Tag: gun control

“Make ’em Mad” Dept.

KevinLeave a comment

“Make ’em Mad” Dept.

Via Dave Hardy:

I blogged about his case a few days ago — Mr. Dominguez is a law-abiding construction company owner, who owned a registered “assault rifle,” which in California he could legally take from his house to a shooting range. He was going shooting with a friend who was arriving by plane, and was arrested at the airport on the apparently claim that by stopping at the airport in the middle of that drive he broke the law.

The update notes that they followed with a SWAT raid on his house and seizure of all his (legal) firearms, and those of his family.

Fortunately, he’s got some first rate firearm attorneys.

RTWT, including the message from Mr. Dominguez.

Quote of the Day

KevinLeave a comment

There is a very strong possibility that the Court of Appeals will rule against us, not on the merits of the case (which is very strong), but because finding that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment against the states is a decision above their pay grade. – Clayton Cramer in his post Chicago Gun Case

And I think he’s more than probably right. I’m reminded of 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski’s dissent in the denial to re-hear en banc the Silveira v. Lockyer case, specifically this part:

As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.

Even when it was.

There exists Supreme Court precedent that says that the right of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose’ is not protected against state infringement, but only against infringement by Congress – i.e.: the Federal government (U.S. v. Cruikshank, 1875). Cruikshank was decided after ratification of the 14th Amendment, and while it violates the specific, written intent of that amendment, it has never been overturned by the Supreme Court, and it has been used as precedent in an 1886 case, Presser v. Illinois.

And inferior courts may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.

So don’t be surprised if the 7th Circuit finds against us; be stunned if they don’t. Because that will force the Supreme Court to revisit Cruikshank, and I doubt seriously the 7th Circuit has the testicular fortitude to do that.

Here’s a Shocker

KevinLeave a comment

Here’s a Shocker

An op-ed from the Richmond Times-Dispatch (via Instapundit):

Richmond Times-Dispatch
Published: January 24, 2009

Recently, the state Crime Commission deadlocked over whether to recommend closing the so-called gun-show loophole. The issue has become a perennial at the General Assembly, which is considering the matter once again this year. Once again, legislators should vote no.

Licensed firearms dealers — those who buy and sell guns as a business — are required to conduct background checks on prospective buyers.

The “loophole” in question refers to the fact that individuals selling guns from their own private collection do not have to — either within gun-show venues, or in the parking lot, or in their own homes.

Which is no “loophole” at all, but . . .

Gun-control advocates often muddy the issue by referring to “unlicensed dealers” at gun shows, of which there are indeed many. They sell holsters, flashlights, hunting knives, T-shirts, books, gun safes — even jewelry. But an unlicensed dealer who sold guns as a business would invite felony charges under federal law.

And some have. That’s part of the BATFE’s job – and one they don’t seem to do very well.

Gun-control advocates also suggest, albeit with scant evidence, that gun shows supply a significant share of the weapons used in crime.

Federal data indicate otherwise. (My emphasis.) According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report, “Firearm Use by Offenders,” only about 1 percent of guns used in crimes come from gun shows. (Again.) In fact, most crime guns — 57 percent — come from just 1 percent of licensed dealers. Federal and state law-enforcement agencies should come down on those renegade dealers like a ton of bricks.

It would appear. Another thing the BATFE is tasked with, but they’d rather pursue companies like CavArms for technical violations that were A-OK on Wednesday, but verboten on Thursday. This is another topic unto itself, but to continue:

Another study, by the FBI concerning attacks on law-enforcement officials, found that 97 percent of the offenders had procured their weapons through illegal means. (Again, my emphasis.)

Private sales among the hunters and target-shooting enthusiasts who frequent gun shows are simply not a significant source of weapons used in crimes. Gun shows, then, are not the real issue — except to those who recoil viscerally at the sight of large numbers of firearms in one place.

Referring to a “gun-show loophole” muddies the issue by implying, falsely, that individuals can sell or buy guns freely and without background checks only at gun shows. In fact, they can do so many places.

The real issue, in fact, is incidental firearms sales by private individuals — whether at gun shows or anywhere else.

Now there is an argument to be made that any such sales should be more tightly regulated, perhaps even recorded and reported to the authorities — just as home and car sales are. Over time, that would amount to de facto firearm registration. Some gun-control advocates say that is not their wish.

