Republicans. Not worth a damn. Not the individuals who call themselves republicans, but The Republican Party. Only thing worse is the Democrat Party. But not by much.

In California they recalled a Democratic governor who was screwing the pooch royally. What did the Republican Part do? Stabbed an actual conservative/libertarian republican candidate in the back, abandoned him & threw their support behind a right leaning democrat with an 'R' beside his name.

In D.C. we have a republican in the White House who lowered taxes. That's it. That's all he's done that the Republican Party is supposed to stand for.

Not that he's not done anything else; he just hasn’t done anything else that's supposed to be 'republican'.

For example, he (& by he I attribute acts performed by his administration which he either approved of or didn't stop, thereby implying approval) has increased not only spending but the size of government.

When parts of the country suffered attacks by terrorists what did he do? He created a new federal bureaucracy to deal with it. He (along with congress) federalized airport security & made damn skippy that the passengers couldn't bring nail clippers on a flight w/o facing charges if caught.
He opposed arming pilots & since congress told him to arm them anyway, the TSA (which, as chief executive officer he has authority over) has dragged its feet & set up so much red tape that less than 200 pilots are carrying weapons. & to add insult to injury, pilots who do pass through the multiple level hoops to get permission to carry are officially federal officers, thereby creating a distinction between us ordinary peasants who should never be allowed to exercise our Right to Arms & agents of the state, who are better than us & therefore can pack if they so choose.

Arm the passengers? You mean stop prohibiting individuals from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed Right to Arms when they fly? Puh-leez. That could be viewed as "pro-gun" & if there's one thing President Bush isn't, it's "pro-gun".

Assault weapons Ban? Bush likes it. Thinks we should give it another decade or twelve to see how it pans out.

& Bush isn't as far left as Schwarzenegger is. I feel for California.

But what really has me ticked off right now is not so much a direct action of Bush. Hell, there might not even be any republicans involved, although I doubt it. But it is of a direct concern to Bush, & it will be to Schwarzenegger & any other elected official remotely involved with state &/or national security.

A group of men detained 6 illegal immigrants at gunpoint. They handcuffed them, called the Border Patrol & turned them over once the Border Patrol arrived.

Now those men are felons. But CNN doesn't view it like that. Their headline reads:

2 border vigilantes go to jail in capture

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: vig•i•lan•te
Pronunciation: "vi-j&-'lan-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans
Date: 1865
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law appear inadequate); broadly: a self-appointed doer of justice

Now here's CNN's account of the terrible crime these men committed:

"According to an indictment, Hoffman, Dumas and a third man went out on July 31 and confronted a group of six undocumented immigrants in Yuma County and at gunpoint handcuffed them until the U.S. Border Patrol arrived."

Yep. Sounds like a lynch mob, don't it?

Actually if we go strictly by the Merriam-Webster definition they could be considered psuedo-vigalantes. They were members of a voluntary committee. They apparently thought the process of law was inadequate, at least in some respects. They did organize to suppress crime.

However, they did not organize to suppress & punish crime summarily, which is essential to the definition & connotation of the word vigilante.

One thing against them: they plead guilty. They didn't fight the charge. Normally I have no pity for anyone who pleads guilty. In that I mean I simply don't believe someone when they claim they plead guilty to something they didn't do in order to avoid a harsh sentence if they were convicted. I know it happens but frankly I don't have time to sort out the few honest people who succumb to this particular trap of our legal system from the many dishonest people who would attempt to cover their guilt in such a way.
But I make exceptions to laws that are unjust, or applied unjustly.

These men pleaded guilty to "conspiracy to commit unlawful imprisonment"

Where the application of this law is flawed is that it reduces the charge from a class 6 felony to a class 1 misdemeanor if "...the victim is released voluntarily by the defendant without physical injury in a safe place prior to arrest..."

So if they would have fought they could have convinced a judge &/or jury that a felony charge was inappropriate, considered no physical harm was done to the detainees & they released them into the custody of law enforcement voluntarily.

Also "restrain" is defined by this section of Arizona law thusly:

"2. "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, without legal authority, and in a manner which interferes substantially with such person's liberty, by either moving such person from one place to another or by confining such person..."

So they could have, & should have been able to argue that since they were detaining people who were in the process of & intent on continuing a commitment of a crime (entering the country illegally) that they were acting lawfully in detaining them until the Border Patrol could arrive to pick them up.

But finally I think this little ditty from Arizona law should have settled the matter:

"A private person may make an arrest:
1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it."

Again, from the account given by CNN it sounds like the actions of the 'vigilantes' were legal under Arizona law.

Since they pleaded guilty they may be screwed, however I did find this:

"Subject to the limitations of section 13-4232, any person who has been convicted of or sentenced for a criminal offense may, without payment of any fee, institute a proceeding to secure appropriate relief on any of the following grounds:
1. The conviction or the sentence was in violation of the Constitution of the United States or of this state.
2. The court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or to impose sentence.
3. The sentence imposed exceeded the maximum authorized by law or is otherwise not in accordance with the sentence authorized by law..."

Might help them, might not.

In any event they were prosecuted for doing what they thought was their duty as citizens of a country that has a serious problem with border security.

Now here's a surprise for ya: know who else besides CNN takes a dim view of their actions & jumps for joy at their convictions?

"Human rights advocates, prosecutors and Mexican officials hailed the sentencing as a blow against border vigilantes..."

I know. I was shocked myself.

"Armed citizens groups have patrolled the border in Cochise County for several years, but this was the first time armed citizens had gone out looking for undocumented immigrants in Yuma County, said Yuma County Attorney Patricia Orozco.
'It's just a very dangerous place, and I don't want to see people hurt, and that's what I fear will happen that if they do go down: We will see people hurt,' Orozco said."

I wonder if fear of being hurt is the reason said sheriff wasn't out patrolling the border his damned self? & for those of you who would come to the sheriff's defense by pointing out he doesn't have enough manpower to do that, why the hell do you think he doesn't have enough manpower? Perhaps it could have something to do with volunteers getting arrested for attempting to help his manpower problems?

BTW, an undocumented immigrant is just a very polite, politically correct term for illegal alien.

"Beatriz Chavez, a spokeswoman for the Mexican consulate in Yuma, praised the sentencing.
'To see someone pointing a gun at you is very scary, and they were really defenseless because they were just women and children,' Chavez said."

First of all why the hell is a government official from Mexico even venturing an opinion on a legal proceeding in Arizona? Or more appropriately, (since everyone is entitled to their opinion) why is CNN printing it?

Second, how dare anyone from freakin' Mexico speak of a defenseless person being afraid of someone with arms. They ban their peasants from owning weapons or ammunition. If anyone in Mexico is defenseless it’s because of people like her passing gun control laws that disarm the populace.

Third, those women & children, while being 'defenseless' were breaking a law. A very big law. They had firearms pointed at them by people whose intent was to prevent them from breaking said law. I'm quite sure that the border patrol or any other law enforcement agency would have weapons drawn when approaching a group of people engaged in an illegal activity.

"Rev. Robin Hoover, president of Humane Borders, a nonprofit organization that builds water stations in the desert for undocumented immigrants, said he hopes Wednesday's sentencing will discourage people from resorting to vigilante activity along the border.
'It sends the right message . . . that this kind of behavior won't be tolerated,' Hoover said."

The message it sends is, "Y'all come on in. Take your shoes off. Visit for a spell." Another message it sends is that anyone who attempts to do what they feel is their duty as a citizen to help out with domestic security will be punished beyond the extent that the law allows.

I understand why Mexicans would want to immigrate to America. I sympathize with their plight & do feel sorry for their situations in Mexico that would drive them to this. But the fact remains that our borders are not secure, & the States are in danger (though no one is sure to what degree) from agents of foreign governments &/or organizations that seek to cause damage to the States & their respective people.


CNN did include one pro-vigilante viewpoint:

"But Chris Simcox, founder of the Civil Homeland Defense, a citizens group based in Tombstone in Cochise County, condemned the sentencing.
'Something is just not right with this situation. The only thing I think they went too overboard was on the handcuffing,' said Simcox, who also publishes the weekly Tombstone Tumbleweed. 'They potentially saved the lives of those kids, and they were only doing what our president has asked us, which is to be vigilant and to report suspicious illegal activities to the proper authorities.'
Simcox said he is in the process of training a group of more than 100 people from Yuma who were galvanized by the charges against the three vigilantes to patrol the border on their own."

& what does Mr. Simcox know about the state of our borders?

"Simcox said over the past year his group has turned over more than 2,000 undocumented immigrants to the Border Patrol."

Let me emphasize that for you, & add correct what I feel is an edit of what Mr. Simcox actually said:

"...over the past year his group has turned over more than 2,000 [illegal aliens] to the Border Patrol."

2000+. One group. One state. Less than a year. 2000+.

What does this have to do with the Republican Party?

Bush.

This is a matter of state concern. It occurred within the borders of Arizona & is subject to Arizona law. However since it is also a matter of national concern Bush should use his influence to either A; encourage state governors to make exceptions for these citizens who are attempting to protect our borders or B; call up the unorganized militia to assist in the patrol of our borders, thereby providing some measure of protection for said volunteers.

