We're the Only Ones "Deep Pockets" Enough

The family of a teenager who was accidentally killed by his best friend is suing a Martin County deputy whose handgun was stolen and used in the shooting.

This is an interesting set of circumstances--everyone mentioned in this story is in the wrong.

[More from "The Only Ones" files...]

Prosecute This Criminal Now!

The man was walking with a beagle along Flint Hill Road in Bedford County, carrying a bag of dog food and an unloaded .22-caliber rifle, when he stopped and sat in a ditch near school property, authorities said Monday.

If they determine he set one foot on school property, I know at least one guy who wants to see him prosecuted to the full extent of the law:

[W]e believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

Isn't that right, Wayne?

Onward Christian Soldier

In July 1993, Charl, relying on his faith and a .38 caliber special revolver, caused a gang of terrorists to flee a church in Cape Town in what became known as the St. James Massacre. The terrorists were part of the Azanian People’s Liberation Army, the military wing of the Pan African Congress, a Marxist-Leninist group.

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

An Open and Shut Case

Police shut down a building at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Monday after a faculty member reported seeing someone carrying in what looked like a gun case.

A case?

A freaking case?

This is certifiable.

Besides, what kind of scofflaw would violate this?

Hartford Passes Criminal Immunity Law

The Hartford city council passed an ordinance Monday allowing the city to sue gun owners if they fail to report their weapon lost or stolen and the gun is used in a crime in Hartford.

With gun violence plaguing city streets, Mayor Eddie A. Perez and members of the council decided they could not wait for legislation pending at the General Assembly to help control the problem.

I don't know why not--it's not like they can require "prohibited persons" to report guns lost or stolen from them--since they're not allowed to have guns and can't legally own them, being forced to report that they'd had one in their possession would violate their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

I posted a comment over at The Courant and hope others join me.

No One Needs a Claw Hammer to Hunt Deer

When will we finally enact reasonable tool control?

Yuri Orlov hammers away at some absurd assumptions and nails them to the wall.

This Day in History: May 15

PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTION OF THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION, MAY 15, 1776, INSTRUCTING THE VIRGINIA DELEGATES IN THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS TO " PROPOSE TO THAT RESPECTABLE BODY TO DECLARE THE UNITED COLONIES FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES"

"A Gun Reform We Can All Support"

This slick attempt to sound like a "reasonable" consensus is a given reminds me of the old Lone Ranger joke where he tells Tonto they're surrounded by Indians:

"What you mean WE, Kemosabe?"

Don't presume to speak for me. I'm firmly in the "shall not be infringed" camp, and if a person has been adjudicated too dangerous to be allowed access to a gun, what the hell is he doing running around free with access to matches, fertilizer and box cutters?

A "Campfire Prank"

A group of teachers who staged a fictitious gun attack that left many children in tears during a Tennessee primary school field trip are facing disciplinary action for their insensitive "campfire prank"...

Mr Bartch said that the prank lasted just five minutes and was meant to be a "learning experience". "We got together and discussed what we would have done in a real situation," he explained.

And just what would you have done, Mr. Bartch? What are you personally prepared to do if the lives of precious children entrusted to your care were being threatened by an armed intruder? Forget the students--what did you learn from your "prank"?

The school's version of what happened is posted on their website. It doesn't change my questions one bit.

Time to Weigh in, Mr. Gresham

Here's a follow-up to my "Gun-Free Talk" post from April:

Hi David,

An interesting follow up on Tom Gresham's Gun Talk from a couple weeks ago; since pointing out to him the NRA's gun-free schools policy, he hasn't mentioned the NRA even once on the air. Today's show was a rebroadcast from January but the last two shows (three hours each, minus ads) have been devoid of calls to join the NRA. This after weeks of hammering to join and double their membership. Interesting.

-Alan

I'd find it even more interesting if Mr. Gresham directly addressed this issue with his listeners and readers. That he knows about this situation is enough to expect that he would make his position known and use his influence to rectify it. Now, more than ever, we need the leaders in the gun rights community to take bold public stands on issues, not ignore or avoid them for whatever their reasons.

Note that I did give Mr. Gresham a heads-up on this post last night and invited him to respond. I explained:

It is not my wish to embarrass you or to cause friction between you and your friends at NRA—but their position on gun free school zones is simply unacceptable. Real people, including gun owners and NRA members, are and will continue to be in danger unless and until this changes. We deserve leadership for the rights of free citizens to keep and bear arms from an association that’s bylaws state its purposes and objectives are to defend the 2nd Amendment—instead of leadership for the Brady position, which is all they’ve shown to date.

I hope he didn't reply yet because he's too busy and hasn't seen the email yet. My invitation still stands.

Bill Brown as Covered by the Professionals

To some local residents' dismay, Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown doesn't believe the public is made safer by permitting more people to carry loaded and concealed weapons.

