Apparently it's not unanimous that the treatment of David Codrea for his letter was wrong.

We have Bob who relayed this in the comments box:

"well DUH..you send a letter to an official threatening to show up at their door with a loaded rifle and (oh my) they arent going to investigate? The letter had merit in its content however until it reached that point."

Eugene Volokh takes a similar view:

"I generally have a hard time getting particularly outraged about stories like this...

The police might strongly suspect that the letter is rhetorical, but it's hard to tell that for sure. And if it isn't rhetorical -- if the writer does want to show up with those guns -- and the writer also wants to do something with those guns when he shows up, then we could have a bad scene.

If you were a responsible, freedom-loving police officer, would you just say 'Nah, sounds like nothing to me'? Or might you think it's worth some more investigation? The letter-writer writes, as a follow-up, 'I do find it bizarre that civil authority is so fearful of an armed citizenry that if they feel there is any chance of it happening, their response is to send armed men.' Why is it so bizarre? Armed citizens have at times done quite a bit of damage, including to a past Mayor of San Francisco. That's not reason to disarm them or throw them in jail for writing letters -- but it is reason to look closely at people who say they want to carry an arsenal to city hall.

But freedom of speech can't mean freedom from even disquieting investigations based on your speech. You can't be convicted for that letter; you can't be fined for it; but the police are entitled to talk to you to see whether you seem like an upstanding citizen (which by all accounts the author is) or someone who seems like a John Hinckley, and who therefore bears closer watching. Extremist groups are entitled to express their views; but I certainly hope that the police are investigating them more closely to see whether there might be extremist action, and not just extremist speech, in the offing. Likewise even for perfectly reasonable people who make statements that are also of the sort sometimes made by unreasonable people. It's part of the police department's job to investigate a bit more closely to see whether the speaker seems reasonable or unreasonable."

I would be remiss in not pointing out that Prof. Volokh does say this kind of thing could be troubling (if for instance Mr. Codrea received any sort of punishment) it's just that he feels the level of intrusion &/or the chilling effect in this instance is more or less outweighed by the need to protect the public safety.

& over at SayUncle there's been a similar disagreement about the appropriateness of the response:

"I like it. However, I do feel compelled to point out that it would awfully difficult for somebody to kill me with their homosexuality, so it's not exactly a valid comparison..." - Tom aka Tqirsch

"That guy made the classic apples & oranges mistake, so no wonder someone cried foul fruit.
(heh)." - Peggy from A Movable Beast

Tom/Tqirsch then adds this:

"Let me clarify. My comment was not based on the legality of the actions described. My comment, rather, concerned the justifications for banning those activities. Constitutionality and current law aside, it's very difficult to argue that homosexuality poses anywhere near the sort of public safety risk that guns potentially could. And whether or not they do a good job of it, protecting public safety is a valid function of government. That, to me, is where the comparison falls flat."

So let's start with a review of the relevant paragraphs from the letter that started all of this.

"You have shown progressive thinking and tolerance for that which the majority condemns. So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit.
Yes, I know, it will be a violation of California laws, but you've shown that you're willing to disregard those when it serves your goals. And because I am a peaceable citizen, I should easily meet Judge Warren's criterion that no immediate damage would be done by allowing this.
So what do you think, if I visit your city and proudly display my lifestyle choices, can I count on your support? As a private citizen, don't I have as much right to disregard laws I find reprehensible as you public officials? Isn't that what equality is supposed to be all about, where no class of citizen enjoys privileges and immunities not extended to all?
How about it? You wouldn't have me arrested, would you?
Please let me know if I have your support."

Now to Bob's concerns -

"well DUH..you send a letter to an official threatening to show up at their door with a loaded rifle and (oh my) they arent going to investigate? The letter had merit in its content however until it reached that point."

I fail to see where he said the rifle would be loaded. He mentioned magazines but never said whether or not they'd be holding ammo. & keep in mind the rifle (if you really want to call an AR-15 a rifle - shudder), the magazines, & the manner of carry he described for the pistols are all illegal under California law (to the best of my knowledge at least). However there is no additional penalty for the rifle (shudder) or pistols or magazines being loaded or unloaded (again according to my admittedly limited knowledge of California firearms law). So the illegal acts could have been performed without any ammunition at all (unless for good measure you wanted to bring some ammo that Cali has banned for some hoplophobic reason or another, in which case they could be in your pocket or in the firearm & the point would be made)

Now I bring this up because he also mentions that he's "...a peaceable citizen..." & therefore "...should easily meet Judge Warren's criterion that no immediate damage would be done by allowing this."

Given the general nature of the paragraphs in question where he is asking for an answer (although I'm sure expecting none) & the information I pointed out above, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that A; he wasn't actually planning on doing those things B; He was seeking advice on the nature of the reception he'd receive if he were serious & C; he had no harmful intent.

That does qualify as "...threatening to show up at their door with a loaded rifle..."

Prof. Volokh thinks that under the circumstances this was a reasonable action: investigating someone who made remarks that could be the indication of a threat to public safety.

However what Prof. Volokh views as a potential threat is simply no more than a person threatening to exercise their Right to Arms. Now I don't doubt that many people in a city would feel a bit uneasy about seeing someone with an AR-15 on their shoulder walking down the main street (I would too: imagine taking an AR-15 to town carrying it like it was a real rifle & you were proud of it - shudder). But then again many people might feel uneasy if they saw two men kissing on the main street in town, or a person passing out religious &/or political literature. All have the potential to create harm: the guy with the AR-15 might attempt to shoot someone, the men kissing could be exchanging mononucleouses, & the people passing out literature could start a riot by the material contained therein. But potential is not something we should view as grounds to condemn, or even intrusively investigate people for.

For example, if Kim du Toit was investigated everytime he mentioned that he'd like to kick Sen. Schumer in the genitals, do you really think they're be anything left in the SS Secret Service budget for anything else?

& take me for instance. If Prof. Volokh is comfortable with calling an AR-15 & "several" handguns an arsenal then I suppose my modest collection would be akin to an armory. & I guarantee that my potential for causing damage is much greater than anyone whom merely has an AR-15 & a few pistols. Yet I have no harmful intent & the actuality of it is that I am as dangerous to the public at large as someone with no weapons, no arms, no legs & is unable to communicate.

Now I don't think it unreasonable for cops to look into something. & if they'd have simply ran a google search, found out that Mr. Codrea was a big name in the pro-2nd amendment community & possibly even looked up his criminal records to see if he had done anything rash in the past then I don't think the level of attention would have been inappropriate - well if you get over the fact that all Mr. Codrea talked about doing is illegal because of laws that are violative of his Rights & conflict with the U.S. Constitution (& I'd be more than happy to discuss at great length the flaws of the incorporation theory). But keep in mind to me & quite a few others that Mr. codrea's actions would have been no more shocking than a person going hunting in a National Forest, or a person saying he/she might attend a particular church this Sunday. So even the unintrusive investigation would be questionable if you accept the fact that the laws in California regarding firearms are quite unconstitutional & violative of the people's Rights.

However let me point out again that Mr. Codrea did mention that he was a peaceable person & that in his view his actions, were he to undertake them, would meet a judge's standard for not creating any immediate danger. So the phone call asking potentially incriminating questions (such as whether or not he has a firearm verbotten under California law) & sending two armed agents to his residence was completely unwarranted (bad puns are always intended).

& keep in mind that the police department in question had told KABA.com that this was an ongoing investigation. That would seem to indicate that this may not be over for Mr. Codrea.

So while not equal to the crushing of dissent in the old Soviet Union (or present day Boulder, Co.) I think it should trouble us all that a man is being investigated because of his letter objecting to the disregard of some laws because the official in question views them as unconstitutional yet upholding other laws which are blatantly unconstitutional.

& it does beg the question, "What action would have been taken if Mr. Codrea had refused to talk with the cops?" (as is prudent for anyone to do - that ol' 5th Amendment was in there for a reason ya know). Would they have simply left him alone, or would they have thought his words constituted probable cause or suspicion sufficient for an arrest? & don't tell me you don't know of any judges in Cali who wouldn't have signed an arrest warrant because someone spoke of carrying prohibited firearms contrary to state law. The BATF has a whole string of "conspiracy" convictions based on much less than that in much more firearm tolerant states & I have no doubt that the mention of "firearm" by any other than the police is close to an arrestable offense in the minds of some judges out there.

Now for Tom/Tqirsch:

"I like it. However, I do feel compelled to point out that it would awfully difficult for somebody to kill me with their homosexuality, so it's not exactly a valid comparison..." - Tom aka Tqirsch

"Let me clarify. My comment was not based on the legality of the actions described. My comment, rather, concerned the justifications for banning those activities. Constitutionality and current law aside, it's very difficult to argue that homosexuality poses anywhere near the sort of public safety risk that guns potentially could. And whether or not they do a good job of it, protecting public safety is a valid function of government. That, to me, is where the comparison falls flat."

It is entirely possible to kill someone else with their homosexuality. It's possible to kill someone else with their heterosexuality as well. It's not unreasonable to admit the possibility of spreading a fatal disease through a sexual act. Now it's not all that likely, but it is very well possible.