But he won't do either. He (& the Republican Party in general) is too devoted to the idea of government fixing all our problems. They have totally abandoned the political philosophy that set them apart from the Democrat Party. Bush may not have caused this situation himself, but he is in a position to affect a positive change. He won't. The left leaning trend in the Republican Party may or may not have led to these events, but again they have the ability to attempt to bring about a positive change. They won't.

& how does this relate to Schwarzenegger? Easy. What do you think he'd say about armed citizens patrolling the California borders? I rest my case.

So two very patriotic men now sit in an Arizona jail for protecting the border.
I thought about ending this post by saying that I at least partially blame the Democrat Party & the Republican Party, but that would be redundant. Take away the "R" or "D" beside their names & I cannot tell them apart.

For previous posts on the condition of our borders & border patrol groups, private & public, look here.

A public service announcement:

Laissez Faire Books is having a sale. 15% off everything, even already discounted books. But it only lasts through this month.

Thanks to David Bernstein of The Volokh Conspiracy for pointing that out.

Browsing through The Serfdom Times I found a link to an article by Gary North called The Myth of Insufficient Gold.

It's a very interesting read about the free market & monetary policy in our economy. He contends that the unsupported currency we use is a valuable tool in the government's quest for power, & that it's not only possible but desirable to return to a gold or silver standard.

A taste:

"Monetary policy in this perspective is an "exogenous factor" in the marketplace – something that the market must respond to rather than an internally produced, "endogenous factor" that stems from the market itself. The money supply is therefore supposedly indirectly related to market processes; it is controlled by the central governments acting through the central bank, or else it is the automatic creation of a central bank on a fixed percentage increase per day and therefore not subject to "fine-tuning" operations of the political authorities.
A smaller number of free market advocates (myself among them) are convinced that such monopoly powers of money creation are going to be used. Power is never neutral; it is exercised according to the value standards of those who possess it. Money is power, for it enables the bearer to purchase the tools of power, whether guns or votes."

I agree with him & believe you will too. Go read the article to find out if I'm right about this.

Yet another gun control bill looks likely to pass, thanks in no small part to the NRA. Angel Shamaya tells us about the NICS Improvement Act that will make a person's state records, including but not limited to medical records, available to the government.

“What do you get when you put a current and former board member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the same room with two of the most vehemently anti-gun members of the House and Senate?' asks CNSNews columnist Jeff Johnson in his Sept. 26 news report. “On Thursday, the answer to that question was: agreement.'
The NRA is enthusiastically endorsing a gun control bill that's also supported by avowed gun banners Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy. Handgun Control, Inc. calls the bill “a sensible step that will save lives” — note the word “step” — which is what they say about banning semi-automatic rifles due to ergonomic and safety features, and what they've said in the past about completely banning handguns."

Here's Larry Pratt's take on it.

"Remember the so-called 'Our Lady of Peace Act' from last year? Well, Our Lady is back, but under a new name.
Two notoriously anti-gun legislators have teamed up again to deny millions of additional Americans their right to keep and bear arms. They are Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).
What makes this bill so dangerous is the fact that many Congressmen who are perceived to be 'pro-gun' are supporting the bill as well.
According to CNS News, a current NRA Board member, together with a former board member, appeared at a press conference last week to support the Schumer-McCarthy legislation. Specifically, Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) and Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) lent their visible support on Thursday in favor of the 'NICS Improvement Act'. "


The NICS Improvement Act is typical of federal extortion: they have no constitutional authority to force states to abide by it, so they threaten to cut off federal funds to any state that does not comply.
This has been a successful tactic for the feds, most notably in the case of a state's BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) level. The BAC level is used to determine whether someone is driving while intoxicated. The feds told the states that unless they dropped their BAC level's to .08 from the .10 most state's used to determine who was driving while intoxicated, they'd lose money for highway construction projects. Sc was the lats hold out & they caved in earlier this year.
So if this bill passes, which seems likely, then expect your state to sell you out for road construction money.

& in case you just don't get it, this bill is not about making it harder for criminals to obtain guns. It's a culling of the herd. The government is trying to incrementally cut down the number of people who may legally own guns. Think they'll stop before you're included in the prohibited class? Only if we fight bills like this real hard, or you die real soon.

Here's the strategy:

Convince people that certain actions justly disqualify a person from owning weapons legally.

Slowly expand the list of prohibited actions.

Couple this with bans directed towards classes &/or types of weapons.

Institute a system of firearm owner registration.

When you've reached a certain point (where you think you've used this incrementalism all you can or need to) then you enact a blanket prohibition on all privately owned firearms.

If I was directing the confiscations what I would do is set up across the nation a series of DUI checkpoints. Confrontational resistance would be kept at a minimum & officer safety would be maximized while being able to round up a sizable number of privately owned weapons. Few people would know what was going on until after they were disarmed.

Of course all this seems a bit far fetched doesn't it?

Actually all but the last part of the strategy I outline (the actual blanket prohibitions & mass confiscations) have happened to one extent or another. Here's the strategy again with more details:

Convince people that certain actions justly disqualify a person from owning weapons legally. Not many people will argue that a murderer or rapist should be able to legally own a weapon.

Slowly expand the list of prohibited actions. First it was felonies. Then any crime punishable (not the sentence received, but the sentence that could have been received) by a year or more in jail. Now it includes domestic violence misdemeanors that were committed before the law included them was enacted. With the addition of state records the number of disqualified person will increase yet again, ranging from misdemeanor marijauna convictions to people who have something in their medical records that the state can say is disqualifying.

Couple this with bans directed towards classes &/or types of weapons, such as assault weapons bans, saturday night special bans, smart gun only laws, .50 caliber firearm bans, etc...

Institute a system of firearm owner registration. A Shall Issue CCW law is a good technique because most firearms owners don't the this as registration. Purchase permits &/or retained background check records are another good method that most firearms owners will not object to.

When you've reached a certain point (where you think you've used this incrementalism all you can or need to) then you enact a blanket prohibition on all privately owned firearms.

If I was directing the confiscations what I would do is set up across the nation a series of DUI checkpoints. When running the license plate &/or drivers' license certain data comes up, such as that person having a CCW permit &/or a record of any firearms they have registered with the local or state authorities. Then I'd simply detain that person (confiscating any weapons he/she had with them) while another team of police went to that persons' house & picked up any weapons that were there. Confrontational resistance would be kept at a minimum & officer safety would be maximized while being able to round up a sizable number of privately owned weapons. Few people would know what was going on until after they were disarmed.

Doesn't seem as far fetched when you see that most of the strategy has laready been successful.

The NICS Improvement Act is just another step towards the overall goal of a disarmed populace. It will likely pass, especially with the bi-partisan & NRA support. This should, at the very least serve as a reminder that while some say, "It could never happen here" it is happening here.

New posts are up over at The Shooter's Carnival. Go take a look.

The Nationals and National Defense - Quo Vadis? by Bruce C. Woodford

This is a tale of how the government & military used to support firearms competitions. It is also the tale of how said government & military have been withdrawing their support.

From the first part:

"The National Matches as created by Congress in 1903 and as sponsored by the former Director of Civilian Marksmanship (the DCM before it became politically incorrect) enjoyed the support of all the Service branches, several Arsenals, and the public at large. The intent of the Matches was dual; to recognize outstanding shooters using the Service Arms, and provide a platform to train civilians in the use of said Service Arms via the Small Arms Firing Schools. As a side benefit were the gatherings and discussions that led to improved teaching methods and improved equipment. It was a real shooting fraternity, if you can imagine that, dedicated to improving marksmanship skills. Throughout history and up until the late 60's the Matches and support for them grew and grew."

From the second part:

"...Then a few years ago some anti-gun elected officials tried to do away with the DCM completely. Only by good fortune and pressure being applied by some pro-gun folks, Congress re-wrote the old law pertaining to the DCM. By act of public law the CMP was created, a self supporting, not for profit, private corporation - one of our last areas of marksmanship support. I wouldn't consider it a real secure bastion either...
Current doctrine in the Army de-emphasizes the need for skilled marksman. There is a move afoot to do away with annual qualification for all those not holding a combat MOS, or Military Occupational Specialty. Statements have been made by Generals that shooting is kind of like riding a bike, once you've done it you never forget. The thought is that everyone receives basic marksmanship training when the enter the Army. If you end up in a non-combat job, you've had all the marksmanship training you need."

It's the education, stupid! If a populace is educated in the use of arms & the necessity of them they will be much more formidable if forced to resort to those arms.

I feel there's a 3 part equation necessary for a people to remain free when confronted with a tyrannical or generally oppressive government. A people needs the Means, Knowledge & Will to Resist. A properly educated should have the Knowledge. This should also go a ways towards imparting the Will. & if these two things are in place then they will guard the Means jealously.

What is happening here is an effort to eliminate the education necessary to support the desired result of the equation: a free people. By downplaying & eliminating organized shooting sports it sends a message that it is no longer necessary to be concerned with those things. It cuts off a valuable supply line of information & experience.

