As Say Uncle & Geek With A .45 have already mentioned, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Self Defense Gun Violence along with the Dozen Million Mom March has filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General & the BATF.

In essence the lawsuit boils down to this: because the ATF & by extension the AG have allowed manufacturers to replace &/or repair pre- "assault ban" firearms they have thus allowed new manufacture in "assault weapons" & have violated the ban.

From the Brady Campaign's press release:

"The documents obtained through FOIA included private correspondence between ATF and Bushmaster Firearms of Windham, Maine in which ATF repeatedly gave Bushmaster permission to manufacture new "receivers" to replace damaged receivers for semiautomatic assault weapons that were possessed before the Assault Weapon Act went into effect in 1994 and thus were protected by the Act's 'grandfather' clause."

Now if you follow the link in the Brady Campaign's press release you'll note (as Geek With a .45 so aptly pointed out) that the correspondence in question occurred in 1996 & 1997. That would mean that Reno would have been the Ag at the time - not Ashcroft. Lord knows I'm not happy with our current AG but it'd have been much more appropriate if they dragged Reno's name into the suit since this happened under her watch.

& the above paragraph is merely a non-relevant aside, as nothing illegal was done! There have been procedures in place since unique serial numbers were required on firearms to deal with replacing damaged firearms. It's simply a way of repairing &/or replacing a firearm while maintaining records required by law.

Now firearms will perhaps always contain a unique serial number. This is as much for inventory control on the part of the company as anything. If all federal firearms laws were wiped off the books tomorrow (hey - a guy can dream can't he?) manufacturers would still stamp a serial number on some main component of the firearm just so they can keep track of production, sales, & other accounting concerns.

But the practice decried here by the Brady Campaign is simply a way of doing business in firearms that is mandated by federal law: if a damaged receiver is replaced then it must be replaced with a receiver that contains the serial number of the original, damaged receiver (or for some reason barring that much paperwork must be filled out & approval granted to use a different serial number).

I must stress that the damaged receiver is not used again in manufacturing. So it's not like a person trades in one receiver for a new one & the gun manufacturer turns around & sells the damaged receiver again. It's an exchange which does not add to the number of pre-ban "assault weapons" currently on the market.

"When Congress 'grandfathered' assault weapons legally possessed when the assault weapon ban was passed, it expected that over time the number of grandfathered assault weapons in circulation would gradually decline, as the guns became nonfunctional due to wear and tear. According to the lawsuit, the Justice Department's enforcement policy ensures, instead, that thousands of grandfathered assault weapons will remain functional into the foreseeable future. At the time the statute was enacted in 1994, ATF estimated there were approximately two million assault weapons in circulation."

Note the scare quotes around grandfathered.

But here's the underlying reason why the Brady campaign filed the suit: it hoped that attrition would reduce the number of grandfathered "assault weapons". When they discovered that it was perfectly legal to replace a pre-ban receiver, they started to have visions of loopholes dance in their heads & did what they usually do when the legislation they demanded fails to ban each & every firearm in civilian possession: they take it to court.

Now if it was the intent of Congress to not allow for the repair &/or replacement of the grandfathered "assault weapons" then I would assume that someone would have introduced language in the "assault weapons" ban to that effect. But considering that they didn't & that the ban was destined from the outset to expire in ten years I'd have to say that Congress did not intend to prevent replacement of worn or damaged pre-ban receivers.

& this makes me wonder how many bank robbers, gang bangers & other people with harmful, criminal intent are sending in their damaged pre-ban receivers to the gun manufacturers to be replaced? After all the whole premise of the Brady Campaign is that these pre-ban "assault weapons" are used extensively by criminals to gun down innocent citizens & cops alike, so do any of you know if the Cryps or any other criminal organization is sending in their pre-ban AR-15's because they're shooting them so much that the receiver's are wearing out? I'd imagine worn &/or damaged parts would happen much more frequently on the full auto firearms they got through the black market, but perhaps the Brady Campaign has more info on this than I do.

The fact of the matter is that firearms that are built & designed properly & cared for appropriately do not wear out major components in anything close to a short amount of time. Barring neglect &/or misuse (using improper ammo or inadequate maintenance) a firearm that was built when your grandparents were youngin's will still perform as designed today. Just off the top of my head I can point to two firearms that I own as examples of this: one was made in 1917 & the other in 1943. They both fire cartridges far more powerful than the typical "assault weapon"; both have been used in war (which is usually a bit harsher on a firearm - or any piece of machinery - than monthly trips to the local range & the occasional hunt) & both still put 5 shots into a space less than two inches at 100 yards. & one of them is a semi-automatic which functions identically to most of the banned “assault weapons”.