& let me point you to this admittedly dated study that blames Aids for more deaths in 1994 than homicides.

Now keep in mind that I am not saying that we should regulate homosexuals or others who may potential carry fatal communicable diseases. I'm simply pointing out that the comparison between gun owners & homosexuals is valid because only the potential for harm exists, not necessarily the actuality.

& while protecting public safety is a legitimate endeavor of government, doing so at the expense of the public's freedom is certainly not within that realm. Restraining actions that cause direct & immediate harm would be acceptable, but limiting behavior because of only the potential (& a slim potential at that) is not. If we accepted Tom/Tqirsch's reasoning then it would be viewed as a legitimate action of government to make men & women wear chastity belts because men have the potential to become rapists & women the potential to become prostitutes.

One last thing about the justification for both laws in question (outlawing homosexual marriage & carrying firearms) - it's possible that two people being married may have saved one or the other (or possibly both) of their lives. However the estimates of defensive firearms use in this country range from 80,000 on the low end to 2,000,000 on the high end. Considering there are only about 28,000 firearms related deaths per year, of which about 16,000 are suicides, under 1,000 are accidental shootings & the rest are intentional (with no valid break down of justifiable v. unjustifiable shootings known to me at this time) I'd say the justification for prohibiting arms is very weak.


& now for Peggy -

"That guy made the classic apples & oranges mistake, so no wonder someone cried foul fruit.
(heh)." - Peggy from A Movable Beast

Hmm, let's see... one person is defying state law because he feels that said law conflicts with a constitutionally protected Right. The other person ask if it'd be okay to violate a state law because such law conflicts with a constitutionally protected Right. Both actions if allowed have the potential to create harm but do not actually cause any harm in & of themselves (marriage leads to emotional & financial problems on occasion, & firearms could be used to shoot innocent people). The only difference I see (in theory at least) is that one is implied to be a constitutional Right & the other is specifically enumerated as a constitutionally protected Right.
You could get into the obvious differences - one is between two adults & the state while the other is just between an adult & his/her conscience; one is being done by an elected official & the other is merely asking that official if he'd be supportive if a citizen done the thing in question.

But in theory they're the same: an act of civil disobedience that hopefully will either assert what is considered to be a Right by the inaction of the government or by action of the government (through the courts). They vary in details but not in principle.


Well I think that's everyone for now. If anyone else wishes to argue that Mr. Codrea should have been investigated, or that his point was not the same in principle as the one being made by SF Mayor Newsom feel free to leave a comment.

Freedom of speech in Cali? Not if it's about firearms.

David Codrea wrote this piece in which he asks if SF is willing to allow people to exercise their Right to Arms since they are willing to make a stand on homosexual marraige.

Now Mr. Codrea is being investigated for questioning the civil authority.

"Did you know that writing a rhetorical letter to the civil authorities in California challenging their hypocrisy results in a police investigation that includes not only calls from detectives but two black and white police cruisers coming to your home?"

I'll leave it to you to hit the links & get the details.

The South Dakota Gun Owners are in disagreement with the NRA on another issue; carrying a firearm in your vehicle without permission.

From SDGO's alert on HB 1247:

"Current South Dakota law denies your right to arms by severely limiting your ability to carry a handgun for self-defense in any vehicle.
Only by securing a government permit can you legally defend yourself while in your car. If you carry a loaded, accessible handgun in any vehicle without a concealed pistol permit, you may be found guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by a year in jail and a $1000 fine. "

Of note is that they list the home phone numbers of the legislators so you can actually speak to them if their mailbox is turned off full. I doubt the NRA would approve, but I see nothing wrong with that approach.

So HB 1247 would have made carry in a vehicle permissable w/o a permit. You'd think that any pro-gun group would support it right?

Enter the NRA.

"But surprisingly, David Conway, lobbyist for NRA affiliated South Dakota Shooting Sports Association, opposed this pro-gun bill in committee, stating that he had a problem with repealing the permit requirement.

"If you’re going to carry in an enclosed motor vehicle, you better have a permit,' Mr. Conway stated. He then brought an amendment, supported by the NRA, which completely wiped out the pro-gun language of HB 1247 and replaced it with a minor adjustment to current law.
The only change the Conway amendment makes is to allow a handgun carried in a closed compartment to be loaded. Current law (SDCL 22-14-10) allows a person without a permit to carry only an unloaded handgun in a closed compartment or container too large to be concealed."

Now will someone please try to explain to me why the NRA is thought of as a pro-gun org?

Yet another example of the NRA arguing against a pro-gun position in favor of an anti-gun position. This isn't the first time the NRA has argued for registration & I doubt it will be the last.

If you're an NRA member, don't delude yourself into thinking that your helping gun owners.

I will be severely dissappointed in donations to the NRA from South Dakota residents do not decline after this.

"NRA distances itself from South Dakota Guns Owners group"

That's usually a good sign that the group in question is on the right track.

"RAPID CITY -- The National Rifle Association wants no part of a Rapid-City-based pro-gun group that charged Gov. Mike Rounds with supporting the confiscation of private firearms and drew an angry rebuke from state legislators for its aggressive lobbying tactics."

lmao. Of course the NRA doesn't want any part of aggressive lobbying tactics - after all, that might lead to a pro-gun victory.

"David Conway of Black Hawk, legislative affairs director for the NRA-affiliated South Dakota Shooting Sports Association, said Monday that the NRA had no connection to the group South Dakota Gun Owners and doesn't approve of its lobbying style. 'Their methods at the Capitol are not our methods,' Conway said. 'We choose to have a working relationship with state officials, whereas they choose to attack'. "

Working relationship usually means they'll stab gun owners in the back if it'll get them a little more clout in the capitol.

But let me get this starigh: in situations where state legislators are attacking a persons' Right to Arms the NRA would rather sit down & have a few drinks with them than call them for the treasonous bastards they are? The situation may be different, but the philosophy is not different than Chamberlin's diplomatic strategy with Hitler.


"Conway said he was concerned that people were associating the NRA with South Dakota Gun Owners and the organization's extremist rhetoric. Conway said South Dakota Gun Owners' spokesmen Ray Lautenschlager and his son, Zachary, have distorted the facts about legislative proposals and the positions of Rounds and some legislators on gun rights."

Extremist rhetoric? What? Were they quoting some constitution again? But in all fairness, the NRA has done much more distorting of 'facts' concerning gun laws than any other group that claims to be pro-gun. But I really wonder about the charge that SDGO is distorting the position of politicians on gun Rights; this is simply because I feel the NRA doesn't mean gun Rights, but rather refers to their willingness to cut deals with the NRA. It'd be interesting to see exactly what's going on.

"They come from a radical standpoint. They're on a perpetual fund-raising mission, too," Conway said. "They were out misinforming people in the state. The governor isn't out to grab anyone's guns."

Hold up!. Now wait a damn minute. The NRA...the N friggin R friggin A is accusing someone of being on a perpetual fund raising mission? That's like a convicted rapist accusing an octogenerian with erectile dysfunction of being a threat to women! Hell, even those I know who agree (for one reason or another) with the NRA get tired of getting calls & letters urging them to become members - especially after they've joined.

& again, the NRA shouldn't accuse anyone of misniforming poeple on gun related issues. Consequently their reassurances about the governor are not comforting.

"The Lautenschlagers maintain that their criticisms of Rounds and some legislators are based on their support for anti-gun legislation that threatens Second Amendment freedoms. They deny distorting any facts or trying to intimidate legislators, beyond expressing their views and holding lawmakers accountable for their votes."

Ya see, the legislation only threatens a gun owners Rights. It doesn't threaten the NRA's clout so therefore it's not really anti-gun.

"Let those who are making allegations of misinformation produce the evidence,' Zachary Lautenschlager said. 'We stand behind the truth of our information."

Ah, truth. Oddly enough it almsot rhymes with proof. I wonder if the NRA has either one?

"Some lawmakers complained about the manner in which they told their version of the truth. Republican Rep. Joni Cutler of Sioux Falls considered one e-mail from a member to be a threat and turned it over to authorities. Lautenschlager questions that because Cutler has declined to reveal what was said in the e-mail."

I have very little sympathy for a lawmaker who feels threatened because of holding a position contrary to the Rights of the people. That being said if it was threatening it should be investigated. But it is suspicious that claims of a threat are made but the details are withheld.

"Republican Rep. Larry Rhoden of Union Center, a hunter and longtime gun-rights supporter, said his family was disturbed at home by rude telephone calls from South Dakota Gun Owners supporters. Conway said that kind of lobbying reflects poorly on the entire pro-gun movement."

Hunter or Fuddite? In any case a legislator should be disturbed by rude calls if he supports legislation that would curtail a citizens' Rights. Again, I have no sympathy for the legislator.

I wonder if he would complain if he got angry calls because he was supporting a measure to make black people drink from seperate water fountains? would he then also claim it reflected badly on the civil rights movement?

"They were nailing and going after people who, for many, many years, had been my strongest supporters in the Capitol,' Conway said. 'I've never had even the slightest anti-gun legislation from these people they've been condemning."