What we need to do is to encourage as many as possible to try some of these shooting sports, such as High Power Rifle. By getting people involved we do two things: create a self interest in the preservation of our Right to Arms & form a solid base of trained individuals should we ever have to defend our Right to Arms or any other Right from foreign or domestic enemies.

This is why Fred of Fred's M14 Stocks takes out a two page ad in every issue of the Shotgun News: one to promote his wares, the other to encourage people to become Riflemen.
This is why Kim du Toit is trying to turn this country back into A Nation of Riflemen with initiatives such as National Ammo Day.
This is why several people are offering free instruction to those who want to learn how to shoot but never had anyone to teach them.
This is why several bloggers have set up a group blog called The Shooters' Carnival in order to educate people, especially those with no experience, as to how to properly & safely operate & generally own firearms.

So I would encourage all those who are curious to check the resources provided to you. Get involved in shooting. It doesn't have to be in a competition or an organized match, but it helps to at least know how those matches are shot & what rules are followed.

If you already participate then I encourage you to get a friend hooked on shooting.

& if you read the above & still think you've got plenty of time, especially with the Republicans in control of things, I offer you this & this. They're both press releases by the VPC encouraging support for not just a continuation of the current Assault Weapons Ban, but a strengthening of it. President Bush supports renewing the Assault Weapons Ban at least in its current form but possibly in the strengthened version & that strengthened version has 100 co-sponsors in the House.

So take a friend to the range. Get him/her started in competitive shooting. We need as many gun owners & users who will vote to protect & restore our Right to Arms right damn now. & all too soon we may need as many friends as possible with us in the foxholes.

The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair. —H. L. MENCKEN

GOA endorses Sen. McClintock for governor in the California recall.

McClintock is the only candidate who supports the Right to Arms. Much has been said about the recall, & many persuasive people have made passionate arguments as to why you should turn your back on Sen. McClintock & vote for Mr. Schwarzenegger.

I am not persuaded by those arguments however. I do not live in California & won't be voting in the recall election. But if I were, my vote would go to Sen. McClintock. Look here for the reasons why.

We The People is not happy with the latest move by the IRSS.

For some time now We The People has been attempting to have their questions about the Infernal...er I mean Internal Revenue Code answered. the IRSS has shucked, jived & generally avoided any direct answer to their questions.

The thing that has really infuriated We The People happened last week at a conference held by the IRSS to better coordinate extortion...er I mean enforcement efforts with the states.

From the We The People:

"Adding insult to injury, and making matters worse for the government, Johnston’s NYT article the next day quoted a response he received (off camera) from Terry Lemons, a senior IRS spokesman. Johnston asked Lemons why the IRS is not answering our questions. According to Johnston, Lemons said the government is answering our Petition through 'enforcement actions.'
To this we unequivocally state again, 'No Answers, NO Taxes.”


So now We The People is offerring advice on how to deal with the IRSS should they come to your door seeking protection money...er, I mean taxes.

Hillary Clinton is upset that the Chinese Government has edited parts of her book for content.

(Much to the dissappointment of Kim Du Toit, the words "died suddenly" were not mentioned in the article.)

"The 466-page Chinese edition of Living History -- a best seller -- does not contain Clinton's comments about the 1989 Tiananmen Square democracy protests. A segment about Chinese-American human rights activist Harry Wu is reduced to almost nothing and refers to him as a spy awaiting sentencing."

I'm not suprised. China seems to have taken Orwell's 1984 as a How-To manual rather than a warning.

"Asked why she thought the censorship occurred, Clinton replied: ''Why does any government keep information? They want to control the opinions and minds of their citizens.''

She should know.

I wonder if she just feels that way because it's her book?
Lemme see.

"Asked why she thought gun control laws were passed. Clinton replied 'Why does any government want to keep weapons away from civilians? They want to control their citizens by force if necessary".

Nah, I can't see her being that honest unless... scratch that. I can't see her being that honest.

"In a section eliminated from the Chinese translation, Clinton says she is ''haunted by the events at Tiananmen.'' Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of unarmed civilians were killed near the square when troops and tanks smashed their way into the center of Beijing to crush the protests on the night of June 3-4, 1989."

If Hillary was so freakin' concerned about an abusive government slaughtering unarmed civilians then why the hell does she look at every new gun control law like a sailor on his first leave in six months looks at a hooker?

''Bill and I debated whether we should attend a ceremony in Tiananmen Square, where Chinese authorities had used tanks to forcibly suppress pro-democracy demonstrations in June of 1989,' Clinton wrote."

I wonder if there's some Chinese politician who had reservations about attending a cermony in Waco, Texas?

Say Uncle has the scoop on the VPC's new site designed to promote not only a continuance of the Assault Weapons Ban, but a strengthening of it to include all semi-automatic firearms.

Browsing over at End The War On Freedom led me to an article written by Mike Ferguson entitled Conceal & Carry Gun Laws: Preserving or Eroding Freedom? .

As we all say, go read.

& for a while I was beginning to think that I was the only one who felt that way.
You can find my views on the subject here.

The Shooters Carnival has some new posts up & more are to be added soon. So go take a look & more importantly encourage anyone who is new or even just curious about firearms to browse around over there.

& don't neglect to stop by the respective blogs of the contributors to The Shooters Carnival:

Alphecca
Boone Country
Hell in a Hand Basket
LayLines
Publicola
SayUncle
The Smallest Minority
Stop the Bleating

Brain Puckett has a book out called United States v. Miller and Short Barreled Shotguns. It looks like an interesting read & half the proceeds go towards supporting the Silveira vs. Lockyer case. The other half goes to supporting Keep & Bear Arms.com, which is a valuable place for keeping up with firearm & second amendment related news. For those not familiar with the Miller case please look here & here.

Matt over at Stop The Bleating has a review of the recent Ohio Supreme Court decision regarding concealed carry. (permalinks appear to be Bloggered so scroll down to More On Klein vs. Leis posted on Sunday, September 28th at 3:09 P.M.) It's a very thoughtful look at where the Ohio Supreme court erred in reversing its lower courts. Give it a read.

Randy Barnett of The Volokh Conspiracy pointed me to a two part series by Dave Kopel published on National Review Online. The first piece is called Secret Weapon: Some 2nd Amendment lawyers help the gun-ban side. The second is called The Silveira Threat: How long will the Second Amendment live?.

Both are arguments against direct second amendment challenges in court based on the premise that most courts are anti-second amendment & therefore will do more damage (by creating bad case law) than good (by repealing gun control laws). They further say that a particular case - Silveira vs. Lockyer - is far from being an ideal case to bring before the Supreme Court.

Starting with the first one, we find the tale of a case challenging the handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. The case was Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982) .

Dave Kopel states that because Quilici raised second amendment issues Morton Grove was able to move the case from a state court, where Mr. Kopel feels there was more solid legal footing, to federal court. The NRA asked Quilici to retract the second & fourteenth amendment issues from his case so it could be moved back to state court, but Quilici refused. Mr. Kopel then tells us about the blatant bias of the presiding judge in the case who wrote the decision which upheld the handgun ban as being constitutional under the Illinois & U.S. constitutions. A challenge to the handgun ban eventually did reach the state court, but Mr. Kopel is under the impression that because of the loss in federal court the states court decision was influenced against the plaintiffs who sought to end the ban.

Mr. Kopel then suggests that a more appropriate strategy would be to imitate what the NAACP did from the 1930's through the 1950's. More or less a winning through incrementalism strategy, where only certain cases involving peripheral issues are taken, then after those peripheral issues are settled in their favor do they take on the main issues they seek to address. The idea is that if you move too fast, then you risk being knocked back further than where you began, so you take things slowly - one issue at a time & you must pick & choose the cases you bring before the courts as well as choosing the most sympathetic court possible.

Now from what I understand the attorney Quilici may not have been the most capable lawyer to bring an issue before the court. However the constitutional questions he raised were not dependant upon his skills at oration, or his GPA from law school. They were very simple challenges to the handgun ban. In essence Mr. Quilici argued that the handgun ban violated Article 1 Section 22 of the Illinois Constitution & the Second, Fourteenth & 9th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

A judge or jury should have been able to look at the respective constitutional provisions & decided without comment from the counsels if they were prima fascia violations of those provisions. Not that I'm opposed to the adversarial process we have in our legal system, it's just that cases should be decided on the merits of the law, not on the skill of the attorneys at arguing law. Granted, neither judge nor jurist is expected to know every stroke & dash of all laws, but we're not talking about an issue where the applicable law is obscure.

But I'll grant to Mr. Kopel that Mr. Quilici may not have been as competent as he should have been.

To talk about Quilici vs. Morton Grove for a second, I'm in disagreement with several things about this case, not the least of which is the conclusion. For starters Mr. Kopel does seem correct in that Judge Bauer had a decided bias prior to hearing the case, & because of that bias he should have recused himself from the case. Also the proper course of action for this federal court would have been to hear only the federal issues & left the state issues to the state courts. By hearing the state issues & interpreting the Illinois Constitution the 7th Circuit over stepped their bounds.