So for Congress to assume that a firearm manufactured a decade or two before the ban would cease to be operative prior to the expiration of the ban (again - ten years from enactment) they would have had to have less knowledge about metallurgy & firearms design than the average 16 year old in rural North Carolina. (This is purely anecdotal but when I was growing up in NC I heard many an adult tell their kids that if they took care of their rifles that they’d be able to pass them on to their children. Many of the rifles in question were passed on by the grandparent to the father to the son.)

So again, the practice of replacing worn &/or damaged receivers does not add to the number of "assault weapons" available on the market & it cannot be reasonably said that Congress intended in the space of ten years for the number of grandfathered firearms to be reduced through normal wear & tear.

Now would you like to know what type of person does require a periodic replacement of a receiver on an AR-15 type firearm? Competitive shooters. The AR-15 style firearms (which are mainly what Bushmaster manufactures) are by far the most popular type of firearm found in High Power matches. High Power matches have a few variations, but the mainstay is the Service Rifle competition. That particular discipline is limited to using rifles identical in form & function to rifles the U.S. military uses (with exceptions to cover civilian versions of military weapons). I'm a bit old fashioned as I shoot the M1 Garand in these matches. A few others still use the M1A (which is the semi-automatic version of the M14). But most people use an AR-15 type rifle. The only differences between the AR-15 used in these matches & the M16 issued by Uncle Sam are that the AR-15’s are semi-automatic only & since 1994 can be used in post-"assault weapons" ban configuration (i.e. not having a bayonet lug or flash hider is permissible). Other than making it possible to compete with firearms that don’t have certain banned features the rules of Service Rifle matches dictate that the firearm be identical to the firearms issued by the military.

Now depending upon where you live the season for High Power Rifle can last from 6 months to 9 months. Here in Colorado there are 3 clubs that hold High Power Matches. In January, February & March only one club holds matches & that's one match per month. Likewise that same club has a monthly match into November whereas the other clubs usually stop having matches in September or October. But let's say 6 months have 3 clubs holding one match per month, with one club holding 4 other matches in 4 other months. That's 22 matches per year excluding state, regional or national championships. Each match consists of 80 shots being fired for record, with the possibility of 8 rounds fired to adjust your sights. 88 rounds x 22 matches = 1936 rounds fired in matches alone. Double that to account for practice & we arrive at 3872 rounds fired per year. Over 5 years that'd be 19,360 rounds & over a decade it'd equate to 38,720 rounds fired.

Now some people won't fire that many rounds through the same firearm (either because they use different firearms for different matches or they don't compete in all available matches) but then again some people will fire many more rounds than that. Now if you're serious about competing you'll change the barrel every 6,000 to 8,000 rounds or so (sometimes more often or less often than that depending upon the level of accuracy you expect). So let's say you change the barrel out at the 8,000 round mark. That'd mean you'd be close to buying your 5th barrel in a ten year period of competing. Now to be honest I do not know what the typical AR-15 type receiver is capable of withstanding in terms of rounds fired through it. But I'd say the possibility of a receiver becoming worn through almost 40,000 rounds & 4 barrel changes in a decade is not unreasonable (of course if any AR-15 shooters wish to correct me I'd appreciate it). & it is possible to damage the receiver during a barrel change (not very likely, but it is possible), so perhaps in much less time a receiver replacement or repair would be necessary.

All this is to demonstrate that those with the most potential for having a damaged or worn receiver (barring a manufacturing defect of course) are competition shooters. The very same "sportsmen" that gun control groups such as the Brady Campaign claim to not be the targets of their disarmament efforts.

BTW, have y'all forgotten that the "assault weapons" ban has a name that immediately screams of hypocrisy? Its title as a bill was The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. Funny isn't it how the main use for the most popular "assault weapon" is in legitimate sporting competition. High Power matches have been around since the early 1900's & an act of Congress created the first national championships in the early 1900's. Its purpose (then as now) was to encourage the practice of marksmanship with rifles & pistols identical to those issued by the U.S. armed forces. Yet in 1994 they banned the new manufacture & sale of the AR-15 because it had a bayonet lug, flash hider, pistol grip & could accept a magazine with a capacity over ten rounds. Never mind the rules of a 90+ year old sport had to be altered to accommodate this new law & the main affect it had was on making the people who participated in this sport spend more money on pre-ban rifles or make adjustments to their technique (as removing the bayonet lug & flash hider, while minor things by themselves, do have an effect on the point of impact as it changes the harmonics of the barrel), they figured that having something in the title about protection sports shooting would make everything okay.