So he's upset about his "...stongest supporters..." being heatedly questioned as to their stance on a bill that would infringe upn the Rights of the people. Does he not have a clue as to why people may feel so passionate about a law that would infringe upon their Rights?

& it is one thing to "...never [have]...anti-gun legislation..." from a legislator, but taken that at face value it simply means that his "supporters" have never sponsoered anti-gun legislation. It does not mean they never voted for it once it was introduced. & still we are left with the definition of "anti-gun". I'm quite sure the NRA's explanation would be markedly different from mine.

"Zachary Lautenschlager said he and his father couldn't control every contact a member of the organization made with legislators. But he believes most were done with 'polite phone calls and signed postcards."

That's a good point. Exactly how many rude &/or threatening calls were made as oppossed to polite &/or non-threatening calls?

"As for the implication that he and his dad are stirring emotions to raise funds, Lautenschlager said they are both volunteers. They run the organization out of an office in Ray Lautenschlager's business in Rapid City, Zachary said.
As for fund-raising, he said 'every organization raises money, including the NRA."

Especially the NRA. Lapiere's 6 figure salary doesn't grow on trees ya know.

"Lautenschlager said South Dakota Gun Owners is an unincorporated, nonprofit organization. A proclamation on its Web site, sdgo.org, says it is 'South Dakota's only no-compromise gun-rights organization."

No wonder the NRA is trying to distance itself.

"Before the legislative session, the group sent a letter to gun owners criticizing Rounds for defending a 'tyrannical law' previously approved by the state Legislature and former Gov. Bill Janklow to allow the state to confiscate private property during situations deemed emergencies.
The revision of state law came in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and was promoted as a way to strengthen state authority to act in such situations. Rounds, a hunter and gun owner himself, said it was a never a threat to private gun owners, even though some guns might be seized, at least temporarily, under extreme situations."

Some guns might be seized temporaily? Wait a sec - I thought the NRA said the gov. wasn't going to seize anyone's guns?

The law in question seems similar to laws in other states that provide for confiscation of firearms during an emergency.

But this is a threrat to private gun owners. Anytime the state says they may seize your firearms that's a threat. A very serious threat & one that should not be ignored.

"The South Dakota Gun Owners letter called the law a 'blatant trampling of the Bill of Rights' and asked for financial contributions to help 'stop this outrageous denial of property and gun rights."

& the NRA distances itself from that?

"The Lautenschlagers worked with Rep. Tim Begalka, R-Clear Lake to introduce HB1287, which would have prohibited seizures of any property, including firearms."

Don't they know that only the NRA is suppossed to work to get legislation introduced?

"Rounds pushed his bill to clarify that firearms would not be among the items that could be seized in such situations"

Of course the flaw with Rounds bill is that while the people can't have their firearms stolen from them by the state, then they have the means to prevent theft of other property. Bet he didn't think of that did he?

Sounds to me though that the bill protecting firearms specifically as well as other property would be more desirable.

"Legislators killed HB1287 in a House committee. Rounds' proposal, SB212, passed the House and a Senate committee and has action pending on the Senate floor."

Killing a non-NRA pro-gun bill in committee. Hmm, where have I heard that before?

"Begalka said he knows the existing law would never threaten firearms while Rounds was governor.
'The main focus was for the future,' he said. 'Thirty or 50 years from now, we don't know who the governor will be."

Well he makes a good point, but personally I wouldn't want anyone having that kind of power, whether he's a decent person or not. I think the trust in the current governor is misplaced.

"Begalka said he believes the Lautenshlagers are sincere in their work to protect the private ownership of guns. But he also understands why some legislators are upset with their tactics.
'The Lautenschlagers have been a little too loose with words on some of their mailings, a little bit too far out there,' he said. 'I believe they are very sincere and genuine. They're just a little too extreme for something in the Legislature."

I take this to mean they spoke the truth, politicians got uncomfy & the NRA got pissed.

"Zachary Lautenschlager said he and his dad are representing gun owners who need a strong, uncompromising voice. And they won't be run out of the Capitol by criticism, he said.
'We are not done,' he said. 'South Dakota Gun Owners is not finished."

That means there's still hope for South Dakota.

Here's the link to South Dakota Gun Owners

Here's SDGO's alert on Rep. Tim Begalka's HB1287. Outside of the bogus quote often attributed to Washington I don't see anything extreme in the language. Sure, they suggest contacting the reps at home on the week ends, but until the laws they pass onyl apply 9 to 5 while we're at work I don't see this as unreasonable.

Here's SDGO's alert on Gov. Rounds' SB212. Again other than the bogus quote attributed to Washington I don't see what's so bad.

Here's the SDGO's after action report on the bill they supported being killed in committee.

& thanks to Say Uncle who was again faster on the draw than I was.

Kids don't know their Rights according to this story in the Arizona Daily wildcat.

"Todd said the right that is being most threatened in today's world is the right to freedom of expression."

James Todd is senior lecturer for the political science department, & apparently clueless as to what state the 2nd amendment is currently in.

But the gist of it is that college kids simply don't know what cops can & can't do. There are a few appeals by students & cops for the kids to learn what their Right are.

& this is the correct way to go about it; a person should be entirely responsible for finding out what their Rights are & how far the government can go. But most kids are victims of government schools where basic Rights are denied while they attend & more or less they simply get accustomed to not having those Rights. You don't usually miss what you're never had & that tactic has been working well for government for some time.

But what happens when a person does know his Rights? Well, in this example he gets arrested & his daughter gets roughed up during the arrest.

Short version is this: a man was parked on the side of the road while arguing with his 17 year old daughter. Cops show up to investigate a domestic violence call (apparently some motorist claims they saw the man hitting the woman) & ends up arresting the man because he refuses to produce I.D. When his daughter steps out of the truck the cops throw her down & sit on her while they cuff her. It's only at this point do they ask her what happened.

He's appealing his conviction for "delaying a peace officer" to SCOTUS. Hopefully they'll hear the case & decide that a person's papers not being in order is not enough to justify an arrest, but I'm not holding my breath.

Thanks to Say Uncle for both of the stories.

As part of the conditions of the 5 questions meme, I was obligated to ask 5 questions of any blogger who requested it.

Here are links to those who have answered the question so far:

Yellowdog of Yellowblog

Dave at Pervasivelight

Geek with a .45 from the aptly named Geekwitha.45

Go read them.

Okay, since no one offered to, I'll fisk the Denver Post article myself...


"Kill the Wild West gun bill"

Nice title. But for me it conjures up visions of making Colt 1873 Single Action Army revolvers illegal.

"Rep. Greg Brophy's attempt to turn Colorado streets into the gun-slinging Old West will only jeopardize the rights of responsible gun owners."

Now let's examine this for a second. What the Denver Post is saying is that if you assert your Rights you'll jeopardize them. Huh? I wonder if they'd say that if a bill passes to allow newspapers to speak ill of incumbents that it would jeopardize the 1rst amendment?

The "wild west" is partially a myth. True, it was a bit less regulated than most of the periods in american history that followed it, but not any worse than the periods which proceeded it. The mythical wild west was a creation of dime store novels, traveling shows & finally motion pictures. For further reading on he origins of the mythical wild west I recommend Cowboy: How Hollywood Invented the Wild West by Holly George-Warren.

But it's not surprising that the Denver Post would make such an assertion. After all, if they saw it in a picture it must be true right?

I will point out that in the wild west - both mythical & actual - open carry of firearms was not uncommon. The Denver Post has been against any citizen carrying openly & against people carrying concealed, so I suppose their paranoia about one mode of carry gets confused with the other.

So it's an inaccurate analogy in that the mythical wild west to which they refer was a place where people carried openly as opposed to concealed (although I'm sure small revolvers & derringers were carried concealed, the majority of arms were carried openly).

& don't get me wrong - if a person wants to carry openly or concealed that's their business - not that of the state or county or city or any other construct aside from an owner of private (i.e. non-government) property. My point is merely that the Post doesn't seem to know what the hell it's talking about.

"Lawmakers should promptly shoot down Brophy's House Bill 1281 when it's heard in committee next week."

I bet the writer patted him/herself on the back for 2 or 3 minutes over the "cleverness" of that sentence.

"The proposal allows anyone who can legally possess a handgun to conceal it in public. Brophy says it allows law- abiding citizens to conceal firearms 'without going through the burdensome and expensive process of acquiring a permit."

& the problem is...?

"In reality, it's a giant leap backward from the responsible concealed-carry law approved last spring."

Ah, they refer to the "shall issue" law that is more restrictive than the "may issue" law that it replaced.

But note the use of the word "responsible". In the context of the sentence another word such as "restrictive" or burdensome" would have been a better more concise. But that would have alerted readers to their true intent.

"For nearly a decade, The Post has prodded lawmakers to approve a reasonable concealed-carry proposal that respected the government-protected rights of gun owners while balancing the need for public safety."

note the keywords: "reasonable", "balance" & "safety". We've seen "reasonable" before & we'll see it again. It's the politically correct way to rebuke any attempts to retain something you have as selfish. By "reasonable" they really mean "more restrictive".