But with or without any negligence on the part of Mr. Quilici, the culprit here, the one who made this case a victory for the anti- gun side, was not the attorney who brought the case to trial, but the judges who decided against a fundamental Right in favor of a city's power.

Mr. Kopel should be implying that Judge Bauer, not Mr. Quails, is the one who betrayed us.

Further, Mr. Koppel’s assertion that a state challenge would have fared better if it preceded the federal case is a bit of a stretch. Here's why:

"Article 1 SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."

According to the Illinois Constitution the Right to Arms is an individual one. But 6 words make it a useless distinction. Those words are, "Subject only to the police power...”
That basically means that an Illinois citizens' Right to Arms is protected, unless the state feels it shouldn't be. The police powers of a state are very broad & encompass many things. By saying that the Right to Arms is subject only to the police power, they are essentially saying that the state has the ultimate & final say over the Arms of any & every individual.

The Illinois Constitution's provision dealing with arms is perhaps the worst I have ever seen. Mounting a defense based on it would be akin to trying to stop an army on 3 sides from taking the low ground that you're on.

So to be honest I doubt that the federal case made much of a difference.

I'll address the wisdom of the NAACP-type strategy in a bit.

In the second piece Mr. Kopel starts off by portraying the Silveira vs. Lockyer case as having caused damage to the pro-gun side (because of the 9th Circuit’s ruling) & being capable of causing much more. Mr. Kopel then briefly contrasts Silveira with Hunt v. California a case brought by the NRA challenging the California Assault Weapons Ban on regulatory issues. Mr. Kopel then resumes pointing out the flaws with Silveira & to a large extent, Silveira's attorney Gary Gorski.

Mr. Kopel feels that because of the hostile make up of the 9th Circuit & the Supreme Court, that the Silveira case was a mistake to press. In his mind a better strategy would have been to avoid the 9th Circuit altogether, or to follow the NRA's lead in bringing up peripheral issues such as the vagueness of a regulation.

I disagree.

For starters the second, ninth & fourteenth amendments have been in our Constitutions for a long while, the former preceding any federal gun control laws & most state gun control laws. Hell, the former amendments precede most states! (While I feel that the fourteenth was ratified in a manner contrary to what was prescribed in the constitution for the ratification of amendments I do feel it was & is an appropriate amendment & one that should be repealed on procedural grounds, but immediately offered up again for proper ratification. As it stands the fourteenth amendment is considered valid by most courts so that's a battle to fight another day.)
So with amendments acknowledging our pre-existing Rights being in effect long before the laws in question I do not think the proper course of action is to wait any further before an attempt is made at negating these laws that are violative of our Rights.

Here's where the NAACP strategy deviates enough from the proposed second amendment strategy advocated by Mr. Kopel to not be of any use to us:

The NAACP was not attempting to assert Rights acknowledged by the U.S. Constitution from the days of the founders. The NAACP was attempting to apply the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to end segregation & discrimination based upon race. In essence they were trying to make their ideal social policy into a protected Right. They were creating law! They used the power of the courts to compel the federal government, the respective states & even individuals to abide by what they considered to be an ideal social policy. Whether this was good or bad is arguable. Not from the perspective that black people should or should not be discriminated against, as I feel that race is not a valid basis for character judgment, but from the perspective that it may have been better to educate the public (& destroy racial prejudice at its roots) rather than use the courts to eliminate discrimination (destroying the symptoms of racial prejudice).

What the pro-gun side is attempting to do is not create new law where there have only been implications, but rather enforce existing law to the advantage of individual choice. There are few radical arguments supporting our position that were not uttered 100, 200 or even 2,000 years ago. The only change is in the technology of arms. The principles are still the same.

So I fear because of this very dramatic difference, the strategy that was so successful for the NAACP would not work for us. The NAACP had very little to start out with & gained much. Whereas we had much to start out with & are losing much. Taking this very slow, incremental approach will not help us, as the problem we face is not creating new law, but stopping new laws from destroying the old laws.

Now as to the opinions that we should at least wait till more favorable courts are in place to make any significant cases, when will that be? When federal law requires all guns be registered & only revolvers, shotguns & rifles with a capacity of 5 rounds are legal will we find ourselves with more sympathetic jurists? When all semi-automatics are banned & the remainder of our arms must be stored at gun clubs will a champion of the Right to Arms then show his/herself on the bench?

No. By waiting we hurt our cause. Every day that a law prohibiting Arms is on the books is one more day that a judge will have to consider that the law was unchallenged. Know of any 30 year old laws that have been declared void for constitutional conflicts? The longer a law is on the books the harder it is to be negated. This can be as much due to a lack of challenges as it can be attributed to unsuccessful challenges. So by waiting we give the anti gun side time. Time is something they have an abundance of & it is to their advantage to run the clock down as much as possible.

The only ones who are served by waiting are the gun prohibitionists & the NRA (The NRA because it is my belief that they don't want the pro-gun side to win any decisive victories as that would endanger their job security. That's the NRA leadership, not the NRA members who I'm afraid have been conned by the NRA leadership).

& ultimately I do not care of the court seems more favorable to the pro-gun side or the anti-gun side. If a good second amendment case is brought before a judge or judges with a direct second amendment question & not the usual side issues that NRA litigation relies upon, then we have done our job. If the court decides favorably for our side then that's definitely a good thing. But if a judge decides against our side then I don't blame those who brought the case. I blame the damned judge who disrespects not only the Constitution he/she swore to uphold, but my Rights, which are the basis of that Constitution.

To blame the attorney who attempted to Right a legislative wrong for a judge's hypocrisy & treason is no damned different than blaming a woman who got beat up even worse because she pressed charges against her boyfriend for slapping her. The piranha-like nature of those who claim to be on our side amazes me sometimes - when someone attempts to do something to further our cause, they are often torn apart by those who claim to be on our side who are either too timid to attempt such a bold move or whose interests lie in continuing the struggle as opposed to resolving it.

I admit I'm a bit more radical than most on this issue. I've even been called rabid at times when it comes to the Right to Arms. But if a legislature, governor, president or court wishes to make, enforce or uphold laws that deny me of my Rights, then let them. I'm sick of all their skulking around, prohibiting Arms piecemeal. I'd much rather they get their intent out in the open & begin implementing it. That way we not only know who the traitors are, but won't have to wonder what their object is. In the end I think that would galvanize more support for our side than anything else.

I read someplace someone's thoughts on the possibility of a revolution happening in the United States again. He was advocating it, even hoping it would hurry up & start. Someone asked him if he did not know the horrors of war, especially that type of war. His response was that he did, but he would much rather endure those horrors for the sake of freedom than leave it to his children or grandchildren to face them.

Mr. Kopel criticizes Mr. Gorski for pushing Silveira all the way to the Supreme Court. Some of his criticisms of the case are valid, such as the fraudulent quote often attributed to Hitler at the beginning of Mr. Gorski's initial filing of the case. Other criticism are less solid, such as the assertion that because Mr. Gorksi failed to file a reply to the 9th Circuit, that they got away with invalidating only part of the Assault Weapons Ban when the law forbids such separation (when one part of a law is struck down, the entire law must be struck down). To this I lay blame on the judges, who should know the law, not Mr. Gorski, who has argued that a reply would have accomplished nothing. Also Mr. Kopel doesn't acknowledge that this could be an important issue that causes the Supreme Court to hear the case & decide in Mr. Gorski's favor. The rest seem to be criticisms of Mr. Gorksi for not towing the NRA line (litigate all you want, just don't mention the second amendment directly in case they agree with you). It implies an elitism that only Mr. Kopel & a handful of other attorneys are competent enough to point out 27 words in the Constitution & explain what they mean.

So I disagree with Mr. Kopel that Silveira could be damaging to our cause: a judge’s decision could be damaging, but not any more so than the legislature's decisions are several times a year. We lose by trying to emulate a strategy that is successful in other circumstances that don't resemble ours. We further lose by condemning those who attempt to fight for our Rights solely because the NRA doesn't like the way they proceed. We are fighting to protect something that is already acknowledged by the Constitution. Nationally we've waited since 1934. In some states we've waited for over 100 years. I am not content to wait any longer, especially when the reason for that wait may not be to our advantage, but to those whose salaries & pensions depend upon the struggle continuing.

Silveira is not the perfect case. But it is not the worst one we've seen either. I have no problems with letting Silveira being heard by the Supreme Court. Either way we'll get an answer. After that we can plan our next move. But damn this holding our collective breath & praying that the stars will line up just so. We need to start fighting gun control now.

Dave Kopel also links to this interview with Mr. Gorski, which I found most interesting.

& in case you haven't heard (read?) already, an unusual development has happened in the petition for writ of certiorari for Silveira: California had declined to respond to the Supreme Court, which is merely their chance to argue for or against the Supreme Court hearing the case. But The Supreme Court has asked them to respond anyway.