And he cites a 2005 handgun murder that climaxed a road-rage incident in Buellton as evidence of why he feels that way...

“I don't subscribe to the theory that it's safer in public if you have large numbers of armed people running around,” Brown added during an interview at his Sheriff's Department office near Goleta.

Right. As I've demonstrated time and again, we're just not as stable and trustworthy as Brown and his "Only Ones."

Nice to see the "authorized journalists" are finally getting around to noticing something we mere bloggers have been covering for over half a year now. Still, it's funny how the primary issue that makes this story unique--NRA's "A" rating and endorsement of an anti-gun sheriff who doesn't believe armed citizens make society safer-- apparently isn't considered "newsworthy."

There's also an important clarification to make about Larry Rankin, who the reporter does mention. Per Larry:

Just for your information, they said, I "could not be reached for further comment," they did not try to contact me or I would have given them some good feedback about Sheriff Brown and my reasons.

I'm working on a follow-up right now--it will feature statements from Santa Barbara gun owners and NRA members who have contacted NRA on this matter and been blown off. Their silence on this and refusal to explain themselves and condemn Brown's stance is simply unacceptable. But count on the stonewalling to continue because only myself and a handful of others give a damn enough to demand answers. Which means the ratings charade will continue.

"Described by One Blogger"

But how do you make certain all the guns have been turned in? Simpson — described by one blogger as “Homer Simpson’s dumber brother” — offers the solution...

What, it would have killed you to mention which one?

This Day in History: May 14

On the morning of May 14, 1781, a fleet of small vessels carrying over two hundred Refugees arrived off Fort Lee. After landing with their artillery and horses, the troops marched into English Neighborhood (as the general area was known) and dispersed a militia picket posted there. A party of militia returned later that day to find the Refugees had started work on a new blockhouse, built upon the remains of old Fort Lee. They commenced firing from a “stone house” a hundred yards away, but the Refugees stormed the house and drove them out.

A Well Regulated Islamic Militia

Islamberg is not as benign as a Buddhist monastery or a Carmelite convent. Nearly every weekend, neighbors hear sounds of gunfire. Some, including a combat veteran of the Vietnam War, have heard the bang of small explosives...

Before becoming a citizen of Islamberg or any of the other Fuqra compounds, the recruits - - primarily inner city black men who became converts in prison - - are compelled to sign an oath that reads: "I shall always hear and obey, and whenever given the command, I shall readily fight for Allah's sake."

Good thing they're not Christians, otherwise the feds would be all over them.

They must be OK though, because I can't seem to find where they're a concern of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Also, we know explosives are controlled as destructive devices, so no worries there, plus prison parolees aren't allowed to touch guns.

Looks like there's nothing to see here--probably the locals are just being "intolerant." And if I'm wrong, well, we can always demand more gun control laws.

Next thing you know, some paranoid might start suggesting this is being allowed to flourish because there are those who want to bar terror suspects from buying guns.

Conspiracy theorists!

[Via When SHTF]

New WarOnGuns Poll: Should Terror Suspects be Banned from Purchasing Guns?

The Bush Administration supports legislation to bar terror suspects from buying firearms or obtaining permits. Do you agree with this position? Go to the poll in the left margin and vote.

The results of the last poll are below (click image to enlarge). This one ran for two weeks instead of the usual one week duration because I was on the road last week with limited computer access.

A Yen for Guns

Or 50,000, anyway. For a Makarov.

In disarmed Japan:

Why, it might be asked, don't the authorities enforce the Firearms and Swords Control Law, under which all this weaponry is illegal? The answer: "Japan is surrounded by water. Controls are a sieve."

That gun control sure works, doesn't it? Unless you're the government or the "criminals", that is.

[Via Vinnie]

Groom Raider Goes After Guns

Actress Angelina Jolie has banned guns from the sets of her new movie "Wanted" to protect her children from unnecessary violence.

Plus she and Brad have banned the kids from watching violent movies.

Oh well, the kids won't need guns anyway. They'll be able to afford "manhandling" bodyguards.

Plus, with mom being a UN Goodwill Ambassador and all, I'm sure the world government will provide plenty of blue helmets to keep them safe, right after they've banned guns not just from movie sets, but from everyone except themselves .

[Via Dan Gifford]

We're the Only Ones Taking You for a Ride Enough

An off-duty police officer was arrested in Queens early yesterday after he moved his car while his former companion was trying to remove their 2-year-old daughter from the back seat, the police said.

Sometimes, being involved with an "Only One" can be quite a drag.

[Via Declan]

Guest Essay: The Germ of an Idea

[Foreword: Andy Barniskis has some suggestions for dealing with Philadelphia's bid for "independence" in developing and enforcing citizen disarmament laws.]