"Balance" is inappropriate, as they assume that there must be an equal share for something to be correct. This simply isn't reality. In this case however, they mean "imbalance". What they want to do is balance their feelings of public safety with your Right to carry the means to defend yourself. Balancing an actuality with a potentiality seldom accomplishes anything other than restricting the actuality. I wonder if they've ever contepmlated Aristotle's answer to the question of which came first; the chicken or the egg? Didn't he say that actuality trumped potentiality?

In any case the "balance" they desire is an unfair one as it seeks to make the exercise of a Right more burdensome so they can "feel" safer without being safer.

In reality the public safety is much better served by not interfering with a person's Right to arm his/herself. That's because in reality the cops cannot be everywhere at once & the vast majority of the time they show up after a crime has been committed. People with harmful intent do not obey laws about carrying weapons in a certain manner & those laws tend to put the people without harmful intent on unequal footing. The public safety is much better served when a person with harmful intent has to face the possibility that his victim may be able to fight back successfully.

"For too long, the state was a patchwork of inconsistent laws that varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It was confusing and, in some cases, responsible gun owners were denied concealed- carry permits based solely on their residence."

I somehow doubt the sincerity of the Post being troubled by people not being able to get permits based solely upon where they live. & also the troubling aspect to the Post is not that the laws were varied & confusing (as they are big proponents of local control trumping individual Rights) but that some sheriffs were giving permits to people that weren't residents of their respective counties.

"But lawmakers continually closed their eyes to the problem."

Ah, not really. There were a few attempts at passing a more lenient concealed carry law than the may issue system that was in place. But to the Post this was not addressing the problem. The problem wasn't that the laws were too confusing or burdensome, but too lenient.

"Finally, the legislature last spring approved Sen. Ken Chlouber's proposal that required a criminal background check and fingerprinting of those wanting to carry concealed weapons. The applicants also must successfully complete a certified firearms-safety course and pay $100 for the license. The National Rifle Association joined The Denver Post in backing this responsible bill."

Don't get me started on the constant betrayal of gun owners by the NRA. But may I point out that fingerprinting & criminal background checks were present in the may issue system that this new law replaced. The training classes are new as is the permit fee, making the process more expensive as well as burdensome on the applicant. But I assume that the Post feels that the economically challenged don't need to defend themselves since they have raised no objections to this or any other firearms related fees imposed by the government. In fact they were upset when a bill was withdrawn that would have charged gun purchasers for the redundant background check performed by Colorado.

"Chlouber's bill also included a "naked man" exception to allow denial of a permit to those who have no criminal records but are demonstrably unstable. His bill was essentially the same one the legislature passed in the spring of 1999 but which was prudently withdrawn right after the Columbine massacre."

Ah yes - the "naked man" exception, which makes the "shall issue" concealed carry law no different in principle than the may issue law it replaced.

But now if their Post had really been upset by the may issue system's unfair & disproportionate treatment of gun owners & had backed it being replaced for a decade, & further approved of the law which replace dit, then why was it "prudent" to withdraw a proposal to change the old law with which they disagreed? Feelings trump reality for most anti-freedom people. I see the Post as no exception. I simply see no reason whatsoever that would justify withdrawing a bill they claim to support because of the Columbine murders.

"Unfortunately, the legislature didn't stop there. It also passed Senate Bill 25 - an offensive intrusion on local affairs. It strikes down local rules on where and how firearms can be carried, including the ban in Denver and other cities on carrying a gun openly."

As I said earlier, the Post openly supports a city or county impeding &/or prohibiting your Right to Arms as an individual. Don't believe that they find one manner of carry preferable to another - they detest the idea of a mere peasant being able to defend his/herself. Contrasting one method with another is just a subtle tactic in their overall desire to have us all defenseless.

"It also voids Denver's ban on certain assault-rifle 'look-alikes,' a law already upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court."

Since Dred Scott v. Sanford upheld that a black man wasn't entitled to individual rights that slavery was morally justifiable? Or that since courts convicted people in the 20's of drinking or possessing alcohol that Prohibition was a good thing?

The Denver Post was correct in referring to the ban on "...assault rifle 'look alikes'..."

Assault rifle is a phrase coined by Hitler to describe what had been called the Machinenpistole 43. Hitler thought that this was inaccurate & christened it the SturmGewehr 44 which translates into Assault Rifle 44. Since then the practical definition of assault rifle has been a compact rifle or carbine that fires a cartridge of intermediate power & is capable of fully automatic fire. The ban Denver had was like the federal ban in that it only affected rifles with cosmetic similarities to assault rifles, but it erroneously called them assault rifles just as the federal ban does. Denver (& the feds) view certain aesthetic features as constituting an assault rifle despite the fact that the mechanism employed by these alledged assault rifles is no different than the mechanism employed by countless rifles that have been used for hunting for the last 100 years.

For instance the Remington Model 740 is not considered an assault weapon by most assault weapon bans, even though it is semi-automatic & feeds from a magazine. (From the factory it comes with a 4 round magazine, but I've seen after market magazines available with up to a 10 round capacity. It wouldn't surprise me if there were some after market magazines that had a capacity higher than that.)The Olympic Arms GI-20 Model would be considered an assault weapon by most bans because it has the politically incorrect pistol grip as well as a 20 round magazine. This despite the fact that it functions with a similar mechanism & is capable of only firing in the semi-automatic mode. & what is seldom brought up is that most of those alledged assault rifles &/or look alikes are chambered in cartridges less powerful than the cartridges available in lever action rifles in the 1890's. But if you have a pistol grip, telescoping or folding stock, flash hider (which doesn't actually "hide" the flash but rather diverts it to the side so it won't interfere with the shooter's vision) &/or can accept a magazine that holds more than 10 cartridges, it's feared as an assault rifle by most firearms ignorant politicians & the media.

Another example is the lowly Ruger 10/22. From the factory it is not usually considered an assault rifle, but if you add this stock (& take out the weld so it folds as it was designed to) then it's an assault weapon. The rifle would function the same regardless of which stock it was in; it just looks scarier to some people in a folding stock with a pistol grip.

But what the Post is advocating is that a city or county should have the authority to prohibit possession or ownership of a certain type of firearm based solely on arbitrary aesthetic standards - this despite the Colorado Constitution's prohibition on interfering with the Right to keep & bear arms.

"Colorado Constitution Article 2 Section 13. Right to bear arms.
The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons"

Aside from the last part (about concealed weapons) I'd say Colorado's Constitution is spot on. Clearly it prevents any interference with an individual's exercise of said Right. But the Post would rather assert the idea that a city or county can negate the Rights of an individual.

"Senate Bill 25 is being challenged in court."

& that means the tax dollars of the good people of Denver are going towards a lawsuit designed to take away their Rights.

"The Post supports Coloradans' right to protect themselves, but Brophy's proposal removes the valuable safeguards now built into Colorado law."

That's a lie; the Post does not support a Right - rather it argues in favor fo a privilege. Anytime you have to ask (or in this case beg & bribe) permission it's not viewed as a Right, but rather as a privilege graciously granted by government. Rep. Brophy's proposal would actually make Colorado treat individual Rights with the proper respect. So to oppose it but yet claim you support an individual's Right is contradictory.

& those safeguards that are currently in place now? What safeguards? The concealed carry law here merely erects hurdles for those who have no harmful intent while doing nothing - I repeat nothing - to prevent someone with harmful intent from carrying. In fact since it's a bit of a chore & expense in getting a permit to begin with, most with harmful intent can be reasonably sure that their victim will be unarmed.

Has anyone ever not broken a serious law because to do so would entail breaking a minor one? Does the Post really expect us to believe that someone who wants to rob a liquor store or shoot up a school is going to change his/her mind because he/she couldn't get a concealed carry permit???

The only safeguard society will have is that every person has the unfettered Right to carry the means of self defense. It won't decrease crime but it will cause a shift from confrontational crimes to non-confrontational crimes. It's basic logic; a person who wishes to steal will try to find the path of least resistance. Now that path is someone whom they're reasonably sure isn't carrying. If Rep. Brophy's bill hadn't been killed by the cowards in the Committee of State, Military & Veteran's Affairs at the urging of the hypocrites who claim to be gun Rights groups (NRA, CSSA) then the person intent on stealing would be more tempted to wait until your car was unattended before trying to steal it, rather than slapping you around until they got the keys from you.

"We have always opposed Vermont-style 'warm body' concealed-carry bills. In that state, anyone who can legally own a firearm can conceal their weapon."

Which means they have never supported the Right to Arms. By the way, what problems has it created for Vermont or Alaska for that matter? Granted, the cultures of those two respective states differs somewhat from Colorado, as does the population & economy, but I have seen nothing to indicate that no-permit-required carry laws have affected Vermont or Alaska adversely.

"This bill should be killed in committee. It doesn't meet the standards Gov. Bill Owens has set for gun laws, so it's likely to be vetoed if approved, anyway."

