Last year about this time we were gearing up for the Remodel™. I took time off from work, but it was hardly a vacation. This year I’m taking two (2) weeks off (during a period in which I have never been busier) and in the middle of that two weeks I’m driving up to Reno for Mr. Completely’s Gunblogger Rendezvous. Of course, there’s a lot of honeydo’s I need to take care of during this period, but hopefully I’ll have time to do a lot of reading, a little writing, and some reloading and shooting (besides next Saturday in Reno.)

I’ll also be doing some maintenance on this blog – specifically, updating the blogroll.

If I don’t blow everything off completely.

Do It Again, Only HARDER!.

I note tonight that, once again, someone has gone to a “disarmed victim zone” (otherwise known as a school) with a firearm and committed mayhem. (I also note that this is major news in Australia, the UK, Israel, China, Bulgaria, South Africa and jeebus knows how many other foreign places. Yes, guns are terrible things here in the U.S. of A. More “victims of the Second Amendment,” I’m sure they’ll say.)

Those “gun-free zones” really do the job, don’t they? They make sure that anyone willing and capable of defending against someone intent on evil has no chance to intervene before things go completely to hell.

But this is SOP for people who blame not the perpetrators, but the weapons for these evil deeds. Once again, let me quote Steven den Beste on the topic of “cognitive dissonance”:

When someone tries to use a strategy which is dictated by their ideology, and that strategy doesn’t seem to work, then they are caught in something of a cognitive bind. If they acknowledge the failure of the strategy, then they would be forced to question their ideology. If questioning the ideology is unthinkable, then the only possible conclusion is that the strategy failed because it wasn’t executed sufficiently well. They respond by turning up the power, rather than by considering alternatives. (This is sometimes referred to as “escalation of failure”.)

Or, as I express it, “Do it again, only HARDER!

Here’s another shining example.

California governator Arnold Schwarzenegger….

Well, you read it:

Legislation to protect domestic violence victims from gun violence signed into law

September 27, 2006

Need for legislation underscored after Evan Nash, a San Diego youth, was slain by his armed father.

SACRAMENTO – Governor Schwarzenegger yesterday signed legislation by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) that will provide additional protection for people seeking court protective orders under the Family Code.

“This law is dedicated to the memory of Evan Nash, the San Diego teen who tragically lost his life while under the protection of a family court protective order. His mother, Lucy Nash, fought to change the law to further protect victims of domestic violence,” said Senator Kehoe.

In 2003, Evan Nash’s estranged father shot and killed his son less than 24 hours after being served with a protective order. In the aftermath of the tragedy, Lucy Nash stated that she thought Evan’s father’s firearms would be confiscated at the time his protective order was served, and that had she known they would not be confiscated, she would have moved her son to safety.

Specifically, Senate Bill 585:

1. Adds additional provisions to the Family Code to allow law enforcement to consider seeking the immediate surrender of a firearm from a person served with a protective order.

2. Reduces from 72 hours to 48 hours the time frame by which a person served with a protective order must show proof to a court that they either sold or surrendered their firearms.

3. Requires that application forms for protective orders ask what types of firearms are in the possession of the respondent.

“Unfortunately, in some cases the issuance of a protective order is followed by an assault or even murder,” said Senator Kehoe.

You don’t say!

“In certain circumstances, it is important to remove the guns as quickly as possible after a protective order has been served to help increase public safety.”

But which cases? And how do you tell?

Last year, Evan’s mother, Lucy Nash, traveled from San Diego to Sacramento to testify in support of the measure. SB 585 will take effect January 1, 2007.

I’ve had to stop banging my head against hard surfaces. I’ve beaten too many of them into crumbling dust.

How many absurdities can you count in that one story?

1. While California has handgun registration, I don’t believe they have long gun registration, so how are they supposed to know that someone turned everything in?

2. This law trusts that the target of such an order will actually comply, especially if he’s planning violence. You know, in those few cases that actually lead to murder? It’s worked so well in the past, hasn’t it?

3. If they can’t keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons (i.e. known felons), how do they expect to keep them out of the hands of people with restraining orders if they really, really want one?

4. If someone with a restraining order really wants to kill someone, there are other methods besides guns, but this law is concerned not with violence, only gun violence.

5. The law supposedly disarms the perpetrator of domestic violence in 48 hours, rather than the completely unreasonable 72 hours – yet the bill is passed giving credit to a case in which the perpetrator killed within the new timeframe!

How many more can you come up with?

But if the previous law didn’t work, do it again, only harder!

The next iteration will drop the time period to 24 hours, I suppose? And when the next violent offender hands his firearms in ammunition first?

If Ms. Nash had understood that the government is not responsible for her (or her son’s) protection, then she might have done what was necessary to protect herself and her son. Instead, she depended on the State to protect her. She depended a piece of paper. But now other women will still think that a restraining order will provide more protection than the paper it’s printed on.

And that’s a damned lie.

But the ideology cannot be wrong. The only possible conclusion is that the strategy failed because it wasn’t executed sufficiently well, so DO IT AGAIN, ONLY HARDER!

What will they do about “Gun-Free School Zones” now? Increase the radius of the exclusionary zone?

