Tag: gun control

“These out-of-town internet dudes are another matter.”

KevinLeave a comment

In a follow-up to last Thursday’s “They mostly seem like ordinary folks” piece on the decision by California’s North Coast Journal to publish the names of CCW permit holders in Humboldt County (and the associated “They seem so normal!” story), we have a post at CalGuns (h/t to reader John):

I just received a call from HANK SIMS, the editor of the North Coast Journal (707) 826-2004. It came across my Caller ID, so it MUST be “public Information”

He wanted to verify that I had indeed submitted a “Letter to the Editor” online (not comments to the article, but an actual letter submission which I assume they have printed, or may print.)

The conversation started out pleasantly, but quickly turned into a heated debate. I told him that he should be able to glean from the 137+ NEGATIVE comments about posting the names of CCW holders, that it was the wrong thing to do. He refused to see it that way.

He told me that MY reading of the public information act, that the info is there for anyone who wants to go get it but purposefully publishing it from a data fishing expedition is wrong, is flawed. He saw NOTHING wrong with compiling the list of CCW holder names and publishing them on the front page. His defense? He didn’t publish their addresses or anything potentially damaging!

He said that the names alone give no usable information, but I told him that from Heidi Walters’ name ALONE, I have her PO Box mailing address, former residential addresses, work history, DOB, husband’s name, EX-husband’s name, the names of their current and former neighbors and a lot of other “public information” I have been able to gather by simply surfing the net. I haven’t even bothered to find out what car she drives, the names of her children if any and so forth. I have more important things to do, but I darned sure could find out a lot more with little effort.

RTWT.

So, needless to say, editor Hank Sims [(707) 826-2004], has gotten an ear- and an inbox-full of irate mail from gun owners. In fact, AAN, the “Association of Alternative Newsweeklies” has discovered our interest:

North Coast Journal Story on Weapons Permits Causes a Stir

The Humboldt County alt-weekly provoked an angry response last week with a cover story revealing the names of citizens who have permits to carry concealed weapons in the county. The cover illustration of a handgun was composed of names supplied by the county sheriff’s office of 641 individuals holding such a permit. The story has caused an “internet shitstorm,” editor Hank Sims tells AAN News, as evidenced by the comments on the story itself and various online forums and blogs. Sims notes that the reaction online has been much harsher than his face-to-face encounters. “A number of local people called or came into the office last week a little bit angry, wondering how we got their name or why we should be allowed to publish the list. They were all very cool, and I had some great conversations,” he says. “These out-of-town internet dudes are another matter.”

THR, Calguns, and this blog were linked in the blurb. Interestingly, the report was credited to “AAN News.” I guess whoever was responsible for actually typing the words didn’t want to risk an “internet shitstorm” themselves.

You know, it’s remarkable that the local response has been so low-key, seeing as how gun owners and especially CCW permit holders only appear to be ordinary folks. But journalists know that, deep down, they’re really bloodthirsty killers who need to be exposed! It’s only with the anonymity of the Internet (yeah, I’m anonymous as hell) that our true bloodthirstyness can be released!

In the form of harshly-worded missives!

I am, once again, reminded of the words of Dr. Michael S. Brown. We’re tired of the decades-long slow motion hate crime against guns and gun owners. This is another piece of evidence that we’re not taking it quietly anymore.

Really? DEMOCRATS Authored this Legislation?

KevinLeave a comment

Really? DEMOCRATS Authored this Legislation?

The NRA puts out a press release about an amendment to H.R. 6842 that:

…will overturn the District of Columbia’s gun control restrictions that defy the recent Supreme Court ruling by continuing to limit D.C. residents’ right to self-defense.

—

The Second Amendment Enforcement Act will:

· Repeal the District’s ban on semi-automatic handguns. Semi-automatic pistols have been the most commonly purchased firearms in the United States over the last 20 years, and therefore a ban on those firearms is unconstitutional as decided by Heller;

· Restore the right of self-defense by repealing the requirement that firearms be disassembled or secured with a trigger lock in the home;

· Reform the current D.C. registration system that requires multiple visits to police headquarters; ballistics testing; passing a written test on D.C. gun laws; fingerprinting; and limiting registration to one handgun per 90 days. The current system is unduly burdensome and serves as a vehicle for even more onerous restrictions; and

· Create a limited exemption to the federal ban on interstate handgun sales by allowing D.C. residents to purchase handguns in Virginia and Maryland. Currently there is only one licensed firearm dealer in the District, and the District government is standing in the way of additional dealers opening their doors. A 40-year old federal law prohibits residents from purchasing handguns outside of the District.