So because an anti-Rights governor with a pro-gun image won't approve it then it's a bad law? I've seen weaker reasoning, but not since elementary school. The "standards" our governor has set for gun laws are atrocious. One of his standards for a concealed carry bill was that no carry would be allowed in schools. That means instead of a parent or teacher being able to nip a Columbine-like incident in the bud, the school would be locked down while waiting on the sheriff's department & then further waiting would ensue as the sheriff's department would discuss how best to approach the situation for a few hours. I'd trust the governor's judgment on anything "gun" right after I took singing lessons from Yoko Ono.

"Lawmakers should save Gov. Owens the extra work and put an end to this bill now."

The Denver Post should save it's almost irreparably shattered reputation (along with trees & ink) by not writing anonymous editorials that attempt to justify why I should continue to be a criminal should I exercise a most basic, fundamental Right.

The Post contradicts itself in its own article. It either hasn't clearly thought out the issue, or it's dealing from feelings & other abstract motivations rather than facts & sound logic.

The Post got its wish as the bill was killed in committee, but rather than rejoice they should mourn. I guess they still fail to realize that an assault on one Right is an assault on all. I wonder if they'd have felt differently if the bill was trying to correct a law that made the carrying of a newspaper concealed in a briefcase a crime?

& as usual here are the names of those on the editorial staff:

"The members of The Post editorial board are William Dean Singleton, chairman and publisher; Bob Ewegen, deputy editorial page editor; Todd Engdahl, assistant editorial page editor; Peter G. Chronis, Dan Haley and Penelope Purdy , editorial writers; Mike Keefe, cartoonist; Barbara Ellis, news editors; and Fred Brown and Barrie Hartman, associate members."

Since it was not a signed editorial I assume that all those named agree with the opinions expressed in the editorial. So as usual I encourage anyone who has business dealings with these people to refuse to trade with them as long as they hold such a disrespectful view of your Rights.

The Colorado Freedom to Carry Act (House Bill 1281) has been indefinitely postponed by the House Committee for State, Veteran & Military Affairs.

Translated this means that a committee of 7 Republicans & 4 Democrats that can pass a bill about designating Yula marble our state rock failed to even allow a House vote on a law that would assert an individual Right.

More on this later. Right now I have to shop around for wholesale priced tar & fathers.

From RMGO comes this:

"This Tuesday, the House State Affairs Committee will hear HB1281, State
Rep. Greg Brophy's "Colorado Freedom to Carry Act." It's a
Vermont/Alaska concealed carry bill, and it is by FAR the most pro-gun
bill ever offered in Colorado."

"Before Tuesday, we need everyone -- repeat, EVERYONE -- who cares about
our right to keep and bear arms to call a key member of the committee.
State Rep. Bill Sinclair is the chairman of the State Affairs committee, and THE key vote to getting this bill to the House floor."

RMGO also provides contact info for Rep. Sinclair.

"Call Rep. Sinclair toll-free at 800-811-7647 (or
directly at 303-866-2965) and POLITELY urge him to live up to his
pledge
and support House Bill 1281. You can only call the toll-free number
during work hours (a live operator transfers you to Sinclair's office),
but you can call the direct line and leave a voice mail at any time.
You can also e-mail Rep. Sinclair at: bill.sinclair.house@state.co.us "

They encourage you to call, as RMGO feels e-mail may not reach Rep. Sinclair in time.

Now here's the skinny: as far as a no permit required concealed carry law we're on our own. The NRA isn't going to help & neither is their Colorado affiliate CSSA. Why is that you may wonder? Well, they'll offer a host of reasons; the most popular being that this law won't pass & will just stir up the anti-gunners to pass more gun control laws. Of course there'll be the occasional excuse that a permit law is better than a no permit law because of the training requirement.

Now as to the second excuse - don't get me wrong; I think professional training is a wonderful thing. I just don't recall anyone ever justifying denying some the ability to speak on a political matter because he/she didn't have professional instruction in discourse. Similarly I fail to see how lack of state mandated training is a legitimate reason to deny someone the ability to defend themselves. If state mandated training is so vital, then it should be taught in the government schools. That way the registration process involved in a permit system is bypassed.

The registration excuse is also flawed because it seeks to make a Right conditional. Now the Colorado Constitution does recognize that owning, possessing & carrying arms for the defense of life & property is a Right, but it errs in that it differentiates carrying a concealed weapon as not being protected. Practically I can see no reason for a distinction between carrying concealed & carrying openly. The logic assumed at the time of most concealed carry laws' adoption was that an honest man wears his guns in plain sight, whereas a man up to no good hides his piece. If you'll look at it objectively it's not that far a stretch from the logic that says if you have nothing to hide you won't mind being search. After all if you're not up to something, then your private affairs should be visible to the public shouldn't they?

Nevertheless the U.S. Constitution does not have such an illogical provision in its assertion of the Right to Arms. Further the 14th Amendment makes the Right to Arms provision of the U.S. Constitution applicable to the states. (yes I know that the Supreme Court has not held so, but the rather heated explanation of the court being out to lunch when it came up with the incorporation theory is a whole 'nother topic). Requiring a permit therefore is a violation of the 2nd Article of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.

But whether a constitution declares it or not, we all have the Right to carry any arms in any manner we see fit. Requiring a permit or even a training class conflicts with that Right in that it places a burden on the exercise of said Right. Some will not be burdened much by this or even more restrictive requirements, but many - especially the poorer amongst us - will.

Now the first justification that these so called pr-gun groups give is just BS. First of all whether a bill stands a chance of passing or not is at least sometimes determined by the effort or lack of effort demonstrated by its proponents. They offer an almost self fulfilling prophecy & hope you won't realize that it?s almost a guaranteed outcome because of their inaction. If they'd actually develop a vertebra then the odds of many truly pro-gun bills passing would increase dramatically.

Secondly the idea that the anti's will leave us alone if we don't stir things up is ignorant. Let me repeat that: ig-no-rant. For anyone from back home that'd be ignent. That's the exact sort of ignorance that made the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943 damn near miraculous. I wonder if perhaps they'd have told one of the Jewish resistance leaders to not fight the Nazi's cause the Nazi's might try to hurt them if they did?

Let me 'splain this to you: There is a faction of government & society that wants to disarm us. Not partially, not conditionally. They will settle for nothing less than complete & total civilian disarmament. They will accomplish this in great part due to the concessions that alleged pro-gun groups & people make. They simply will not be appeased. If they appear to be slowing down in their efforts it?s not because they're becoming satisfied with the level of gun control; it's because they're contemplating their next move.

What has been sorely lacking in the gun control debate is any offensive action on the part of pro-gun people, especially allegedly pro-gun people. We?ve been playing defense: reacting to the moves of the anti's. The best you can hope for is to stalemate your opponent with such tactics. Strictly defensive actions are not designed for winning the battle or even gaining ground; they're designed merely for surviving. But the problem is that in a contest of endurance, the defense will wear down quicker than the offense. Defenders have to be constantly ready to defend when they're not actually defending. Attackers can take a time out or two as long as they maintain the appearance that an attack is eminent.

But refusing to go on the offensive because it might provoke your enemies? That makes sense if you're a French military general, but not if you want to actually gain back some ground you lost, let alone win the bloody war.

According to Billll over at The High Road, a Colorado Rep. gave him the following reply when Billll urged support of the Colorado Freedom to Carry Act:

"Bill, Be careful what you ask for. I think the passage of this bill will
only excite the anti-gun people who will then go to the ballot with an
imitative banning all forms of concealed carry. Just look at what they
accomplished with Amendment 22, remember they have the numbers. It will only take a bill like this to really get them energized. Joe Stengel HD 38"

So here we have a Rep. who is not afraid of the anti's fighting the bill & defeating it, but getting pissed off if we win!
Rep. Stengall was one of the sponsors of the current Colorado Shall Issue CCW law. I do not know much about him or his record, but I can safely say that either he is sorely mistaken as to the nature of the battle we're engaged in, or he's more concerned with pleasing the NRA than doing the correct thing. In any case if his attitude doesn't change then you cannot count on him as an ally.

As I said - the NRA, CSSA & other alleged pro-gun orgs & people will not be on our side on this one. RMGO is the only local ally we have. On the national level we have GOA & KABA.com among a few others that will do for us what they can, but they cannot fight this thing for us.

If we win this thing it's going to be because of one thing: you getting off your ass & giving ultimatums. Politely, but pointedly explain to your Colorado congresscritters, friends, family & any alleged pro-gun or sportsman's groups you belong to that if they do not support this bill you will withdraw your support from them utterly & completely. & what's more important if a person of group fails to support this bill & it loses, withdraw your support. Get that "lesser of two evils" BS out of your mind. 98% evil may be better than 98.5% evil, but that's no excuse to support it. After all, bigamy is better than polygamy right? But would you stay with your spouse if their other spouse showed up one day?

Don't just sound serious: be serious. Offer to explain the situation if they're willing to listen. Do whatever you can to change their mind. Hell, if they're a tough sell & you think it'd help I'll be happy to make some time to try to persuade them through e-mail, over the phone &/or in person. But be clear to them & yourself that if they do not support this then you cannot support them in any way shape or form.

& don't neglect to support RMGO, GOA, KABA.com & other actually pro-gun orgs who are doing what they can in your place. Remember it's your freedom along with theirs that they're fighting for.