This could mean three things: The Supreme Court will hear the case unless some unusually persuasive argument from California changes their mind, The Supreme Court will hear the case regardless but they wanted California to add some arguments for their consideration, or they're looking for an excuse not to hear the case & are hoping California can provide one. So it's inconclusive, but it does tend to lean more towards them either seriously considering hearing the case, or having decided already to hear the case, as it's very easy & common for the Supreme Court to simply decline a case.

So on the outside chance that Mr. Kopel or any of the attorneys he mentions as being preferable to Mr. Gorski actually reads this or talks to anyone who reads this, I would advise you to put your condemnation of Mr. Gorski aside long enough to offer him any & all assistance you can. If you feel his arguments are in error in some degree then approach him & offer advice on how to correct it. & it wouldn't hurt to offer any help that, as an attorney, you are able to give. If he loses you can still write columns about how correct you were & how wrong he was. In the meantime help the man out, as he is trying to help us all whether you agree with his methods or not.

For further reading on Silveira vs. Lockyer & Gary Gorksi's fight with the NRA, please look in the Lawsuits & Court Cases section of my archives. You'll find all the previous posts on this case about 2/3's of the way down.

Got State Farm? Then read this.

Now I refer you to this page with links to documents & letters concerning Mr. Atkinson's situation.

Here's a link to Mr. Atkinson's Livefire (hosted by Larry Pratt of GOA) interview.

& this article from May of 2002 by Larry Pratt entitled State Farm And Prudential Don't Like Guns

To sum it up it would seem that State Farm does not like insuring those who own & or use firearms. They are a private company & I feel they have the perogative to do this if they wish. I also feel that each & every firearm owner who has a State Farm policy should cancel their policy immedietely & then let State Farm know that you're just trying to respect their wishes.


Some State Farm contact info:

To contact State Farm Fire and Casualty Company call 309.766.7554 or visit http://www.statefarm.com/email.htm

Further contact information:

Mr. Edward Rust, President
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company
One State Farm Plaza
Bloomington IL 61710-0001

Gary's Former State Farm Agent:
Renee Wilder
120 Columbia Avenue
Chapin, SC 29036-9420
Phone: (803) 345-3135
Fax: (803) 345-6700

Do you cringe every time you hear the song "Bad Boys" when flipping through the channels? Does the flashing blue light on T.V. make you brace yourself for the blatent pro-LEO propaganda that is sure to follow? When humming that song do you find that the thought "cops are better than ordinary people like you & me" flashes through your mind?

Well at long last I've found the anti-dote: Copwatch.

Actually its an idea that is obviously launched & crewed from the left side of the spectrum, but nevertheless I find it a bit refreshing.

It's not quite my ideal, which would be to show cops as humans capable of errors & the system being bent all to hell if not in fact broken, or perhaps citizens successfully standing up to &/or prebenting police abuse but it's all we got right now.

Of course it'd be cool if the producers of Cops & similar shows allowed me to just insert commentary over an episode or two for perspective. Instead of people seeing a police officer frisking a guy for everybody's safety that he/she stopped to ask some questions, you'd see the images along with a quick recitation of the 2nd, 4th & 5th amendments followed by an explanation of why the cop just through some of the highest ideals of the framers out the window because that's what they taught him/her at the acedemy.

But my dream would be to feature the BATF. Then again a cursory glance would probably make people think they were watching a bad juxtaposition of F-Troop, Hogan's Heroes & 1984.

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution." — MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)

It seems there are some in Colorado who have not read this decision by the Supreme Court or understand its implications.

"Senate Democrats announced plans Wednesday to try to restore funding for two juvenile diversion programs that were cut because of the state's budget squeeze.
Sen. Dan Grossman, D-Denver, said lawmakers could use federal funds and raise fees on firearm background checks...
Grossman also proposed restoring $1.3 million to juvenile diversion programs operated by prosecutors across the state by using cash from criminal background checks for gun purchases.
"

So funding for a pet program is cut because the state has fallen on hard times (due mainly to its lack of budget discipline) so this senator wants to hit up on gun purchasers to make up the difference.

But alas, this is nothing new. Colorado has toyed with this idea before. & here are Ari Armstrong's thoughts on the matter when it was discussed back in March.

To quote Mr. Armstrong:

"The right of self-defense, which entails the right to keep and bear arms, is a fundamental human right properly infringed by no legislature. The right to bear arms is recognized by both the U.S. and Colorado constitutions. The notion of imposing a special tax on a fundamental right is repugnant and hostile to the principles of a free society."

& I must include this excerpt from Mr. Armstrong concerning a Denver Post article written by Julia Martinez on March 4th, 2003 (the article is no longer available on line):

""Martinez also explains why the committee suggested a fee of $10 rather than $14.80: '[Colorado Senator Ron]Teck [R-Grand Junction] said he thought it was too big a psychological jump for buyers.' He told Martinez, 'If we go from zero to $14.80, we will have problems'."

& Colorado isn't the only one: California recently considered, but amazingly didn't enact a tax on ammunition & components. Look here & here for previous posts.

Of course my answer to this would be too simple & cost effective to be considered, even though they complain about 'taxpayer' money being used for background checks (when it could go towards their retirement/pet social program fund): eliminate the damned background checks. The state background checks are redundant since all firearms transactions must go through the NICS system which is administered by the FBI. But I'd go one step further: eliminate the NICS checks. The inconvenience & downright harm they cause to non-violent people trying to purchase firearms far outweight the risks to society of people with violent intent being able to aquire firearms, especially since anyone who puts forth a little effort &/or cash can easily find a firearm without having to go through a background check of any sort.

Then again I'd consider myself on a roll & eliminate all firearms laws that dealt with mere ownership or possession, leaving only those that dealt with the discharge of firearms in place. But that's just me, I'm afraid.

I'll try to keep an eye on this, as it'll be coming to a state too close to you if it works here.

Now I don't want ya'll to get the wrong impression: I'm not a hard core "States' Righter" to the exclusion of the individual. I don't want the federal government to have as much control as it currently does, but by no means do I think the states are incapable of intruding upon an individuals' Rights.

This is an example by my home state of violating its' citizens Rights:

"At 11:30 a.m. Wednesday, morning a state of emergency was declared in Northampton County.
Tuesday, Gov. Mike Easley declared North Carolina to be under a state of emergency...Effective as of 8 a.m. today, the sale, consumption, transportation or possession of alcohol is prohibited in Northampton County 'except possession and consumption is allowed on a person's own premises.' Additionally, 'there shall be no sale or purchase of any type of firearm or ammunition, or any possession of such items along with any type of explosive off owner's own premises."

So in a declared state of emergency not only are the sale of firearms & ammunition forbidden, but their possession outside your property is as well.

I shouldn't ride to hard on NC for having this 'power', as if you'll look in the section of your states' law dealing with emergency powers chances are you'll find something similar. If memory serves (though I'm too tired/lazy to look for a link right now) NC, Colorado & a few other states even have explicit langauge allowing for the confiscation of firearms in a declared state of emergency.

So when a citizen may need his arms the most, the state steps in & forbids you to carry them outside of your property. It forbids purchasing any ammunition for them should you find yourself uncomfortably low & in an extreme it may even require their forfeiture. All at a time when the police are even less effective than usual in stopping crime as it happens. & should you be so distraught after the state takes away your arms in such an 'emergency' you can't even walk to the neighborhood bar & have a drink or twelve!

What were the arguments against anarchy again?

Robert Greenslade writes about citizenship in his piece entitled Did the Fourteenth Amendment make the American People Citizens of the Federal Government?

"In recent years, it has been asserted that the Fourteenth Amendment diluted or abrogated State citizenship by making the American people citizens of the federal government..."

Actually according to North Carolina's Constitution we are to consider ourselves citizens of the U.S. first & foremost, reserving no state loyalty that may supercede loyalty to the federal government.

Article 1 Section 5: Allegiance to the United States. Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force.

Also there's a prohibition against secession.

Article 1 Section 4: Secession prohibited. This State shall ever remain a member of the American Union; the people thereof are part of the American nation; there is no right on the part of this State to secede; and all attempts, from whatever source or upon whatever pretext, to dissolve this Union or to sever this;, Nation, shall be resisted with the whole power of the State.

It also deals with civilian possession of firearms.

Article 1 Section 30: Militia and the right to bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty. they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

These were instituted in the North Carolina Constitutions written after the War of Nor-thun Aggresion, the most current one being ratified in 1971. You will not find the first two provisions in the North Carolina Constitution of 1776. You will find somethign similar to the thrid (Art.1 Sec. 30) but not quite the same.
From the NC Constitution of 1776:

XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Notice the difference? Two actually: the most apparent being the lack of a prohibition on concealed carry & the other is a justification for the bearing of arms as a defense of the state.

Now without me waxing poetic about the evils of Lincoln & what reconstruction did to the South, I will tell you that despite very reasoned arguments to the contrary, some things being written in a constitution should not be followed.

The main argument I hear is that rule of law must outweigh everything else. that anarchy would follow if we disregarded laws because we personally didn't like them. That the only answer is to seek to change those laws, or in this case that constitution.

But suppose the constitution said we must all worship the same God in the same manner? or that we must not worship any god? Or that our children were forfeit to teh state at the states' pleasure?