SayUncle reports that it was a Democrat led bill, and the AP says:

Many of those speaking for the bill in debate that went well into the night Tuesday were conservative Democrats from rural districts that strongly support gun rights. Eighty-five Democrats voted for the bill.

“Number one, I’m a pro-gun Democrat,” said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. “Number 2, if the government of the District of Columbia can take your guns away from you in our nation’s capital, Prescott, Arkansas, and many other small towns across the country could be next.”

The legislation is unlikely to be taken up in the Senate in the few remaining weeks of this session, but it served both to give lawmakers a pro-gun vote shortly before the election and demonstrate the continuing political clout of the NRA.

The bill, sponsored by Mississippi freshman Democrat Travis Childers, repeals the District’s semiautomatic handgun ban and overturns D.C. law requiring that firearms kept in the home be locked up and inoperable. It allows D.C. residents to purchase guns from federally licensed dealers in Maryland and Virginia and repeals what critics claimed were burdensome registration requirements.

Aside from the good work the NRA does to protect and enhance shooting ranges, this is another reason I’ve been a member of the NRA since 1995.

Good work!

A New Trial for Olofson?

KevinLeave a comment

A New Trial for Olofson?

Via The War on Guns comes the news that an appeal has been filed in David Olofson’s case. For those of you with short memories, David Olofson is the Wisconsin man who was sent to prison for “transferring a machine gun” when the BATFE – after initially testing his malfunctioning AR-15 and declaring it not a machine gun, retested it with soft-primered ammo and then declared it was a machine gun – suppressed the evidence of the initial testing.

The appeal brief is here. (PDF) The body of the brief itself runs from page 6 to page 56. It’s not a difficult read, but it ought to piss you off. Here’s a key portion:

Four months after the search and ATF interrogation, on November 17, 2006, ATF agent Keeku filed a Criminal Complaint alleging that, on or about July 13, 2006, Olofson “knowingly transferred a machine gun … in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(o).” As part of the factual support for the complaint Agent Keeku’s Affidavit stated:

On November 6, 2006, a Firearms Enforcement Officer with ATF test fired the Olympic Arms, serial number F7079 … us[ing] 60 rounds of commercially available, .223 caliber ammunition. Three tests were performed, each with twenty rounds of ammunition. When the selector switch was placed in the unmarked third position, the firearm fired all twenty rounds automatically in each of the three tests. [Keeku Affidavit, p. 3, R. 1 (App. B-17).]

Omitted from the Keeku Affidavit was mention of an earlier test, conducted “in October of 2006” (Tr. 101, ll. 6-13), by the same ATF officer, utilizing “commercially available ammunition” (see Tr. 107, l. 17), in which Olofson’s AR-15 did not fire automatically,” as the testing officer had expected it to do (Tr. 107, ll. 4-10), but instead had malfunctioned by “hammer follow.” Tr. 122, l. 23 – 123, l. 2. See also Tr. 106, ll. 1-21. Based on this initial test, the testing officer determined that “this gun was not a machine gun.” Tr. 124, l. 21 – 125, l. 1. Thereafter, agent Keeku requested a retest.

Why? Because he didn’t get the result he wanted. The initial test indicated that the rifle malfunctioned with the safety in the third position. A “hammer follow” is a malfunction. With the retest, this time videotaped, they managed to get the rifle to fire multiple shots.