That is the only way we'll get our Right to carry recognized.

For more reading on why Shall Issue CCW laws are bad for gun owners, please look here.

For a piece explaining the difference between yelling fire in a crowded theater & concealed carrying of arms look here.

For a relatively brief discussion of why the Right to Arms is absolute look here.

For a good read from GOA on why no permit required laws are the best course of action look here.

& to keep up with the Colorado Freedom to Carry Act & other gun related bills in the Colorado legislature this year look here (courtesy of RMGO).

& once more, here?s the contact info for Rep. Sinclair

"Call Rep. Sinclair toll-free at 800-811-7647 (or
directly at 303-866-2965) and POLITELY urge him to live up to his
pledge
and support House Bill 1281. You can only call the toll-free number
during work hours (a live operator transfers you to Sinclair's office),
but you can call the direct line and leave a voice mail at any time.
You can also e-mail Rep. Sinclair at: bill.sinclair.house@state.co.us "

It won't be easy but it'll be impossible if you sit there all day reading this. Jump on the phone now. Don?t do this for me, or your neighbor or anyone else. Do it so you can have a taste of freedom that you might be able to pass on to your kids & grandkids. & please do it now.

In an interesting development, I'm almost inclined to believe that ballistic fingerprinting could be theoretically as accurate as biometric fingerprinting.

"...At present, there is virtually no accurate information on just how often fingerprint examiners actually make mistakes -- and unlike DNA experts, fingerprint experts routinely testify that their matches are '100 percent certain'."

Hmmm. I see the parallel between biometric fingerprint examiners & the BATF already. Here's a quote from BATF agent Thomas A. Busey (actually he was Chief of the National Firearms Act Branch of the BATF when he made the statement)

"...when we testify in court, we testify that the data base is 100% accurate. That's what we testify to, and we will always testify to that. As you probably well know, that may not be 100 percent true."

Nothing like a little honesty in dishonesty government. Back to the biometric fingerprint piece:

"Fingerprinting is often said to be be infallible, a forensic 'gold standard.' But if we ask how often declared fingerprint matches are actually wrong, the only honest answer is that no one has any idea...There are no systematic proficiency tests to evaluate examiners' skill. Those tests that exist are not routinely used and are substandard. In another recent case, even the FBI's proficiency tests were acknowledged by another fingerprint examiner to be absurdly easy."

Sounds as if they've taken the scientific approach that many gun control advocates use. Say you're right about a subject, but fail to provide any credible documentation to back your claims. But be sure to label someone an "expert" if they agree with your claim, despite their qualifications.

"...there are no uniform standards, locally or nationally, about what counts as a fingerprint match. Different jurisdictions, and even different examiners, have different criteria, and the courts have simply left it to the experts' judgment."

Again, not that different from the "assault weapons" legislation across the country.

"In addition, we have no idea how often two individuals -- whose prints would indeed look different if we had access to a complete set of 10 undistorted prints -- might have partial fingerprints that resemble each other enough for an examiner reasonably to mistake them as coming from the same person, especially when the print lifted from the crime scene might be smudged and distorted."

& similarly this is a flaw in the ballistic fingerprinting concepts that have been pushed around: the idea that a partial match is conclusive proof that the two prints came from the same source.

Here's ballistic fingerprinting in a nutshell:

Ballistic fingerprinting is suppossed to match the "unique" markings left on the projectile to the barrel that made them.

However, one must remember that the markings a barrel will leave on a projectile will change over time. A projectile of lead or any other metal travels down a steel barrel at great speed - often faster than the speed of sound. This creates friction which wears on both the projectile & the barrel. The same process that imprints markings from the barrel on the projectile wears down the barrel itself. The rate of this wear is dependent upon several variables not the least of which is projectile speed. Some cartridges are more wear intensive than others, but all cartridges cause this wear to some degree or the other. In fact, many gunsmiths could make a decent living off of rebarrelling alone. Some cartridges in common use for certain shooting sports (namely benchrest competition) will wear down the rifling in a barrel to the point that accuracy suffers because the bullet no longer tightly fits the barrel. This can happen in as little as a few hundred rounds, although most rifle cartridges will not degrade accuracy of a barrel for at least a few thousand rounds.

So the markings left by the barrel itself tend to change with use.

Another variable is intentional alteration of the barrel. A piece of No.4 steel wool run down a barrel a few times will alter a barrel enough that it cannot be matched with 100% certainty to the projectile that it shot last. A pocket knife, coat hanger or any other piece of metal can later a barrel's "unique" markings in a matter of seconds.

& this notion of matching a projectile to a barrel is further nullified when dealing with shotguns, which with a few exceptions, have no rifling at all to make a mark & typically fire shot (many projectiles) in a protective plastic cup.

Ballistic fingerprinting is completely erroneous, except as an example of how unscrupulous or ignorant politicians will use junk science to further a prejudicial goal.

Professor Jennifer L. Mnookin's article is an excellent response to those who keep insisting that ballistic fingerprinting is as accurate as biometric fingerprinting. They may in fact even be correct. Ballistic fingerprinting may be as accurate as biometric fingerprinting in certain cases. They just don't realize that those cases would be where biometric fingerprinting is as accurate as the witch dunking test abandoned in the 17th century.

A meme is floating around that asks 5 questions of a blogger. I first happened upon it over at Walter In Denver's blog. It's more or less a short interview initiated at the request of the interviewed party. I'll post the rules to this at the bottom.

Walter was gracious enough to ask me 5 questions & here are the answers:

1. If you could choose either a) modern America or b)a new country that
completely bans guns but has no taxes or other restrictions on civil
liberties, which would you take?

Modern America. Not that I'm particularly happy with the way things are & seem to be headed, but it is inevitable that a disarmed populace will be subjected. So while this gunless utopia may seem cool now, odds are it won't stay that way for long & the people won't have the means to resist forceful degradation of their Rights.

2. Where is your favorite camp site in Colorado?

I haven't actually had a chance to camp since I've been out here, but there's a spot I have my eye on near where I go turkey hunting. So forgive me if I can't disclose the exact location. It's around the wet mountains of the Sangre de Cristo range.

3. Is there anyone currently in the State Lege who would make a good US
congresscritter?

I would say Marilyn Musgrave, but she's already made the jump from state to federal politics.
I have little experience with the Colorado legislature, aside from the form letters I get when I write my reps. So I can tell you more than a few who shouldn't be public servants (especially since they don't act like public servants now) but the only current Colorado congresscritter I could say might be an o.k. federal congresscritter is Greg Brophy. I say this with some reservation since I don't know much about his stance on other issues, but anyone who introduces a bill to make concealed carry without a permit legal is probably closer to being a good guy than a bad one.

4. What's an appropriate prison term for the average member of
congress?

Well, I think prison might be the wrong punishment. Lately I'm thinking more & more that the "tarred & feathered" approach was abandoned way too early.
But to answer the question let's say 1 year for every vote for an unconstitutional law, & 1 year for every vote against a repeal of a constitutional law. So a life sentence in most cases.

5. What music do you listen to which would suprise people if they knew,
i.e. disco?

Yep - disco. Earth Wind & Fire did some technically impressive stuff. I listen to Funk as well as Light jazz, R&B (old & new), Country, Blues, Classical, Reggae & a few other genres. But perhaps the most surprising is Beach Music. No, not Jan & Dean. Beach Music. You know - music to Shag to. That good ol' beer drinking music. (even though I don't drink beer - I'm more partial to Bourbon, Amaretto & other fine spirits.) This probably comes from spending too many years playing in beach bands on the country club circuit in the south. It grows on ya after a while.

Thanks to Walter in Denver for taking the time to ask 5 questions.

THE RULES

1. Leave a comment, saying you want to be interviewed.
2. I will respond; I'll ask you five questions.
3. You'll update your blog with my five questions, and your five answers.
4. You'll include this explanation.
5. You'll ask other people five questions when they want to be interviewed.

The Denver Post has once again, through its editorial section, proven that it is of less value than a used roll of Charmin for any of your paper product needs.

They want to stop the "Wild West" bill that would allow people in Colorado to not have to beg for permission & pay fees to exercise a Right.

The bill is to be heard in a house committee next week.

"Rep. Greg Brophy's attempt to turn Colorado streets into the gun-slinging Old West will only jeopardize the rights of responsible gun owners."

The rest of the article goes along those same lines.

All I can really say is that when the revolution comes I hope those statist worshipping bastards at the Denver Post think their names will be on the list of friends of the people.

It's really just becoming too damn easy to fisk assholes such as those who hide behind the name of the editorial board of the Denver Post*. I just don't have the heart (well, time actually - I always have the heart to correct this kind of erroneous BS) to do it right now.

Tell ya what: any of y'all care to fisk this article send it to me & I'll post it here (depending upon quality of course). Just try to keep it clean.