“I Can’t Believe You’re Doing This!”.

I can.

After my “Pushback?” post from yesterday, commenter 1894C put up a link to this YouTube video. Watch the whole thing. I doubt that the videographer, “texteditor,” will get much satisfaction from the courts, but it’s an interesting thing to watch.


Nice to know the patrol officers understand the law they swear to uphold.

UPDATE: While perusing some of the incoming links, I found an essay written by Peter Schramm in 1999 that I think everyone ought to read. Go, go… I’ll still be here when you’re finished…

Done? Good. Did this quote get your attention?

“…where there is bureaucracy, there is no freedom.”

I thought it might.

Jeff Cooper has Left Us.

Doubtless (if you read the gun blogs) you’re already aware of this. I found out last night, but Blogger was being wonky, so I couldn’t post. I’m glad I didn’t. Joe Huffman has an excellent piece up, far better than anything I would have written: 147 quotes from the man. Go read, and reflect on a life well-lived and a man who will be greatly missed.


Here’s a rather interesting video on YouTube. Watch it while it’s still up. I don’t imagine it will be for long.

(h/t MadOgre.)

UPDATE: Here’s a larger Quicktime version not likely to disappear.

Another update: Apparently Kim du Toit and Mr. Wilcox, the producer of the film linked here, are at odds. I’m going to assume that the “crappy little snuff film” Kim refers to is this piece, though I might very well be incorrect.

Just thought y’all might want to know.

The Jabberwocky World of Saul Cornell.

Here he is again! Associate professor of History Saul Cornell of Ohio State University and its “Second Amendment Research Center at the John Glenn Institute” has published a new tome on the topic of just what the Second Amendment doesn’t protect. Unsurprisingly, it’s getting rave reviews (I seem to remember that Michael Bellisile’s Arming America got glowing reviews, too….) Entitled A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America (working title, Armed in the Holy Cause of Liberty: Guns and the American Constitution – but I guess that one was a little too… provocative?) Associate professor Cornell attempts to shed just a little unbiased light on the subject.

Or, at least, that’s what he wants you to believe.

Clayton Cramer does his typical masterful job of dissecting the Minneapolis Star-Tribune’s laudatory op-ed/book review with, you know, facts and citations that indicate just how far off in never-never-land Associate professor Cornell really is.

Clayton opens:

Saul Cornell Is Suddenly No Longer a Partisan on Gun Control

At least, that’s what this editorial from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune claims…

Any of you who are familiar with Professor Cornell’s work can start the insane giggling right now–yeah, he’s not really on one side or the other, nor is he trying to disarm the masses.

Numerous other bloggers have noted that the “Second Amendment Research Center at the John Glenn Institute” is largely funded by the extremely anti-gun Joyce Foundation (see this post, and this post, and this one.)

But Associate professor Cornell? “He’s neither antigun nor progun. He really isn’t a gun guy at all. His thing is history.”

Right. Cue hysterical laughter.

But as I said in my first response to the good Associate professor,

He doesn’t have to be right, he just has to be convincing. The ill-informed who read this piece think “Hey, he’s an authority, he must be right.” That’s why his side has to keep repeating the big lies.

Clayton notes the same thing I did:

It just gets more and more “alternate universe” the deeper I read

As I said in my reply to Associate professor Cornell’s email:

You, an historian, have taken it upon yourself to distort history – something that you yourself claim is unacceptable. You claim that the Justice department’s recognition of the “standard model” of the Second Amendment is somehow “well beyond” a “living document” re-interpretation. I’m sorry, Professor, but if you actually believe that you’re delusional, and if you know better you’re a bald-faced liar. I honestly cannot tell which.

I think I have a better handle on that question now.

I think we all do, at least those of us who are paying attention.

But what about the general readership of the Strib?

THAT is the fight we have to fight each and every day.

Cashing in on the Guilt.

Do you really think we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking the law. Create a nation of lawbreakers and then you can cash in on the guilt. Now that’s the system! – Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957

Looks like California, with the assistance of the BATF, is doing exactly that:

LA Gun Task Force Serves another Search Warrant

The LA County Gun Task Force has served another search warrant on the home of another member of the fifty caliber community. On Monday September 18th, eighteen police cars swarmed the neighborhood where the FCSA member lives and served a search warrant signed by Judge Steven Kleifield of the LA County Superior Court. The officers were at the residence for several hours and confiscated all semi-automatic firearms belonging to the victim.

The probable cause for issuing the search warrant was not available in the body of the affidavit so the reason for the search is unknown at this time. It should be noted the LA Gun Task Force used “High Risk” entry tactics by sending a SWAT Entry team to make the initial entry into the victim’s residence. Gun owners in LA County need to be prepared to expect these kinds of entry tactics and respond to commands from any officers if you are contacted.

FCI wants everyone to be aware that the LA County Gun Task Force is lead by agents from BATFE; LAPD and LASO. They appear to have focused their attention on members of the fifty caliber community and are aggressively trying to arrest law abiding citizens for just being “Gun Owners”.