That part I was aware of. This part I was not:

At trial, the prosecution and defense counsel originally agreed “that we would allow our witnesses in throughout the entire trial.” Tr. 91, ll. 4-6. Immediately prior to the testimony of its expert firearms testing agent, however, the prosecutor informed the court that the prosecution would like to sequester defense expert during the government expert’s testimony. Tr. 90, ll. 10-13. In response, defense counsel argued not only that the prosecution should be held to his previous word, but also that “under Rule 703 it’s clear that an expert can testify to factual data … that are just made known to the expert [the] day [of] the hearing.” Tr. 91, ll. 10-13. Without explanation, the court ruled in the prosecution’s favor, “exclud[ing] [defense expert] from the trial during … that portion of the trial where the government is offering what it believes to be expert testimony.” Tr. 95, ll. 6-11, App. B-35. Thus, defendant’s expert was limited in his testimony to a brief “function check” of the firearm (Tr. 166, ll. 8-18), a review of the prosecution two expert reports (Tr. 171, ll. 14-15; Tr. 179, ll. 5-8), and viewing a portion of the video at trial.

WTF? Seriously – WTF?!?!

Read the whole thing, but take your blood pressure medication first.

Then read Appendix B (PDF).

We do not have a “Justice” system, we have a LEGAL system. If someone in that system wants to convict you of something, then they’ll find a way.

David complains in his post:

I posted the appeals brief yesterday that details all the dirty tricks the government and the prosecution employed–from mischaracterizing technical points on the witness stand, to ignoring precedent established in the Staples case in re definitions, to failure to produce documents requested by the defense (the excuse was correspondence with the original manufacturer contained privileged tax information), to preventing the defense expert witness from inspecting the firearm and excluding him from the courtroom during when the “expert witness” for the prosecution testified–actually reneging on their agreement and legal requirements, and much, much more…all with the tacit consent of a complicit judge.

So far, there has been zero interest shown from the “gun blogosphere.”

A commenter complains:

Sadly, many of the most vocal, and vicious, voices in the gun blogging community, including the gun forums, tend to be pragmatists. Neither Olofson nor Fincher are ‘pure’ enough for them. Anytime Olofson, or Fincher are brought up, outside of a few select blogs, there is an automatic flame war drowning out any opinions other than the party line that they got what they had coming to him.

Personally, I hope that both Olofson and Fincher manage to regain their freedom.

I left this reply:

Personally, I hope that both Olofson and Fincher manage to regain their freedom.

So do I. Olofson was railroaded, of that I have absolutely no doubt. Fincher, on the other hand, challenged already established precedent in the circuit in which he was tried. I don’t like that he was convicted, but I understand why he was, and I was completely unsurprised that SCOTUS denied cert. This was, after all, about machine guns, and those scare the white people. Same for the 9th Circuit’s Stewart decision.

As far back as Sun Tzu, the advice is to “know yourself, know the enemy, and choose your battles carefully.” Mr. Fincher didn’t do at least two of the three.

I don’t read your blog daily, David, nor check JPFO daily either. Thanks for putting up the link. I’ll write a post this evening when I get home. I hope Olofson gets another trial and an acquittal, and I hope he can successfully Nifong the prosecutor.

On second thought, it isn’t the prosecutor I’m really interesting in seeing Nifonged, it’s ATF Agent Keeku.

Do Not Patronize

KevinLeave a comment

Do Not Patronize

Breda relates her experience of finding an entire shopping center and a DQ marked as “Gun Free Zones.” She asks:

“What do I do?”

Well, I’d recommend carrying a stack of these little business cards around with you.


Assuming they’re still available. Perhaps Ohioans for Concealed Carry offers something similar?

Make ‘Em Mad

KevinLeave a comment

Make ‘Em Mad

Well, that’s what I recommended.

I had an interesting referral today, a link from a gunboard, Calguns.net. “Librarian” linked to the most recent überpost, quoting that line:

Our job, then, is not to “Frighten the White People,” it’s to make them MAD. It’s to make them “pro-freedom, pro-individual, pro-principles.” It’s to educate them.

But the topic of the thread was what I found interesting. The thread is entitled “Anybody else getting tired of this?” As of this writing it’s six pages long. Here’s the first post:

I’m getting a little tired of seeing this crap. Read this guys description

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie…Item=106726648

I understand where the guys coming from and it bugs me too. But I’m also tired if how they word things. I feel like I’m being quarantined

I think I’m mostly bothered by some of the cool stuff I cant buy

When I’m all growed up and become President…

The gunbroker link is to the sale of a 6″ S&W Model 29 revolver. Here’s the part the thread originator objects to. (Sorry for the ALLCAPS):

ATTENTION: IF YOU RESIDE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DO NOT BID ON THIS AUCTION. YOUR BID WILL NOT BE HONORED.