There is a practical difference between what the NC Constitution says & my straw man arguments, but the point is still applicable: there is a Right & Wrong that exist independently of a constitution. On things that do not directly affect us, we should seek to change the law through the proper channels. But when a constitution sets out a thing that is wrong & potentially dangerous, we must not consider ourselves obligated to obey it.

So the NC Constitution says that I am to consider myself not a North Carolinian, but a citizen of the federal government. I am to relinquish all emotional & spiritual preferences for my birthplace in favor of a federal government that is partially, if not totally alien to the things I hold dear.

North Carolina is not a better state than any other. It has some things that enhance its charms, but it also has many detriments that do not seem to be inclined to remedy. Many of you know that in Orth Carolina one can spend the morning watching the sun rise over the ocean, then spend that same evening watching the sun set over the mountains. It has plenty of good land, decent hunting for those so inclined, ample fishing, an abundance of produce & many other features that would appeal to those who enjoy the outdoors. It also boats some large cities with all the trappings of such.

But the single most endearing quality of North Carolina is simply that I was born there. My parents are from there, as were their parents, going back to the 1770's in some branches of my family. I grew up in one of its cities. I played in its suburbs. I learned to fish in its lakes & rivers. I learned to hunt in its woods & mountains. I came to love friends & relatives there, as well as bury more than a few of each there.

What benefits or enticements can the federal government provide to replace or even match these? what charms does Washington D.C. have for a North Carolinian? What event would make me wax poetic about that federal government? What snares does congress hold over my heart to make me abandon the place of my birth to suit its whim?

In fact, what has the federal government done for me besides tax me? What has it done aside from forbiding me from owning certain types of firearm? What has it done aside from entrapping friends & relatives in that net called Welfare? What has it done that did not involve taking money from me by force, for the promise of some imagined charity in my old age? What has it done aside from wresting control of the economy to itself?

I do not, I can not abandon my loyalties solely on the writing of a document designed to placate the federal government. Even though I reside in another state for the time, I am a North Carolinian. If, in a just cause, NC ever needs me I cannot refuse.

& I expect ya'll to feel the same towards your home state, wherever it may be. I do not pretend that NC is perfect, nor should you ignore the faults of your own state. But when it comes down to choosing loyalties, your state should come before the federal government.

The federal government doesn't want you to feel that way. It wants your loyalties to lie first & foremost with it. This is not out of a sense of love or caring, but solely for the sake of control. It is much easier to control a someone when they believe they are solely a citizen of that government which attempts to exert control. Or perhaps to a greater degree it is easier to exert control over a state when that states' citizens feel their loyalty lies solely with the federal government.

Will this become a practical question anytime soon? Probably not, although it would not take much to bring about the revolution some fear & some long for. If &/or when that ever happens then deciding loyalty to a state or the federal government might come into play.

To put things into perspective, if we ignore for the moment the causes of the late unpleasantires betwixt the States, pre- 1860's our military was made up mainly of state militias. Units in the military were identified by their state. This is because prior to Lincolns' aggression we simply did not have a standing army of any size. It was thought best that the military be formed by the states respectively & comprised mainly of volunteers, or militia. This did two things: it circumnavigated any attempts by a dictorial president or congress to use the forse of the military against the states, & it kept us from entering foreign disputes lightly. In the 1860's congress & that bastard Lincoln had some states to supply them an army to do their bidding. After that the concept of state military forces, even militia, began to be phased out in place of a standing regular military. This negated the advantages of the previous system: it made it possible, though most feel unlikely, for congress to impose its will on a state by force of arms, & it made jumping into foreign affairs much more streamlined.

But a related aspect of that was the indoctrination of U.S. citizenship as oppossed to state citizenship. More or less it was starting to be recognized that loyalty to the federal government was much more advantageous(to the federal government) than loyalty to a particular state, especially if that state objected to some act of the federal government.

But Mr. Greenslade does a more concise job explaining why state citizenship should still be valid.

Also Mr. greenslade points to an article written by Judge L.H. Perez called The Unconstitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment How the Southern States Were Illegally Excluded From Congress During Reconstruction

What Mr. Greenslade nor Judge Perez neglect is the Right to Secession. NC has been required to have an anti-secession statement in its Constitutiuon since reconstruction. Does this make it valid or binding? Not to me.

Some will say that the "question" of secession was settled by force of arms in 1865, & that the result is there is no Right to secede. I feel ashamed that anyone would think that way, but unfortunately this is a common idea.

Let me show you what I think argues favorably in favor of a Right to Secession:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security..."

In case ya'll missed it:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

"...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security..."

Great Britain was the lawful government of the American Colonies in 1775. Yet we rebelled against that lawful government, seperated ourselves from it & formed a new one. I have seen nary a thing in The Federalist Papers, nor in the Elliot Debates, nor in the Letters From The Federal Farmer, or any other period document that even implied that by ratifying the Constitution a state would insolubly & irrevocably bind itself forever to the federal government.

To put things into perspective would those who argue that the state may never secede from the union argue with equal passion that the Unisted States may never leave the UN? or NATO? I shudder to think that some would.

What if the federal government decided to start continuing Hitlers' Final Solution or some other massive genecide? Would you still say a state had no Right to Secede? I would argue that a state, in fact all states had a duty to secede if they could not control the federal government & prevent such action.

To put it briefly the Constitution is a document that creates the federal government by deferring power to it from the states. It in no way constitutes an ever binding eternal agreement, nor could it.

What is the practical application of this? Currently there is none. However should at any time a state feel that the federal government is operating beyond its constitutional limitations &/or is becoming abusive of the Rights of its people, it should not be bothered with such trifling arguments such as a constitution forbids secession, or that we are obligated to remain chained to the federal government forever.

No, I am not arguing in favor of secession, although given what the federal government has done, is doing & is about to do I might change my mind any day now. What I am arguing for is that we, the people of a state, have the Right to Secession. Not that we should use it immedietely, but that should the occasion ever arise, it is within our range of options.

For you legal buffs out there this will interest you: David E. Bernstein of The Volokh Conspiracy has a paper entitled Lochner Era Revisionism, Revised: Lochner & the Origins of Fundamental Rights Constitutionalism.

Give it a read.

Clayton Cramer has made the first two chapters of his new book Armed America: Firearms Ownership, Hunting & Gun Culture in the Early United States available online. For some reason he's having trouble finding a publisher, so any help would be appreciated.

Harry Browne has a piece up called Pay No Attention To This Day

"This day isn’t important.
There are far more significant days in the year:
• Labor Day, when we pretend to care about other people’s jobs while frolicking at the beach.
• Election Day, when we pretend we’re making a difference by voting.
• Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and Susan B. Anthony Day, when we pretend to be politically correct.
• Memorial Day, when we pretend that we live in a free country because of all the people who were killed in the government’s senseless wars.
• Flag Day, when we pretend the government is America.
• Veterans Day (formerly Armistice Day, when we pretended that World War I made the world safe for democracy).
• National Teachers Day, when we pretend our children are getting an education.
• Earth Day, when we pretend that making the government more powerful will make the environment cleaner.
• United Nations Day, when we pretend to believe all those inane statements about world peace.
Today doesn’t seem to come anywhere near those days in importance.
You see, today is supposed to be Constitution Day. And no one really cares about the Constitution anymore."

Read it.

Now read this & please note the similarity between Mr. Browne's ideas of what will be taught concerning the Constitution.

For example, from Mr. Brownes piece:

"Those conservatives who still care about the Constitution say that it should be taught in the schools. As though government employees will emphasize the original purpose of the Constitution in restraining government. Instead, they’ll give snap quizes on such weighty questions as 'How many years in a Senator’s term?' or 'Who appoints the Supreme Court justices?"

Now compare that to this excerpt from the NARA's Constitution Day Activities section

"Following ratification, the next task was implementation. Analyze historic documents and determine the extent to which the Constitution provided for the reestablishment of the Navy."


If you'll look here I think you'll discover the problem:

"The half hour program will begin with President George W Bush leading all the 120,000 schools in the nation in the simultaneous recitation of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution broadcast by Fox News."

See? If only they could get passed the Preamble & read the rest of the thing!

At any rate, Happy Constitution Day, or what's left of it at least.

Well, those bastards in Chicago have moved Roderick Pritchett's trial to a district where an all white anti gun jury would be easier to come by*, now they've postponed the trial until October 7th. Thanks to Concealed Carry Inc for keeping up with this.

Mr. Pritchett was arrested & is being tried because two Chocago police officers didn't like the idea of a citizen being armed. It didn't matter that he did all the steppin' & fetchin' required to get a gun permit in Illinois. Neither did it matter that he had his pistol cased & unloaded as required by Illinois law, nor that he informed police officers of his pistol & its location when he was detained for a traffic violation. What mattered is that any citizen that dares carry a weapon needs to be made an example of. He is being charged with Aggrevated Unlawful Use of a Weapon, which is a felony. He did not waive his pistol, nor threaten anyone with it. In fact he did not touch his pistol in the presence of the police officers. This charge apperently applies to merely having a weapon in your car.