In the situation that occurred this past Monday the victim had his entire firearms collection seized and he was told charges are going to be filed because he had in his possession linked ammunition in quantities of more than 10 rounds of ammunition at a time. This has been interpreted as a violation of the “High Capacity Magazine” portion of the Assault Weapons Act in CA. The victim owns a Semi-auto M2; a semi-auto M3 and a 30 caliber semi-auto 1919

Everyone living in California needs to pay attention to what is happening in Los Angeles. This can happen to you simply because someone who knows about your firearms calls the LA Gun Task Force and gives them information they interpret as a violation of the Draconian Gun Laws they have been passing for the last five years.

We are asking everyone to review what you have in your gun safe or workshop. Take the time to find out what is against the law and what is not. Remember, our first reported incident was over a flash hider on an M-1A and some armor piercing projectiles. Don’t let this happen to YOU.

We are not able to identify the person involved in the incident on Monday or give you any more info about the circumstances about what occurred at this time. We will advise and update as we can.

John Burtt, Chmn

“…charges are going to be filed because he had in his possession linked ammunition in quantities of more than 10 rounds of ammunition at a time. This has been interpreted as a violation of the “High Capacity Magazine” portion of the Assault Weapons Act in CA.” Just as possession of a Marlin Model 60 – still with the factory tags hanging off of it – in New Jersey is interpreted as possession of an “assault weapon” because said Marlin holds sixteen rounds in its tubular magazine. And possession of ten rounds of tracer ammo can get you five years in prison in California.

As the New Jersey court said, “When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril.”

They keep this up, some of that peril is going to shift.

Which of These Two Statements Is True?.

Please read the following story (h/t: Zendo Deb):

Fighting back

Woman defends herself from attack with gun

By Courtney Reese/Times Record News
September 21, 2006

A 38-year-old woman staying at the Homewood Suites in Wichita Falls turned the tables Tuesday night on a potential attacker in the parking lot.

The woman’s father said she pulled her .380 automatic pistol on the man, who came up behind her as she was getting sinus medicine from her van about 9 p.m.

He gave the following information about the incident:

The man asked her, “Do you have anything good in that van?”

The woman knew she was in trouble. She told him yes and moved to the front passenger-side door.

She pulled out her pistol and heard a knife click open.

When she looked back, she saw the man was holding a knife pointed downward in his hand.

She quickly turned, pointed the gun right at him and asked, “Are you really sure you want to do whatever you’re going to do?”

He took off running, the father said.

No shots fired. No one wounded on either side. No crime completed. One pair of stained skivvies.

How dare she act like Harry Callahan!

The woman immediately went back inside the hotel, alerted the staff, and they called police.

Her father said she was calm at the time, going into “auto-pilot” and remembering everything she had learned in the classes she took to get her gun permit, he said.

“Of course, three hours later she was a basket case,” he said. “She felt violated and real anxious.”

Not as violated as she would have felt had he succeeded in robbing her – and whatever else he had planned.

This wasn’t the first time the woman had faced a trying situation.

Her father said her fiance was involved in a shootout in Houston, which made her realize she needed to take precautions herself.

“When that happens to somebody close to you, you learn,” he said.

Unfortunately, some don’t even learn then.

So not even a year ago, the West Texas woman decided to get licensed to carry a gun, something her brother had been trying to convince her of because her job requires travel, her father said.

Sgt. Joe Snyder, public information officer with the Wichita Falls Police Department, said it’s important that anyone carrying a gun be aware of not only his or her own surroundings, but also those of the attacker.

“You’re responsible for where a bullet goes,” he said. “You don’t want to hit innocent bystanders.”

But even more than that, Snyder said a weapon should not be used as a scare tactic.

“If you are going to pull a weapon, you should be prepared to use it.”

In general, it’s best to travel in pairs went it’s dark outside, Snyder said.

“Park in well-lighted, well-traveled areas so you aren’t put in a one-on-one scenario,” he said.

The woman who was accosted is one of more than 150,000 people in Texas licensed to carry firearms. In Texas, carrying a loaded handgun in a vehicle is legal when the owner is traveling a substantial distance.

(Just so you know, 150,000 represents less than 1% of the eligible population of Texas.)

A couple of years ago I had a long, drawn out cross-blog discussion with Australian Tim Lambert over laws restricting weapons. In one post defending restrictive laws, Tim stated the following:

If the law disarms attackers, then it can make self defence possible where it would have been impossible if the attacker was armed.

Reader Sarah of Carnaby Fudge slightly re-worded that statement in a comment:

If the law disarms citizens, then it can make self defence impossible where it would have been possible if the citizen was armed.

Which of these two statements is demonstrably true, and why?

I Hereby Reiterate My Promise…

…to kick Ted Rall in the crotch (I doubt he has any balls) if I ever meet him in person:

On top of that, I’m pretty sure he wants to be dominated by her.

For some reason, Robert Mapplethorpe photos come to mind…

Hiatus. Again.

Sorry, folks, but given the amount of work I’m doing at the present time, blogging’s got to take a back seat. My apologies for the free ice cream shortage. Perhaps I’ll be able to blog more during my upcoming two weeks off in October, but in the mean time, things are going to be damned sparse around TSM.