Red's "Close to Settlement"

An Idaho gun shop that went to federal court to keep the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from stripping it of its gun license has
reached a tentative settlement agreement.

Keep your fingers crossed and say a prayer for Ryan and his family that this means they'll be able to stay open.

UPDATE: Here's another account. It doesn't really say a lot more, but there is a video (that suddenly cuts off near the end).

Olofson Responds...

...to Sebastian's post and to comments that we discussed yesterday.

Go and read.

UPDATE: Sebastian properly deemed it deserving of its own post.

Let Me See If I've Got This Straight

But I applaud the mayor and Council for the audacious act of civic disobedience.

So the answer to making Philadelphia "thug-free" is to let the top thugs disregard the law and do what they want?

Hey, can I do that too, or does it only apply to...uh..."Only Ones"?

I know it's considered bad form to point and stare at the mentally defective, but Jill Porter's publicly-documented serial descent into barking-at-the-moon lunacy is such a fascinating curiosity to observe first-hand.

I also like the comment by "Barbara Moss":

I wish Jack-Ryan-Would-Please-Die...

Oh now Barbara--sometimes people don't realize they have posted and they resubmit comments. I know multiple posts can be irritating, but really--I wonder if there might be something we could... extrapolate from this...?

My Kind of Promo

Buy a Car, Get a Gun or Free Gas! Your Choice America!

Your choice. Exactly.

Guess what they're choosing?

Take the survey and show your support. And let Max Motors know you appreciate it. And if you live in the area and need a car, why not give them first crack at your business?

[Via SameNoKami]

What's to Lose?

Kent McManigal just shared a thought with me:

If "they" can now punish us for owning a machine gun that isn't a machine gun until they tamper with it, why would "theoretical gun owner" worry about getting caught with a real machine gun? Is there a worse penalty? There seems to be an unintended consequence lurking there somewhere.

We're the Only Ones Critical Enough

A push by the National Rifle Association to loosen a number of state gun laws is drawing heavy criticism from prosecutors and a variety of law-enforcement groups who argue it will make them and the public less safe.

Oh, these were the geniuses...

Figures they'd be "Only Ones." Hey, they've got theirs...

Here's the NRA-ILA contact list.

[Via Jeffersonian]

Dial 911 and Have an Extended Conversation

The way I see, it, you can either do this...

...or you can end things sooner.

Simply put, you can rely on others to be responsible for protecting you and yours, or you can rely on yourself.

What gets me is the idea that the choice isn't mine. What genius thought that one up?

[Via Jeffersonian]

Calling All California Gun Owners

From Tom McClintock:

[M]y opponent has unleashed the ugliest smear campaign I have seen in over 30 years in politics attacking both my integrity and my patriotism. He has backed it with over $2.5 million of his personal fortune and actually bragged that he planned to “bury McClintock in money.”

...[W]e’re stretched to the breaking point to keep our ads on the air. In fact, I’ve had to ask my campaign staff to hold off paying some of our bills for the primary election in order to keep at least a minimal presence on the air.

Are you going to help out? Or do you like it when "moderate" Oseholes betray you and support gun and ammo bans?

Something Wicked This Way Comes...

...and even Republicans are afraid!

Boogedy-Boogedy!

[Via ChareltonHest]

We're the Only Ones Legally Entitled Enough

Peterson claimed he legally owned the rifle as an officer, and the law only pertains to civilians.

Drew, Drew, Drew...

Just when I was starting to feel the love, you turn around and pull "Only Ones" rank on us.

[Via Michael Dukes]

A Tribute to Our Troops

Somewhere, there is a line between reasonably prudent and cautious, and stark nutjob paranoid. The Secret Service doesn't even trust the soldiers, sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and obey the orders of the President.

Maybe they're worried about some of the new recruits...

[Via Stephen S]

OMB Issues Rulemaking Restrictions

From Len Savage:

OMB just issued M07-13
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-13.pdf
Which follows on M07-07
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-07.pdf
and EO13422
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/eo12866/fr_notice_eo12866_012307.pdf

All of this is intended to curtail agencies regulating through opinion letters rather than notice-and-comment rulemaking.This is germane in that: ATF opinion letters have been contradicting themselves frequently.

Len adds:

I love this part:

"Experience has shown, however, that guidance documents [ATF determinations] also may be poorly designed or improperly implemented. At the same time, guidance documents may not receive the benefit of careful consideration accorded under the procedures for regulatory development and review.4 These procedures include: (1) internal agency review by a senior agency official; (2) public participation, [Akins Ruling...not] including notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)"

Gee, do think a written set of testing procedures qualifies as a "guidance document"?

This is the Executive Branch documenting the fact there are problems, and stipulating policy that is not being upheld by ATF. This could do some serious damage both in Federal Court and Court of public opinion.

"The phenomenon we see in this case is familiar. Congress passes a broadly worded statute. The agency follows with regulations containing broad language, open-ended phrases, ambiguous standards and the like. Then as years pass, the agency issues circulars or guidance or memoranda, explaining, interpreting, defining and often expanding the commands in regulations. One guidance document may yield another and then another and so on. Several words in a regulation may spawn hundreds of pages of text as the agency offers more and more detail regarding what its regulations demand of regulated entities. Law is made, without notice and comment, without public participation, and without publication in the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations."

Yupp, they know it is happening....