But given the weaknesses in the case for closing the gun-show loophole, one has to wonder.

No we don’t. Not any more.

Remaining emphasis is also mine. And there’s your QotD in bright red. Kinda shocking to read in an MSM outlet, but it is Richmond, VA.

The Tottenham Outrage

KevinLeave a comment

The Tottenham Outrage

One hundred years ago today, on John Moses Browning’s (PBUH) 54th birthday, two Latvian Anarchists attempted to rob the payroll of Schnurmann’s Rubber Company in Chestnut Road, Tottenham, England. The payroll was worth about £80, or roughly $8,800 today. Armed with then-still-new semi-automatic pistols, the two robbers, Paul Hefeld and Jacob Lapidus tried to make their escape, starting a shooting-spree that resulted in twenty-four wounded (seven police officers) and two dead – one police officer and one 10 year old boy. The police officer’s reported last words were, in fine British tradition:

“Come on, give in, the game’s over!”

Here’s a photo of the firearms in question:


The top one looks like one of JMB’s early works. If anyone can identify them, I’d be grateful.

One robber killed himself just before the angry crowd could do it. The other was captured after he shot himself, and he later died of his injuries.

The Tottenham Outrage is cited by a lot of us in the gunnie world because it is an example of how things used to be, and how – many of us believe – it still ought to be. The Tottenham Outrage was a living demonstration of Sir Robert Peel’s Nine Principles of Modern Policing, first published when he established London’s first “modern” police force in 1829; most especially Principle #7:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

During the incident, average people going about their daily lives joined in the pursuit of the robbers. A party out bird shooting at nearby Lockwood reservoir reportedly exchanged fire with them. The Tottenham police, in the tradition of British police to this day, did not go armed. Officers, unable to find the key to the locked firearm cabinet in the station house actually had to smash the doors off to get to their weapons, but brother officers already in pursuit instead borrowed firearms from people on the street – something literally unimaginable there today, and literally unremarkable back then.

A mere 100 years ago today.

I’m Late on This

KevinLeave a comment

I’d blame it on work, but I received a nice email from reader Steve Vaujin on Tuesday about the topic, and I’m only now addressing it. I know all of you are already aware, but here it is again:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent. – Found on inauguration day at http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/

So much for believing in the Second Amendment.

“Closing the gun show loophole” means “Ending private-party sales. All sales must go through an FFL.” This will, of course, get the support of many of the (remaining) FFLs. And it will be the first step to an eventual national registration system.

“Making guns in this country childproof.” All 300 million of them? Will this be like “childproof caps” that only children can actually open? Or does it mean “won’t go bang at all“?

“…support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.” Now, if you’re an optimist, you read this as “making the expiration permanent,” but we all know better than that. No, this means a new, IMPROVED “Assault Weapons Ban.” One that will, you know, actually ban something.

Oh, and “addressing gun violence in cities” – where it’s largely committed by and committed upon a tiny, easily identifiable demographic, but instead the .gov wants to put in place sweeping, highly restrictive laws that will affect everyone but that demographic.

The philosophy cannot be wrong! Do it again, only HARDER!

Well, there’s a great big hole in my collection that I need to fill. I’m not a fan of the 9mm Europellet, but I have been waiting and looking for a nice custom Browning Hi-Power to fill that niche – a 13-round capacity model, with a bunch of spare magazines. When I take newbies out to shoot, the lack of a 9mm has presented a problem as I work them up from .22LR to .45 Colt. (Hmm . . . And now .260 Remington?) I think this weekend I will go shopping for an EAA Witness in 9mm, and all the spare magazines they have in stock.

Who knows, maybe I’ll stumble across that Browning!

(*Sigh* – I was looking forward to at least a few more years before the .gov finally got around to passing enough laws to make me a willing felon . . .)

Another Invitation

KevinLeave a comment

Another Invitation

Say Uncle linked to a David Codrea post at Gun Rights Examiner where a sportswriter showed his ignorance in the comments and was promptly smacked down for it. Feelings apparently hurt, the writer took his ball and went home after complaining about how nasty gun rights advocates were.