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, ADAMS GUN EMPORIUM, LLC HAS CEASED DELIVERY OF ALL FIREARMS, FIREARMS PARTS AND AMMUNITION TO ALL POLICE DEPARTMENTS, POLICE OFFICERS AND RESIDENTS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE RESIDENTS OF, WHAT HAS BECOME THE PEOPLES REPUBLIK of KALIFORNIA, BECOME ANGRY ENOUGH, AND GROW ENOUGH COURAGE, TO REMOVE FROM OFFICE THE SOCIALIST POLITICIANS WHO PASSED SECTIONS 12072(F)(1) & 12083(C)(1) OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE INTO LAW AND THE GOVERNATOR WHO ALLOWED IT TO BECOME LAW, I SHALL NOT HONOR ANY FURTHER BIDS FROM THE RESIDENTS OF THE PEOPLES REPUBLIK of KALIFORNIA. THIS SHALL ALSO APPLY TO CURIO & RELICS (03) FIREARMS AND LICENSEES. NO EXCEPTIONS WILL BE MADE.

I BELIEVE THAT THESE LAWS VIOLATE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AND ARE CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND I REFUSE TO BE KALIFORNIKATED BY YOUR SOCIALIST POLITICAL HACKS. DON’T LIKE MY ATTITUDE, THEN GET BUSY THIS ELECTION AND VOTE THE BUMS OUT’A OFFICE WHO VOTED FOR THIS ABOMINABLE SET OF LAWS, AND MAKE SURE THEIR SUCCESSORS KNOW EXACTLY WHY THEY GOT ELECTED. THEN INSIST THAT THEY REPEAL THESE ABOMINABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS BEFORE IT BECOMES NECESSARY FOR THE GOOD CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA TO DO SO BY FORCE OF ARMS.

It would appear that this FFL is serious. And someone else the Brady Campaign should be in fear of.

Read the thread. I’m not sure this is actually constructive, but it sure pissed some people off.

Quote of the Day

KevinLeave a comment

Quote of the Day

In the wake of the Vanderboegh letter, to one degree or another, armed revolt has been treated as a legitimate policy answer to popular gun control measures by one blogger after another in the gun community – rather than denounced as immoral or as street-corner gibberish uttered by one who wears a tinfoil hat. – “newswatch” at The Brady Blog, 8/6/08

Personal sovereignty scares the hell out of them, doesn’t it?

This is what licensing and registration are for, and we know it.

I Feel Special

KevinLeave a comment

I Feel Special

The Brady Campaign blog (no comments, of course. Can’t have any Reasoned Discourse™ going on.) has linked to my most recent überpost, along with Vanderboegh’s letter to the editor, Snowflakes in Hell, Sharp as a Marble, and Western Rifle Shooters Association. Of course, those honest people at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Ownership spin the recent coverage in the gunblogosphere of Vanderboegh’s letter as entirely supportive.

Think we’re Frightening the White People™?

Here you go, Sarah: I will not license. I will not register. Period. No matter how “popular” the idea is.

Mike V: Consider your mission accomplished.

Quote of the Day

KevinLeave a comment

New Hampshire has a high rate of firearms possession, which is why it has a low crime rate. You don’t have to own a gun, and there are plenty of sissy arms-are-for-hugging granola-crunchers who don’t. But they benefit from the fact that their crazy stump-toothed knuckle-dragging neighbors do. If you want to burgle a home in the Granite State, you’d have to be awfully certain it was the one-in-a-hundred we-are-the-world panty-waists’s pad and not some plaid-clad gun nut who’ll blow your head off before you lay a hand on his seventy-dollar TV. A North Country non-gun owner might tire of all the Second Amendment kooks with the gun racks in the pickups and move somewhere where everyone is, at least officially, a non-gun owner just like him: Washington, D.C., say, or London. And suddenly he finds that, in a wholly disarmed society, his house requires burglar alarms and window locks and a security camera. – Mark Steyn, America Alone

Interestingly, a search of “New Hampshire” in Clayton Cramer’s Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog garnered no hits.