Now one thing about this bill: it ain't just the idiocy at tyhe Denver Post we have to contend with. Odds are the NRA's state affiliate (The Colorado State Shooting Association) will oppose it as well. The reasons are long & complex but here's the simple version of the plan (This would apply concerning the bill to almost double the hunting & fishing license fees as well):

Write letters to the editor, talk to your neighbors, etc... but do something a bit more difficult. Instead of just threatening your congresscritter to note vote for him if he votes the wrong way, you have to call your por-gun org & tell them in no uncertain terms if they don't back up your Rights on these issues no amount of justification, excuses or other forms of BS will get you to continue being a member. Any org, & I don't care what their reputation is, that will oppose a Vermont-style CCW law &/or support jacking up hunting costs by over 66% is not an org whose association you'll miss in life.

The hard part is following through. If any org you belong to tries to back out, compromise, or generally seel you down the river for their own gain, leave the bastards. Resign your membership even if it expires next week, explain why, explain why yet again every time they call you asking for donations or membership renewal & most importantly tell them nothing will alter your disgust with them short of them delivering Vermont-style CCW & a decrease in hunting fees.

It's tough cause we not only have to fight the anti's, but we have to fight the groups that claim to be on our side. Hell, I'd feel better being backed by the French.

More on all of this as I can get to it.

* The names of those statist worshipping bastards on the editorial board of the Denver Post are:

William Dean Singleton, chairman and publisher;
Bob Ewegen, deputy editorial page editor;
Todd Engdahl, assistant editorial page editor;
Peter G. Chronis, Angela Cortez, Dan Haley and Penelope Purdy , editorial writers;
Mike Keefe, cartoonist;
Barbara Ellis, news editors;
Fred Brown and Barrie Hartman, associate members.

Please remember that the next time one of them walks into your space to do some business. Smile when you tell them to get the hell out cause you don't trade with vermin who'd have us all on all fours like common beasts. (feel fre to insert your own colloquialisms though).

Unfortunately I'm still pressed for time, but this post & the one that follows will be about virtually self fisking subjects.

First of all Sen. Feinstein has done the unthinkable; she's added a rider to the firearms manufacturers immunity bill. The rider, which can be viewed here, will make the "assault weapons" ban permanent, along with a provision banning the import of "high" capacity magazines. Now from what I understand the rider is not definitively attached, but it has 12 co-sponsors so far & odds are it'd get approved by the Senate.

No big surprise. The real question is will the NRA withdraw support from this bill if the rider isn't removed or will they compromise away our rights for another political feather in their cap?

Bug 'em about doing the right thing, & drop a dime to your senators as well. Least that way you can say you've tried.

But the way things are looking, the NRA will probably continue to support the bill despite the rider & try to make excuses to us about having a tough choice or that the AWB would have been renewed anyway.

If you're living in Colorado there's a couple of things that you should know about.

The first is that the Colorado Department of Wildlife wants to increase fees for resident hunting & fishing licenses. & they've convinced a legislator to introduce a bill in the house that would do just that. Initially they were going for a 100% increase of most fess, but realized that would tick off a lot of people, so they dropped it to a 66% increase for some fees in an amended form of the bill.

What's worse is that the premise for this is that the DOW feels that it's underselling its "resource" & thereby not making as much profit as possible. Now this is a fine thing for a private business dealing with privately owned property, but in effect they're saying that the government owns the wildlife & will charge what it wishes for it. It's been recommended to proceed to the House for a vote.

They're also a bill that would decriminalize unlicensed concealed carry. It seems to be similar to Alaska's recently passed law in that it would leave the permit system in place for those who wish to carry in states that honor Colorado's CCW permits but would not require a person to have a permit to carry concealed in Colorado. It's been assigned to the States, Veterans & Military Affairs committee of the House. Here's a summary of the bill from Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.

There are some other bills, such as one to get rid of the database of CCW holders & another to remove the SS# requirement for hunting & fishing licenses. You can find info on all the pertinent firearms related legislation here courtesy of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.

I'll try to have more on these a bit later on, but in the meantime call your Reps & Senators & make sure they know how you want them to vote on these bills.

My posting has been sporadic & will probably continue to be so for a short while. I regret this as this blog has helped me feel like I've been doing something (albeit a very little something) good for the cause. So I offer my apologies to those who stop by regularly & are dissappointed at the lack of recent posts.

It was a year ago today that this blog started. Not the most impressive first posts on the net, but hey- we all gotta start someplace. I would prefer you remember some other posts from the first few weeks & I'll list them at the bottom of this post.

I had envisioned this as a group blog, not a solo project. & in fact I have two co-bloggers. One is a friend from the G&A 2nd Amendment Forum named Mark, the other is a very talented writer named Nicki. Mark has only been able to post once (due to a very busy life) but he was the one who turned me on to blogs & told me where to look to set this one up. Hopefully he'll get hold of more free time & when he does you'll be treated to a very insightful perspective concerning all things gun. Nicki has written for the NRA & Armed Females of America. She's another one with a busy life but her posts have been insightful & a much welcome addition.

I would also be remiss in not mentioning Jeff, Rachel, Kevin, Jen, Matt, Uncle & Miss Annika (to name a few) who helped promote this blog & who may have actually stopped by to read it once or twice.

& special thanks to Jen for being the first commentor & Gunner for being the most frequent.

So thanks to all of you who have stopped by &/or commented &/or linked to Publicola in the last year. It's been a slow start to 2004 but posting will pick up. Although I sincerely hope that within the year there won't be a need for blogs such as ours & we can revert back to talking about more pleasant issues. (hey- it's possible. Unlikely as hell, but possible.)



Reasons against CCW permits From February 03, 2003

Concealed carry & prior restraint: why it's not like shouting fire in a crowded theater From February 16, 2003

Fuddite From February 17th, 2003

Rights are Absolute From March 9th, 2003

Colorado's new CCW vs. Colorado's old CCW vs. Colorado's proposed but tabled CCW From April 03, 2003

The Means, Knowledge & Will to Resist From April 10, 2003

From the co-bloggers:

On the Illinois Democrats' issuance of a call for the ban of the .500 S & W Magnum revolver By Mark From February 20, 2003

Dissent at the G&A board will not be tolerated By Nicki From November 03, 2003

Allison Brown converts By Nicki From November 12, 2003

There are some really scary people among the enemies of freedom By Nicki From November 26, 2003

A New Study Says Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence By Nicki From November 30, 2003

The Travesty of Justice Continues in Florida By Nicki From December 04, 2003

Florida citizens have some strong words for the tyrannical bureaucrats who continue to victimize Melvin Spaulding By Nicki From December 04, 2003

Reaction to Peter Mancus' Reflections Upon the U.S. Supreme Court's Rejection of Silveira By Nicki From December 04, 2003

I missed the State of the Union speech last night, but thanks to Spoons & many others I think I've gotten the gist of it.

Of interest was the following from Bush:

"There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."

Hmm. So he says the U.S. does not need permission slips to defend itself yet in this very nation U.S. citizens need & often do not receive permission slips to defend themselves, their families & communities. D.C., NYC, & Chicago come to mind, as do national parks & airports. Odds are this irony completely slipped by his speech writers, and was apperently missed by Bush himself.

Via The Volokh Conspiracy I found a link to a post on the Constitutional nature of the State of the Union Address. No permalinks as Mayerblog seems to be brand new, so scroll down to the post from January 20th entitled The Unconstitutional State of the Union Address. Give it a read.

Now this is funny. In this thread from The High Road a rather amusing story about a pro-Kucinich website unfolds. The website original used this picture entitled "Guns Kill" (found at the top of the article) to emphasize Kucinich's willingness to "save the children" from unregulated gun violance. It was found about halfway down the page underneath yje "On Gun Control" section next to a link that explained how Kucinich had voted "no" on a bill reducing the NICS waiting period for guns show purchases to a maximum of 24 hours. The link carries you here where you'll find out more in depth about Kucinich's stance on gun control. (Please note it states that Kucinich is in favor of "Renew[ing] the ban on the sale or transfer of semi-automatic guns.")

In any case, the picture that was linked to was from a pro-Right to Arms site & was used to denounce the picture & its intent, whereas the pro-Kucinich site intended it to stress the need for gun control. The pro-Right to Arms site wasn't too happy when they discovered that the pro-Kucinich site hijacked their pic, so they made a little switch. Here's the pro-Right to Arms site's explanation of event, along with the original pic & their replacement.

BTW, the pro-Right to Arms site is called Orange County Shooters.com, & that'd be Orange County, New York. While I was there I found this link which is guaranteed to make every gun owner drool.

There's another graphic in the "On Gun Control" section which also appears to be a replacement of the one originally used. It's next to a link that leads to a page that talks up an effort for Dean to get an NRA endorsement. I believe the original graphic was an NRA logo that was swiped from another pro-Right to Arms site; Students for the Second Amendment.

Here's a Yahoo cache of the website which has a slightly different graphic than the one currently replacing the NRA logo.

Ah, going back it appears they replaced the first replacement graphic with something less profane. Those crazy kids.

The pro-Kucinich website operators haven't seemed to notice the switch in graphics. & judging from their original intent they haven't noticed that pro-gun control is not how the Democrats are wanting to spin things, as it can lead to lost elections.