So once again I have decided to extend the olive branch and invite the sportswriter, Tom Ferda, to have an open, public discussion on the topic of gun rights right here at this blog or anywhere else he feels comfortable. Even though I’m up to my eyeballs with work for at least the next two weeks, I really want to engage Mr. Ferda. Here’s the text of the email I sent him tonight:

Mr. Ferda:

Welcome to the wonderful world of the gun rights debate! My name is Kevin Baker, and I live in Tucson, Arizona. No, I’m not Kevin Baker the award-winning novelist, I’m Kevin Baker the Professional Electrical Engineer who happens to run a blog by the name of The Smallest Minority, if you care to Google my name (which is how I found your email address).

Obviously you’re new to this topic, but don’t feel too bad – many are. On both sides. The problem is, there’s been a concerted effort for, oh, the past forty years or so to remove firearms from the public. It’s been described as a “decades-long slow-motion hate crime” against gun owners, and a lot of us are quite tired of it. So you were the recipient of some (very mild!) backlash when you demonstrated your ignorance the topics of firearms and Constitutional law.

I understand that you’ll find this difficult to believe, but when you wrote the words “semi-automatic machine guns” you basically punched nearly every hot-button most of us on this side of the aisle have. The ones you missed on that first pass you punched – emphatically – with the words “think about when these original right to bear arms laws were written.”

Mr. Ferda, I’m a calm, collected kind of guy. I started blogging with the intention of debating people like you in a public forum. Honestly, I don’t expect to change your mind, and I’m absolutely certain you won’t change mine (my position being the result of well over a decade of research, study, and consideration – I should have a PhD in the philosophy of gun rights) but I do believe that people LEARN when they discuss and defend their positions with people who DISAGREE with them. Hopefully, so do you, since you wrote: “Stay aggressive, call people with different opinions idiots and chase us all out of your area. You guys are doing a great job of forming a group where everyone can have identical opinions and keep anyone else out of the club.” And: “Good-bye and enjoy conversing amoungst yourselves without any more comments from people like myself who may differ in opinion.”

I earnestly wish to have a discussion with you – in a public forum! I will remain civil, factual, and I will give citations with links for you to follow and verify. (You’ll have to bear with me, however, as my day job at the moment is pretty overwhelming, so my responses will be necessarily slow.) I am willing to give you guest-posting privileges at my blog, and I promise not to edit anything you write (except possibly for readability – text size, font, etc. – never content) or you may email me your responses and I can post those – again, in total and without editing – or you may post your half of the discussion anywhere you’d like, so long as I can copy those posts to my blog for archival purposes.

I do have open comments. If you are as sensitive to the response of the readers as you appear to be at the Gun Rights Examiner post, I suggest you not read them. Oh, and this invitation is also being published at my blog.

I hope you do accept this challenge. I promise you, if nothing else you will come away much more knowledgeable about the topic.

Kevin Baker,
Tucson, AZ

Here’s hoping he accepts. Whatever the response, you’ll be the first second to know!

UPDATE, 1/19 8:00PM: No response from Mr. Ferda as of yet.

In Re: Sucking Up

KevinLeave a comment

In Re: Sucking Up

Hecate of Hecate’s Crossroads posts on why she put links to the three Dangerous Victims essays on her sidebar. Excerpt:

I recall a friend describing a brief time when he worked in a liquor store. It was the only one in the area that had never been robbed. The store owner had a policy that anyone working there had to have a gun and carry it openly.

RTWT.

(Sorry, but 12.5 hour days are not conducive to “thinky” blog posts, thus you get “linky” blog posts. And not many of those.)

Quote of the Day (Ok, ONE post!)

KevinLeave a comment

Quote of the Day (Ok, ONE post!)

As a follow on to Women Shouldn’t Have Guns . . ., commenter “Lurker” linked this story with more details. A lot more:

Seventy-year-old woman holds home intruder at gunpoint, talks about ordeal

It’s not uncommon to hear stories of people defending their homes and themselves from intruders– but when it’s a 70-year-old woman, that story is a bit more uncommon.

It’s exactly what happened in St. Joseph County on Sunday night, after an intruder broke into an elderly woman’s home on Portage Road.

The woman held the man at gunpoint until police arrived. That man is 28-year-old Cyrus Brown. Brown is being held in jail on a number of charges, including burglary and intimidation.

The woman who defended herself is Sandra. She asked us not to use her last name. Newscenter 16 spoke to her by phone Monday night, while she recovered in her hospital room. She’s being treated for heart problems, problems she didn’t have until Sunday night’s scare.