David Hardy has more.

Whose Side Are You On?

"You have to decide whether you're on their side – the men and women who wear blue – or whether you're on the side of the gun lobby."

Gee, gRendell, that's a tough one.

But fortunately, I've addressed it before.

[Via AvgJoe]

My Kind of Town

A great example of Chicago Gun Control

It's also my new desktop wallpaper. If it's some kind of hoax, it's a funny one.

[Via Less and SayUncle]

The Big One

"We're going to have to think about out-of-the-box solutions," he said.

Indeed you will.

Any bets we'll hear stories about neighbors wanting to know if they can borrow a gun?

Fool Me Once...

"She left the door open; when she turned around there was a white male standing there."

This Day in History: May 22

On May 22, 1775, the New Hampshire Provincial Congress voted to raise a volunteer force of 2,000 men to join the patriot army at Boston. These “provincials” were organized into three regiments, each regiment having an official establishment of 648 officers and men in ten companies. The troops were enlisted to serve until December 31, 1775.

The Flood That Never Happened

Sen. John McCain spoke to the National Rifle Association in Louisville last Friday, and the reaction seemed mixed.

If you click on the word "reaction," you'll see Paul Helmke is linking to The War on Guns.

"Neat," I thought. I'd wondered why "Handgun Control" was lurking here yesterday morning. But having this appear on both the Brady Blog and especially The Huffington Post ought to really drive some traffic my way, and that never hurts.

And then a funny thing happened. Nothing.

I noticed the link under the word "mixed" went to Snowflakes in Hell, so I emailed Sebastian:

I'm sure you've noticed by now we've both been linked to by Helmke's Brady blog/HuffPo.

Thing is, I'm getting zero hits from them in the past few hours, a couple max all day, and it's been up for a while.

Conversely, the few times I've gotten links from InstaPundit, it was like someone put a solid rocket booster on my site meter, generating 3 to 4 times normal visitors.

If the same thing is happening with you, I think we can legitimately extrapolate that they may not be as influential as they make themselves appear to be--from their comments, pro-gunners are their biggest audience. I'm not surprised by that conclusion, but I am a bit surprised at how little of an impact this has had on traffic--I would have thought it would at least result in several dozen if not hundreds of extra visits. I got nothin'.

Just thinking out loud. I'll probably say something about it tomorrow.

He indicated he had noticed the same thing and was collecting metrics.

To China and Back

David Codrea’s post attacking the NRA and individual staffers is one of the most over the top pieces of defamtory bullshit I’ve ever seen on the internet and if I was the NRA or said staffer (who really is good guy), I’d sue his ass to china and back.

The long knives are out for David Olofson, and people who generally dismiss guys like me as "divisive" are using words like "moron" and "idiot" and other "reasoned discourse" techniques to throw him under the bus.

I stand by what I've written to date, and I'll let David and Len Savage deal with correcting misconceptions if they feel it necessary. What I'd like to do here is give Countertop a chance to make his case. If a self-described "fairly well-connected lobbyist [and] former trial attorney" weighs in not only on the merits of Olofson's case, but also on my committing apparent libel, I owe it to myself--and to anyone my opinions may have influenced--to see how credible his opinions are.

This is evidently the post he was referring to. It was an email exchange I'd received from Len Savage, copied to a distribution list that included two national gun rights organizations, a major cable network reporter, a magazine publisher, an author, some others I don't recognize....

As WoG regulars know, and as the Olofson link above demonstrates, I've been one of the few following this case with any regularity, because I believe the matters at hand can profoundly affect all gun owners. As Len Savage is not only a nationally-recognized firearms designer but also the expert witness in this case, what he says is of interest to my readers and I'm going to give his opinions an airing--especially since none of the other "gun bloggers" do.

So let's look at my "attack on NRA and individual staffers" or at least my part in this.

I posted a title quoting said staffer, followed with a question mark. That means I'm asking. And I then posted the following inflammatory words:

Here's an exchange you may find interesting. Let's hope it's discussed in detail at the Annual Meeting.

That's it. In short:
There's an important case.
There's a controversy involving NRA.
Here's what I have from both sides.
Let's hope people talk about it.

And that's what Sebastian has done by the way. I don't agree with some of his conclusions or interpretations, but he brought back info from the meeting that we didn't have before. I'll not fault him for the post--we need to know everything, even stuff we might prefer not to hear. Nobody ever gained an advantage by covering their ears.

But if this is Countertop's professional opinion of actionable defamation, I must say I'm not convinced. Make of it what you will, but I think my "ass" is safe and I won't be going to China any time soon.

He's free, of course, to weigh in here if he likes, and speak for himself. I'll listen. Or, he could just continue doing what he's doing, enjoying all the benefits anonymity gives him. For what it's worth, I'm sure more people on the sites he frequents agree with him and probably always will.

We're the Only Ones "Bottoms Up!" Enough

The police then strip-searched Clement, and made him squat in front of them. The claimed to have seen white powder on his anus So they took him to a hospital. Without his consent, they then administered drugs to sedate him, induced him to vomit, put a camera up his rectum, and took x-rays of him.

I guess it's understandable why these particular "Only Ones" were preoccupied with that part of the anatomy--there had to be a strong sense of affinity bordering on kinship.

As Agitator comment poster JJH2 noted, this is rape. It should be treated that way.

[Via Dan K]