The Germ of an Idea
Andy Barniskis

Friends:

The most recent threat to gun rights from Philadelphia, in the form of a suit to force the General Assembly to give them the political autonomy to enforce their own gun laws (a package of which they have just enacted illegally), puts us in an all too familiar position. That is, there is little we can do except to defend ourselves, while our enemies are confident that we cannot strike back in any way. They cannot LOSE; they can only win or not win in this round, and in the latter case, come back to try again another day.

But that is only true if we continue our pattern of treating defense of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as an issue isolated from all of the rest. That is our perennial failing; our enemies can never lose anything they value; only we can. I therefore propose the following germ of an idea we need to press upon our suburban legislators: Political autonomy should come at an economic price.

Philadelphia already has sufficient political autonomy to allow itself to support the vast majority of murders in our state, despite having less than one-tenth of the state's population.
That, while receiving huge amounts of law enforcement support from the rest of us. Now, they want to enact firearms legislation that we all know cannot work. When it doesn't work, they will of course cry that it is because the rest of the state hasn't enacted the same laws. Then we will be battling on our home turf.

Here are some suggested proposals for amendments to any legislation intended to give Philadelphia autonomy to enforce its own firearms legislation:

• To partially compensate gun owners in Philadelphia (and perhaps to help with their emigration expenses) all Philadelphians should be excused from paying taxes to the state.
• Philadelphia should be granted full economic autonomy, receiving no further funding of any form from the state.
• To clarify the economic situation, there should be no further funding of regional political entities, like SEPTA. Those should be ended and Philadelphia given the freedom to provide the necessary mass transit and other infrastructure within its own borders.
• Counties should be held responsible for the law enforcement costs their residents place upon their neighbors. E.g., Philadelphia should be billed for the apprehension, detainment and trial of Philadelphia citizens who are convicted of committing crimes in the suburban counties, and vice versa.
• The Pennsylvania State Police should not provide any law enforcement services in Philadelphia.

Those are only a few introductory ideas for further enhancing Philadelphia's desired political autonomy. Achieving it will be extremely complex, but that very complexity also promises scores of additional opportunities for freeing the rest of us.

Tell your legislators and tell your friends. Freedom for and from Philadelphia!

NRA's Answer-Free Zone

Paul Grant wrote to NRA with a concern, and a great one at that:

I am disturbed by Wayne LaPierre's support of "Gun-Free Zones" (http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6043). As recent events at Virginia Tech demonstrate, "Gun-Free Zones" are an oxymoron at best, and a killer at worst. Criminals don't obey the law, period. Wayne should renounce his support of "Gun-Free Zones" and embrace the rights of students and teachers to be lawfully armed, or consider resigning his post. In addition, it is profoundly disturbing to me that he and the NRA are betraying their principals and the members by negotiating with the other side to further restrict our second amendment rights. I am speaking of the NICS enhancement bill.

Every time you compromise with evil, evil wins and you lose. Soon there will be nothing left of our rights and evil (Sarah Brady, et al.) will have won.

That was a pretty straightforward explanation of his position, wouldn't you agree?

Here's their response:

Hello and thank you for contacting NRA-ILA in regards to the Gun-Free Zones issues.

Let's always remember first and foremost that it is those deranged individuals who have committed horrific crimes with guns at schools that are themselves responsible for their acts. Clearly it is already illegal to bring a gun to school and use it to take the lives of others. In committing these criminal acts, numerous federal, state, and local existing laws are broken. You can't make such heinous behavior any more illegal than it already is.

Of course, in the aftermath of such tragedies, Americans ask "why" and seek solutions to prevent future tragedies from occurring. If we are truly to find solutions to preventing school shootings, a wide range of remedies must be on the table for consideration, including whether or not there should be a lawful, armed presence on our nation's campuses. However, at the top of the discussion list, should be trying to figure out what has gone so wrong in these instances that an individual(s) feels the need to take the lives of young students in what should be a safe environment. One thing that is certain, however, is that passing additional gun control laws should not be part of the discussion, as again, you can't make what these criminals do with guns at schools any more illegal than it already is.

Suzanne N. Anglewicz
National Rifle Association
Institute for Legislative Action
703-267-1174
1-800-392-8683 (VOTE)
sanglewicz@nrahq.org

Pretty slick, huh? You notice she didn't actually give any kind of direct response to his concerns or anything.

Nope, the "top of the list" has nothing to do with NRA's "Purposes and Objectives" as defined in the Association Bylaws, "To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use arms, in order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well as to serve effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberty of its citizens;"

If we are to believe Ms. Anglewicz (and why wouldn't we?), NRA's Number One Job is to figure out why psychotic killers "feel" compelled to kill. Meanwhile, nothing in Wayne's position has changed: The only ones who should be armed on campus are, well, "The Only Ones."