified compact of "Molon Labe."

It's time we chased these monsters from our shores, razed the UN building, pulled down their obscene twisted gun barrel sculpture (and melted it into something useful--like personal defensive arms) and pried off all those "World Heritage Site" placards desecrating revered locales like Independence Hall.

Shoot Your Mouth Off First, Don't Ask Questions Later

I sent the following to a Canadian journalist and his editor over this little piece of lying hysteria masked under the "National and World News" banner:

My Goodness, Jason. What a good little propagandist for the Brady Campaign you are—you even managed to use all their arguments and buzz words.

Pretty clever disguising that opinion piece as straight news. That way, people will think you’re a real reporter, not just a paid hack for the political left.

I notice Captain of a Crew of One has also written them, and had to laugh when I saw he, too, properly considers what is being sold as "news" an editorial/opinion piece.

Looks like everyone is capable of making the distinction except those elite "professional journalists" the government seems so enamored of.

What a Crock

Cam Edwards of NRANews.com asks CBS about a potential conflict of interest for correspondent Mike Wallace--who occasionally "reports" on gun control--to appear at a Brady Center fundraiser.

Part of the CBS reply:

According to Wallace, he “had no idea” that the event was a fundraiser for the Brady Center at the time he was asked to speak.

Right.

How is it a relatively obscure gun blog in California knew about this back in July, but a professional journalist (as opposed to a non-government-sanctioned blogger), with the resources of one of the world's largest media corporations, was in the dark about an event he was willing to stake his name on?

The CBS reply indicates Wallace "purchased tickets for himself and some family members who wanted to attend."

So are we to assume he waived his customary $50,001 to $75,000 speaker's fee?

Who asked you to speak, Mr. Wallace? Not just anybody can call you up and get you on the line--and not just anybody can persuade you to forego such a hefty fee--as your reply seems to indicate.

In the interest of public trust, full disclosure on this is warranted.

Who invited you to speak?

What specifically did they tell you about the event?

Did you know it was a fundraiser when you accepted the engagement? How could you not know? You didn't really think a roomful of Washington's well-heeled would be treated to such an evening for free, did you? You knew people would be paying to attend, didn't you--from the onset? Who did you think the beneficiaries would be?

Did you waive your fee?

If so, why? Do you typically give birthday presents worth over $50,000 to colleagues? Or was it because you believed in some cause?

Or if you didn't waive your fee, why make such a big deal out of telling people you paid for your tickets?

If you did or did not accept a fee, what journalistic ethical principles should be considered? That's either a lot of money to waive in support of social policy advocacy--or a lot of money to accept promoting same. In either case, especially with this much money involved, how could you possibly be considered unbiased on the subject of gun control laws?

Did you have an agent/assistant help make arrangements for this event? Who did you or your representative make these arrangements with? Did you or your agent sign a contract to authorize your appearance? If so, who were the parties to the contract and when was it dated?

The Public Eye response strikes me as little more than corporate apologia and deflection. It's time for CBS and Mike Wallace to give more specific details by candidly and fully answering questions like the ones posed here.

UPDATE: One other question--were CBS facilities, resources and personnel used to produce the video Wallace took to the event?

UPDATE 2: I wonder if Washington Post Vice President-at-Large Ben Bradlee waived his customary speaker's fee?

Replace Miers With Bork?

That's what "conservative" National Review Online's Ned Rice recommends:

Lest there be any doubt, this suggestion to resubmit Bork’s name for Senate consideration is no satirical flourish. I am absolutely, positively serious about this. Bork was abundantly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court when he was nominated (and rejected) in 1987 and he remains so today because he is widely acknowledged as one of the foremost legal scholars in the United States.

Right.

Here's Bork's take on the Second Amendment:

"The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose."

Bork that.

And Bork you, Mr. Rice, and all the other establishment neocons who would pass this fraud off as a strict constructionist.

I Believe It Would Be a Lot More Effective...

...to just put a glass dome over the state house in Sacramento.

[Via Angry Engineer]