Mr. Pritchett still needs your help, as the longer the trial drags on the more legal fees mount up.

If you feel like you can help write a check made payable to:

WALTER MAKSYM and ASSOCIATES

& send it to:

Concealed Carry, Inc.
PO BOX 4597
OAK BROOK IL 60522-4597

Also you can send Mr. Pritchett a kind word at talawah22@yahoo.com




* From The Illinois Leader's article on Mr. Pritchett:
"...the case was moved from a Chicago court, where there likely would have been a big pool of black jurors, to the Skokie court, where there is a more liberal anti-gun white jury pool."

Random Acts of Kindness has a post about home schooling. A Regional Superintendent of Schools want families who home school their children to provide proof to him that schooling is actually occuring.

From this PJStar.com article:

"Home-school families is Bureau, Stark and Henry counties should not expect a truant officer to come knocking this fall.
But Regional Superintendent of Schools Bruce Dennison said he still expects those families to provide him with proof that schooling is taking place.
Such proof, Dennison said, must include information about "who is being schooled, who is doing the schooling" and verification that the curriculum is comparable to the subjects taught in public schools."

Well, if parents wanted curriculum comparable to what's being taught in public schools, they'd be sending their kids there wouldn't they?

Most parents want to home school their children for two reasons: Quality of education & accuracy of education. They figure they can teach their children as, if not more efficiently than public school teachers & they won't have to spend time unteaching their kids they lies, fabrications & myths taught at public school.

I highly recommend that anyone with school age children pick up a copy of Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen. You will notice a left leaning perspective when reading the book, but that shouldn't distract you too much from the factual errors that are pointed out.

But I wonder what Regional Superintendent Dennison would say if a parent reported that they are instructing their children for 6 hours a day about how the Constitution limits the size of government & that most social programs, including federal funding of schools, are outside the bounds of constitutional limitations?

Do ya think there'd be any adverse reaction if a prent told Superintendent Dennison that at least once a week part of their child's education involved punching holes in a paper target 100 yards away with an object that was constitutionally protected by an amendemnt in the Bill of Rights?

Read what Random Acts of Kindness has to say. There are some interesting links at the bottom about home schooling.

Via The Serfdom Times I found this:

"On Friday, September 12th, the Treasury Department issued a 'Media Advisory,' calling on all of the nation’s media to have reporters and cameramen at the headquarters building of the U.S. Treasury Department next Tuesday at 10 AM where they will announce a 'New Partnership' between the IRS and nine States 'to fight abusive tax avoidance.'
Obviously, the government’s intent is to have the media shower the Nation with a blanket of propaganda by flooding Tuesday evening TV and Wednesday morning newspapers with its biased, one-sided story..."

< sarcasm > The government? Our government? biased towards its own interests? Say it ain't so... Next you'll be telling me that they can pass gun control laws despite the Second Amendment! < / sarcasm >

"To this we say, 'No Answers, NO Taxes.'
At 10 AM Tuesday morning, former IRS Agents Joe Banister, John Turner, Sherry Jackson, along with We The People’s Chairman Bob Schulz and We The People Congress National Director Devvy Kidd will be standing outside the Treasury Department’s main entrance at 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. They will hand the arriving reporters a packet of materials documenting aspects of the income tax fraud.
They will also hold a sidewalk press conference immediately following the conclusion of the 11 AM Treasury press conference. Banister is a CPA and former IRS Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Special Agent. Turner was a former IRS Revenue Officer for a decade and Jackson is a CPA/CFE (Certified Fraud Examiner) and former Revenue Agent that was assigned to an elite IRS fraud detection unit.
On Monday, We The People will distribute a press release announcing its intentions to provide the press with the other side of the story including the government’s continued refusal to answer crucial questions regarding the legal jurisdiction for the income tax and the patently unconstitutional means utilized to force it upon the People.
We realize the media traditionally quotes, without serious interrogation, the voice of “officialdom” and typically pays little heed to the sovereignty of the People and their rule- book – the Constitution of the United States of America. We also realize that the silence of the People is acquiescence.
With that in mind, we call upon all concerned Americans to demonstrate the courage of Joe, John and Sherry by joining them on Tuesday morning in DC. Let’s catch the eye and ear of press and expose the improper collusion of the federal government with the state taxing authorities as they attempt to delay the ongoing collapse of the income tax fraud.
Remember: the Constitution can’t defend itself. The People must defend it. Please join us.
One final note, as is our custom, we must remind everyone that images are important, so please dress appropriately and be respectful."

Of course I expect the mainstream media to either ignore Mr. Schultz & the We The People's demonstrations or to downplay them as a lunatic fringe group that's lost touch with reality. Still, if anyone sees any coverage of this please let me know.

Could you put a price on the life of a family member? Some people can & it comes to around $17 million.

I have no problem with them seeking monetary damages from the murderers.

But seeking damages from a person who helped steal the guns used in the murder, as well as the gun store from which they were stolen & two burglar alarm companies??? That's not seeking restitution, that's seeking a jack pot.

"But the families of Georgio Gallara and Jeremy Giordano said it's unlikely they will ever collect money from the killers, who are both serving life prison sentences.
'I think it's more symbolic than anything,' Giordano's father, Joseph Giordano of Hardyston, said after the settlements were announced Friday."

So that means they have to go after those capable of paying, even if they were not directly responsible for the murders of their family members?

"The now-defunct gun store and two burglar alarm companies, T&R Alarm System Inc. and Monital, agreed to pay undisclosed amounts."

I feel for the loss both families have suffered, but that in no way excuses their actions. Seeking restitution from the gun store from which the guns used in the crime were stolen from makes as much sense as suing Ford because someone stole a car & then hit a pedestrian with it.

There is one legitimate avenue they could have pursued other than suing the murderers: suing the victims' employers. Why wouldn't that be just as wrong as suing the gun store? Most delivery places prevent their employees from carrying weapons. In fact they usually make it a terminable offense to not only carry weapons, but to offer anything other than compliance to the robbers.

In my youth I worked for a few major pizza delivery companies. Pizza Hutt being one & Papa Johns being the other. With both places the company policy was to comply with whatever a robber wanted & to be completely disarmed at all times. They even go so far as to tell an employee that they cannot have weapons in their own vehicles while working.
& if you are robbed but have more cash on you than you should (usually $20 to make change & whatever the total was from your delivery) they usually terminate you because they feel you endangered other drivers by reinforcing the idea that drivers have more than $20 on them! They don't seem to realize that by forcing the drivers to be compliant victims that it re-inforces the idea that delivery drivers are easy targets with little risk. Not to mention the fact that some people will rob & kill you for far less than $20.

So if the pizza place in question prevented their drivers from being able to be armed & told them not to defend themselves & comply with whatever was asked of them, then they should be held liabel. To a lesser degree than the murderers of course, but held liabel for their complacency in it.

& the same would apply to any retail industry where the employees face a risk of robbery while being denied the means to protect themselves by company policy.

But to sue a gun store because guns were stolen & then used in a crime? That's not grief, it's greed.

Update: Want to know how effective the disarmed compliance policy is? Very, if you're a robber.

"A man robbed Papa John's Pizza in the 1800 block of East Amarillo Boulevard minutes after midnight Friday."

Luckily no one was injured. But that is just that: luck. The disarmed compliance policy depends solely on the benevolence of the robber to be effective. & let's be honest, would you bet your life that someone who threatens you with force would never make good on that threat?

Things might get real interesting in Bay Township, Michigan.

Let me pre-face this by giving you an idea of how libertarian I am: I find no solid convincing reason in any argument I've ever heard on the subject that could justify making a person pay for the local governments' permission for building a structure on their own property. Therefore the threat of force to enforce these types of laws is, to me at least, nothing more than common thuggery.
Merely because a person is elected & sends his agents to commit an act of thuggery in no way justifies that thuggery, nor is it reasonable to insist that the victim of said thuggery makes appeals & supplications to the thugs in question for mercy. If a person feels he/she should stand up to thugs then I will not condemn them, no matter how disasterous the consequences of their actions may be for them. To me it is no different than defending yourself & your property from a robbery attempted by a common criminal.

What the hell am I talking about? This:

"Lyle Barkley received authorization to place two 12x60 manufactured homes (mobile homes) on 4 acres in Bay Township. Permits were granted by the County. Once on the property, Barley began a building project to join the two homes via an enclosed walkway. It was then that former township supervisor, "Bud" Chipman filed a complaint to stop further construction and have the homes removed. (Chipman was recalled from his position. Reason unknown).
County Court Judge May found in favor of Chipman's complaint and issued an order to Barkley to remove the homes by September 18th."

& what does this very questionable act by the county & judge in question have to do with my previous rant?

"I've had enough. I'm going to fight!' Charlevoix County Businessman, Lyle Barkley, has been ordered to remove two manufactured homes from a 4-acre parcel in Bay Township by September 18. Barkley says he will not comply with the illegal and unconstitutional order of the court but will defend his property with arms if necessary. Barkley, 55, owns B&B Excavating in Boyne City. He is presently bulldozing fortifications around his property in preparation for the standoff he promises will come if officials attempt to remove the homes from his land."