Hope y'all find all this as amusing as I did, & I hope the pro-Kucinich website's webmaster has other accounts as I think he'll lose this one. Once they figure things out that is.

Update: The guys at the pro-Kucinich site have figured things out & replaced the linked graphics with ones embedded on their site. (Do I get bonus points for using the word "embedded"?)

However the link above to the Yahoo cache of their page still displays the switched graphics as does this link to a screen capture of the page provided generously by The Patriette in her post about said events.

In Ohio they've passed a Shall Issue Concealed Carry Permit law. I'm no fan of CCW. It takes what should be an unfettered Right & reduces it to the legal status of privilege. For more on my problems with CCW laws, even Shall Issue, please look here, as well as here & here.

The full text (& I mean "full") of Ohio's CCW law may be found here.
Of particular instance is something stated at the end of the law on page 138 & 139:

"Section 6. In amending sections 1547.69, 2911.21, 2921.13,
2923.12, 2923.121, 2923.123, 2923.13, 2923.16, 2953.32, and
4749.10 of the Revised Code and in enacting sections 109.69,
109.731, 311.41, 311.42, and 2923.124 to 2923.1213 of the Revised
Code in this act, the General Assembly hereby declares its intent
to recognize both of the following:
(A) The inalienable and fundamental right of an individual to
defend the individual's person and the members of the individual's
family;
(B) The fact that the right described in division (A) of this
section predates the adoption of the United States Constitution,
the adoption of the Ohio Constitution, and the enactment of all
statutory laws by the General Assembly and may not be infringed by
any enactment of the General Assembly."

It further states:

"Section 7. In enacting sections 109.69, 109.731, 311.41,
311.42, and 2923.124 to 2923.1213 of the Revised Code in this act
and in amending sections 1547.69, 2911.21, 2921.13, 2923.12,
2923.121, 2923.123, 2923.13, 2923.16, 2953.32, and 4749.10 of the
Revised Code in this act relative to licenses to carry a concealed
handgun, the General Assembly hereby declares that it is not its
intent to declare or otherwise give the impression that, prior to
the effective date of this act, an individual did not have an inalienable and fundamental right, or a right under the Ohio
Constitution or the United States Constitution, to carry a
concealed handgun or other firearm for the defense of the
individual's person or a member of the individual's family while
engaged in lawful activity. Further, the General Assembly declares
that it is not its intent to invalidate any prior convictions for
violating any section of the Revised Code or a municipal ordinance
prior to the effective date of this act or to prevent the
prosecution of any violation committed prior to the effective date
of this act."

So it states that defense of self & others is an inalienable, fundamental Right, & that while it is not claiming that the Right to carry a weapon concealed was not inalienable & inherent prior to this law, neither is it claiming that any convictions for carrying concealed were in violation of that Right!

In other words, Ohio has said that self defense & the defense of others is a Right that they cannot touch, & that carrying concealed is an extention of that Right, but they're not going to correct errors made in prosecuting someone for simply exercising a Right!

This is all beside the point that a law requiring a permit to exercise a Right is repugnant to the whole concept of natural inherent Rights, & if they can concede that self defense & carrying arms are in fact Rights which pre-date the respective applicable constitutions, they should also concede that no permit is, has been or should be required merely to exercise an existing fundamental Right.

Regardless of my problems with CCW laws, there is something else in Ohio's law that is particularly nasty: at the request of the governor & the Ohio police unions, the names & addresses of Ohio CCW permit holders will be made public on request to journalists (actually this is a compromise as initially the idea was to have the names & other info about CCW permit holders available to anyone). & we all know how fair & objectively the press have treated self defense issues, particularly those involving firearms in the past. & we'd expect more of the same in the future.
In any event the practical ramifications should not take a back seat to the principled one: a person should not have his name subject to public information searches merely because he/she wishes to defend his/herself.

Here is the relevant language from page 69 of the Ohio CCW law:

(2) Upon a written request made to a sheriff and signed by a
journalist on or after the effective date of this section, the
sheriff shall disclose to the journalist the name, county of
residence, and date of birth of each person to whom the sheriff
has issued a license or replacement license to carry a concealed
handgun, renewed a license to carry a concealed handgun, or issued
a temporary emergency license or replacement temporary emergency
license to carry a concealed handgun under section 2923.125 or
2923.1213 of the Revised Code. The request shall include the
journalist's name and title, shall include the name and address of
the journalist's employer, and shall state that disclosure of the
information sought would be in the public interest.
As used in division (B)(2) of this section, "journalist"
means a person engaged in, connected with, or employed by any news
medium, including a newspaper, magazine, press association, news
agency, or wire service, a radio or television station, or a
similar medium, for the purpose of gathering, processing,
transmitting, compiling, editing, or disseminating information for
the general public."

An Ohio newspaper, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, has threatened to publish the names of all who receive concealed carry permits.

"It is this newspaper's intention to obtain this information and publish it. Our readers deserve to know the identities of those who obtain permits to carry their guns in public. We hope other news organizations will do the same in their communities." - From The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

To counter this KeepAndBearArms.com has decided to publish the names, addresses & home phone numbers of every person working at said newspaper when they start publishing the names of CCW permit holders. What makes things even more interesting is that Ravenwood as well as The Smallest Minority have decided a preemptive strike is called for.

On the links to their respective blogs you'll find the following:

I say, why wait. Lets start at the top. The Editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is Douglas Clifton. Here is his address and telephone number:
Douglas Clifton
19 Shoreby Dr
Cleveland, OH 44108-1161
Tel.: (216) 761-6577

Here is his bio. For a map to his home, click here.

& since the Cleveland Plain Dealer has urged all other Ohio newspapers to publish information about people who wish only to protect themselves, I would urge all bloggers & any others with a web site to publish the names & information of all on the Cleveland Plain Dealer's staff as well as any other newspaper which follows the Cleveland Plain Dealer's advice. Needless to say if you're in Ohio I'd also suggest dropping nay subscriptions to such "newspapers" after explaining why.

But thanks to KeepAndBearArms.com, Ravenwood & The Smallest Minority for being on top of this. & thanks to Clayton Cramer for having a link to the text of the Ohio CCW law.

A Vermont town wants to secede. Secession is not a new concept in the world, nor was it confined to the Southern States in America in the mid-19th century. In fact there are several secessionist movements in the U.S. today. What is notable is that since the War of North'en Aggression the "question" of secession was presumed to have been settled by the force of the federal government. Of course I find this erroneous just as most people would find that because someone is stornger than another that person is not in fact stealing when he takes the weaker person's possessions by force. Here's an earlier post I did on secession & some reasons why it's still a legitimate idea.

Getting back to this particular case, we find that the source of the discontent with Killington is that Vermont seems to be taxing the town as if it were just another revenue source, thus causing their desire to secede & ally themselves with New Hampshire which lacks the taxation they find so burdensome.

Of course the town is drawing parallels to the various taxing measures brought about in the colonies by Great Britain in the mid-18th century.

"It kind of reminds us of Colonial days,' Town Manager David Lewis said Thursday. 'The Colonies were being faced with the Stamp Act, the Tea Act, the Sugar Act. England wasn't giving them any rights. They were treating the Colonies as just a revenue source."

So perhaps it's understandable why they wish to leave Vermont. They plan to put the issue of secession before the townspeople in the March elections.

But in steps Vermont:

"Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz said Killington has little chance of secession 'absent an armed insurrection type of thing. ... A town is a construction of the state and exists at the pleasure of the Legislature."

A town exists at the pleasure of the state? If Killington's desire to leave Vermont garnered little sympathy before I'd assume that statements such as that would cause a change of heart. A town is an organization of communities that have bonded together for their common interests, usually bigger than a village but smaller than a city.

From Merriam Webster we find a unique definition as pertaining to New England:

"6 : a New England territorial and political unit usually containing under a single town government both rural areas and urban areas not having their own charter of incorporation; also : a New England community governed by a town meeting"

I have seen nothing that would define a town as a place, unit or organization that is constructed by & for the state. To suggest that is very insulting to the town in question, & should be taken as offensive by all towns within that state.

So if Killington wishes to leave Vermont, I see no reason why it should not. & if Vermont's Secretary of State has an attitude typical of Vermont's governing body, then I can hardly blame them, nor could I fault Killington if an armed insurrection were the course they had to pursue to achieve it. I would even go so far as to offer any assitance possible to Killington, not so much because I agree with the specific issues they have, but because if a community wishes to shatter the political bonds that they feel are no longer beneficial, then that is their Right.

Odds are though that the Secretary of State's insults will be overlooked by most people & Vermont will strong arm any thoughts of secession out of the townsfolk of Killington. Hopefully I'll be mistaken, but chances of Killington actually seceding are slim, despite the townsfolk's wishes.

End The War On Freedom reports of a man who seems to have received less than a fair trial in a tax evasion case. What's worse is that after the miscarraige of justice that the judge attempted to pass off as a trial, the man was convicted of 29 counts.

USDC Judge John McBryde & Assistant US Attorney Jarvis are the ones who should have been on trial. Fortunately an appeal is planned & barring any prejudice on the courts part should be succesful.

Here's an account of the trial so y'all can decide for yourself.