As you’ll hear, this 70-year-old is a gutsy lady who wasn’t about to let anybody mess with her.

It was all started about nine o’clock Sunday night. Sandra says she was in the midst of splitting wood for her fire and making vegetable soup, when she heard a ruckus outside.

“All of a sudden, I’m hearing fast footsteps around my yard, around my deck,” says Sandra.

That’s when she says she grabbed her gun and called 911. Moments later– the intruder– 28-year-old Cyrus Brown, broke through her back patio door, pushing his way through the glass.

“Immediately, I felt there was danger because he was so desperate,” explains the 70-year-old. “He’s in the kitchen by the stove, I told him to get down on the floor. I said if you come any closer to me, I will shoot you to kill. I told him to sit down, don’t move, and I want to see your hands at all times,” adds Sandra.

Newscenter 16 obtained the 911 call that Sandra made. In the background, you can hear her demanding the suspect get down.

911 call:
Dispatch: “Ma’am, where is he at in the house?”
Sandra: “Get, get, get! You have more to fear from me!”

911 call:
Dispatch: “Ma’am, are you holding him at gunpoint?”
Sandra: “Yes, I am. And if he moves towards me, I’m afraid I’m going to have to kill. I don’t want to have to kill him.”

In that moment, Sandra says she was glad she had a gun and knew how to use it– just in case.

But he should have taken it away from her! The Violence Policy Center says so!

“I thought that this could turn out badly because I heard of other people being murdered in their house, but I decided, I wasn’t going to go down without a fight. I owe that to my children,” she explains.

And here’s the Quote of the Day:

“Guns aren’t all bad, only in the hands of the criminal and guns can be a good defense.”

Gee, ya THINK?

In the end, you can hear the relief in Sandra’s voice, as the police arrive at her back door.

911 call:
Sandra: “Cops!”
Police: “Get down, get down!”
Dispatch: “Ma’am, can you put the gun down for me please?”
Sandra: “It’s down.”
Dispatch: “Great, great, ok!”

The full 911 audio is available at the link, but the piece doesn’t stop there:

Sandra is a mother of three and has several grandchildren.

She’s set to have a procedure on her heart this week. As you can imagine, this whole situation has caused the 70-year-old a lot of stress.

She says she hopes others can learn from her story and think about protecting themselves. She’s hoping to have a neighborhood meeting in her area to discuss safety in homes.

Good for her! But wait! There’s more!

ORIGINAL STORY: NEIGHBORHOOD REACTION

A man is in custody Sunday night after police say he tried to break into a home on St. Joseph County’s northwest side.

It happened in the 51000-block of Portage near Brick Road.

Police say 28-year-old Cyrus Brown drove off the road and hit a utility pole on Portage. He then attempted to break into a nearby home.

When police arrived, they found an elderly female named Sandra holding the driver at gunpoint, awaiting their arrival. Sandra tells us she was scared to death and yelled at Brown to stay down. She says he begged her not to shoot.

“I would give her thumbs up and tell her to keep up the great work and I’m really proud of her,” Lanore Evins, Sandra’s neighbor, says. “He probably didn’t want anyone to know that happened to him. That’s probably a little embarrassing for him.”

“He was a little combative at first,” explains Sgt. Bill Redman, St. Joseph County Sheriff Department. “The officers had to wrestle with him to get him to comply with their orders. He didn’t mess with the homeowner though.”

Sandra is in the hospital with heart problems she says stemmed from the incident. She says her doctors say the situation caused too much pressure for her. But Sandra hopes her story inspires others to stand up for themselves.

“Doesn’t surprise me about any of us around here. We all fight (for) what’s ours,” says Phyllis Barkley, Sandra’s good friend. “Don’t mess with the gray haired people! We still got a lot of fight in us.”

To quote Grim again, “(I)t’s most important that all potential victims be as dangerous as they can.” And, “The secret of social harmony is simple: Old men must be dangerous.” Old women, too. Sandra understands that. Her neighbors, it sounds like, do too. And now Cyrus Brown does as well. Sounds like South Bend Indiana is “American-occupied America!”

Congratulations to the local media for a job well done! Too bad that apparently only FOX picked this up nationally, and at that, minimally. There’s a link at the top of the story to the email addresses of the reporters who wrote it. If you feel like it, drop ’em a nice note thanking them for the piece. I did.

Oh, and the comments to the story are generally pretty good, too.