So one man against a local government. Not much of a contest, right?

"His cause has drawn the attention of Rick Stanley, leader of an organization called Mutual Defense Pact 2d American Revolution Militia who offers to send more than 600 armed defenders to Barkley's aid once the standoff has begun.
Barkley contacted Norm Olson, a well-know Michigan Militia figure for help up until Stanley's organization arrives."

So that's at least 600 people willing to put their own necks on the line to help out someone who is about to be victimized by thugs.

Yes, legally he is on very shakey ground. The courts have usually condemned the use of any sort of force in stopping agents of the government from doing what they want to do. The proper response, according to judges, lawyers & most government employees, is to not resist or cause any kind of physical confrontation & try to settle the matter in a court of law. Many of you who read this will agree: the best thing for Mr. Barkleyto do would be to hire a good attorney & try to use the courts to correct the situation, even if that meant moving his homes until the courts could rule in his favor.

I feel differently. It's not the correct thing to do in every situation, but when someone threatens to violate your Rights going to court cannot take back the violation that occurred. It is similar to rape in that once it happens it happens. You can do what you can to punish the perpetrator & try to make sure it never happens again, but the scars will remain with you no matter how favorably a court rules.
Stopping someone from raping you is the preferred option. Similarly stopping somone, even an agent of government such as a police officer, from violating your Rights is the prefered method.

If you read this article you may feel that Mr. Barkley has some rather eccentric ideas about the law & how it works. & you'd probably be correct. However if you take away the 'patent land' arguments Mr. Barkley seems to be using & reduce it to simply an argument of who actually owns the property, then it's not hard to be sympathetic.

What do I mean by "...who owns the property..."?
Well if Mr. barkley in fact owns the property then no law should restrict him in doing as he sees fit with his property so long as his actions do not cause harm or the immediete threat of harm to others.
However if an entity can step in & dictate to Mr. Barkley what he may or may not do with the property then they are attemtping to exercise control of either the property in question or perhaps Mr. Barkely himself.

Mr. Barkley is doing what he feels is right. & I do believe he is correct to an extent. He does seem to have some of those 'conspiracy theory' arguments that are usually the subject of much ridicule from those who do not believe in them. But most of those 'conspiracy theories' that I've heard have had some basis in fact. They usually err in using overly elaborate explanations to justify things. & considering the complexity of our legal system & the departure from apperent logic it seems to take far too often I can't really fault them for thinking its more complex than it is.

So yes, Mr. Barkley should have hired an attorney to begin with. & yes, his arguments should have been less far-fetched (although I am unfamiliar with the 'patent land' issues he raised, so it's possible that he might have had some solid ground to stand on. I just do not know enough about the subject) & more simple. But the fact remains that his property is being threatened by his local government. & the use of force is something that any government is not shy about. Hell, some people have defined government as force.

In fact I offer you this:

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -- George Washington

& this as well:

"Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it." -- Woodrow Wilson

& finally this:

"Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race." -- William Howard Taft

Mr. Barkley is attempting to defend his property. Even if you disagree with his methods I hope you understand the principle involved: a persons' property should not be subject to thuggery, even government thuggery.

I'll try to keep you updated on this.

Innocents Betrayed is now available. What is Innocents Betrayed you might ask? It's a film produced by the JPFO based on the book Death By Gun Control: The Human Cost of Civilian Disarmament written by Aaron Zelman & Richard W. Stevens. Here's a link to a page that has a clip of the film's introduction. It explores the link between genocide & civilian disarmament. I haven't seen it yet but it sounds like it's worth the investment. I'm thinking it would be an appropriate gift should someone you know have an empty space beside Bowling for Columbine on their shelf. Or better yet, should someone wish to make an empty space where Bowling for Columbine once lay.

This has been your public service announcement.

Through a collaborative effort (that means we yelled at each other 'til someone did something or another) there's a new blog to go to for information on shooting. It's called The Shooter's Carnival.

It's a group blog that concerns itself with the techinical aspects of shooting. There's already a few posts over there & so far the topics range from basic firearms safety to building an AR-15 from a parts kit. The goal is to provide help & advice to every level of shooter - from beginners who are considering purchasing their first firearm to people who have been shooting all their life & want to improve their technique a bit.

For the political stuff please visit the respective co-bloggers' blogs.

The Shooters' Carnival is brought to you by:

Alphecca
Boone Country
Hell in a Hand Basket
LayLines
Publicola
SayUncle
The Smallest Minority
Stop the Bleating

The House of Representatives has decided, in its infinite wisdom, that members of Congress simply could not get by on what its members were making. So they voted a 2.2% raise for themselves. In 2004 they'll "earn" about $158,000.00 which is a big improvement over the $154,700.00 they made this year. & don't bring up those dark days of 1999 when they had to get by on $136,700.00 a year per member.

They have also decided that a pay raise of 4.1% is appropriate for almost all federal employees.

From the article:

"Only one House member — Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah — voiced objections to the congressional increase during the debate.
'We are fighting terrorism on numerous fronts and our economy is in serious trouble, unemployment is at record high levels and our future budget deficits are predicted to be the highest in the history of this great nation,' Matheson said. 'Now is not the time for members of Congress to be voting themselves a pay raise.'
By a 240-173 vote, the House rejected Matheson's procedural attempt to get a direct vote on the pay raise for lawmakers. In 1989, Congress voted to make cost-of-living pay increases for themselves automatic unless they voted otherwise.
Without counting outside sources of income, the earnings of members of Congress rank within the top 5% of the nation."

I'm disturbed that those who tax us against our will by threat of force, who make our means of defense illegal, who create laws & systems designed to subjugate us, who legislate our Rights away as well as those who do their dirty work, are doing their jobs so well that they receive raises for it.

Paper Money and Tyranny by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

I was trying to find a paragraph or two to excerpt in order to tantalize you into clicking the link & reading it, but I can't find a paragraph or two that stands alone well enough to do the essay justice. So go & read the whole thing. It's worth the time it takes.

Charley Reese has a short but interesting piece called The Truth About The Confederacy: Parents - Teach Your Kids The Truth. I'd have liked Mr. Reese to have expanded upon his points, but even if it's a bit abbreviated it's worth a look.

According to this article at Newsmax.com Sen. McClintock not only has Michael Savages endorsement, but is in the double digits in the most recent poll. Though it's not too specific it does say that support for Sen. McClintock is growing.

In fact another story says that 30% of California voters polled felt Sen. McClintock was the winner of the debate held on Wednesday. Compare that to 22% favoring Lt. Gov. Bustamante as the winner, with 24% undecided.

& we have this from Newsmax.com:

"Yesterday during a rally in Temecula, McClintock laid it out as clearly as he could for the throng of supporters, stating he's 'always placed my principles above party,' and 'I am in this race to the finish line,' emphasizing that he will not step aside for Arnold.
McClintock's boring, but he's also ethical and principled, a long-missing character trait in California politics. Arnold has scheduled a Sept. 10 appearance on the O'Reilly Factor. It better be good, or it will be Arnold coming on-board with the McClintock team in order to help the Republicans avoid splitting the vote, not the other way around as all of punditry had suggested just one week back."

hmmm. If Sen. McClintock has "'always placed [his] principles above party" then that would explain why some Republican apologists won't endorse him.

As I've said before, I think California is lost. I could be wrong but California is a long ways down the road to destruction already with no signs of slowing down. However, Sen. McClintock may be able to put on the brakes. Certainly he stands a better chance of fixing what's broken than any of the other candidates.

Add that to the claims of racist behavior, albeit in the past, by Mr. Schwarzenegger & things are looking better for Sen. McClintock's chances.

As reported The Drudge Report last night, former Mr. Universe Robbie Robinson has accussed Mr. Schwarzenegger of making racist comments. Another former Mr. Unvierse, Rick Wayne, had made similar allegations.

If these turn out to be true Mr. Schwarzenegger's support base could fall enough to lose him the election. Then again, even if they're not true it could affect his image enough to make winning difficult.

Michael Gaddy has a piece entitled Second Amendment Supporters: Battle Stations Everyone!.

It mainly focuses on the fight we're gonna have to keep the "assault weapons" ban from being renewed &/or strengthened, but the links he has in the body of the piece are worth checking out as well.

When I first read the headline for this story over at Keep & Bear Arms.com I thought for a moment they were talking about Los Angelos. I should have known better.

"PORT ALLEN [Louisiana]-- Two women with knees bent and feet planted wide apart to ensure a steady aim held a pair of would-be burglars at gunpoint Thursday afternoon until West Baton Rouge sheriff's deputies could arrest the suspects, the Sheriff's Office said."

Course if it would have been in Los Angelos, the burglars would have been escorted to a trauma center because of their understandable emotional distress. Meetings with lawyers to sue the women for emotional damages would have been arranged while the women would have been arrested for attempted assault with a firearm. Louisiana on the other hand seems to have its priorities straight: arrest the criminals & leave the citizens be...at least in this case.