In any event, here's a copy of the complaint the Brady Campaign filed. In it you'll find the usual allegations about "assault weapons" being the weapon of choice of criminals & their mere presence (the "assault weapons" - not the criminals) increasing the danger for everyone, especially cops. There is an anecdote about a cop in Detroit who was killed while wearing a bullet proof vest, but they did have the decency to point out that the projectiles entered gaps in his bullet proof vest (although odds are his vest wasn't rated to stop rifle fire, so if a rifle was used the point of impact wouldn't have mattered).

Aside from the statements about various members of the Brady campaign that live in bad neighborhoods & have to lock their doors at night as well as supervise their children while they play (all because of "assault weapons") there is one factual error I must point out.

From the complaint:

"24. The Assault Weapons Act makes it unlawful “to manufacture, transfer or possess a
semiautomatic assault weapon” or to transfer or possess a “large capacity ammunition feeding
device.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(v)(1)."

Now this is taken out of context. While in & of itself it is factual its meaning is misconstrued if one fails to include 18 U.S.C. § 922(v)(2) which states:

"Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection."

& further in 18 U.S.C. § 922(v)(3)(A)

"any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;"

& further if we look in 18 U.S.C. § 922(w) we will find the following:

"(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection."

But if you doubt me you're more than welcome - nay, you're encouraged to look at 18 U.S.C. § 922 for yourself. Just scroll down to the appropriate sections.

Now the complaint does finally make this clear at Item 29 & I would hope any sitting judge would be able to make the connection between Item 29 & Item 24 but it could have been written a little more clearly: rather than reading item 24 & thinking the "assault weapons" ban dealt with possession only to find out at Item 29 that the ban was solely on new manufacture for the non-LE0 market (yes there are exemptions for retired LEO's in the "assault weapons" ban - you'll find them at 18 U.S.C. § 922(v)(4)(c) & 18 U.S.C. § 922(w)(3)(c) respectively) it could have been included in the same item to make the law clear, both for the convenience of judges who aren't familiar with the law in question & for the laypeople who might read the complaint.

Now further in the complaint it reveals the exchange between the ATF & the Brady Campaign. The Brady Campaign contacted the ATF in 2003 & told them they must not only stop the practice of allowing damaged receivers to be replaced by the manufacturer, but must order all the replacement receivers made & distributed since 1994 be deemed contraband & confiscated.

What follows is more or less the ATF saying they won't do that & they're complying with the law & the Brady Campaign saying that they aren't. But here's the gist of the Brady Campaign's argument with the ATF:

They feel that since a receiver made after the effective date is an "assault weapon" all by itself then the ATF is allowing the law to be violated.

Now the ATF counters with the idea that a receiver in & of itself is not an "assault weapon". It's only a completed rifle that qualifies as an "assault weapon". Now if receivers were considered "assault weapons" all by their lonesome, then no AR-15 type rifles or AK-47 type rifles or Ruger 10/22's would have been made since 1994 as all three examples can be easily made into an "assault weapon" by adding certain features (such as a flash hider & folding stock)

Now if we look at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30) we'll find the definition of "assault weapon" as it is to be applied to 18 U.S.C. § 922(v).

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(A)(i) through (ix) lists specific firearms by name. Among the notables are the Colt AR-15 as well as the Steyr AUG & Fabrique National FN/FAL. It says copies or duplicates of the named firearms are included. But what's lacking is a description of what is considered a copy or a duplicate. One would assume that if FN Herstal manufactured an FN/FAL but called it Model X1094 it would be considered a copy or duplicate. So how is it that AR-15 or FN/FAL type rifles are being manufactured legally?

In 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(B) we find a description of proscribed items:

"a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher; "

Now if they manufactured an FN/FAL but made some significant change, such as omitting the flash hider, bayonet lug & giving it a thumbhole stock then you couldn't really call it a copy or a duplicate since it differs enough from the original to be considered a variant based on the original, but not a copy or duplicate thereof. & since it doesn't include the features specified in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(B) we can make a reasonable inference that the objections to the rifles specified in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(A) were that they possessed the specifically mentioned features. Since the post-ban rifles are not duplicates or copies, but variations of the named firearms, & since they do no contain the objectionable features they simply don't violate the law.

& the key thing is 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(B) since it mentions features which are common to all the rifles mentioned in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(A).

So a post ban receiver could be used to make either a post ban "assault weapon" or a post-ban firearm. The law simply does not confuse potential use with actual use in this case, therefore it would be erroneous to say the law prevents the manufacture of any receiver which could be used to assemble a post-ban "assault weapon".

To further illustrate this point anyone who is eligible to purchase a firearm could go to Wal-Mart & spend $160 on a Ruger 10/22. Through a little judicious shopping one could then spend $80 or so for a folding stock for a Ruger 10/22. Mating the Ruger 10/22 to a folding stock would be creating a post-ban "assault weapon" & thus violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(v) as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(B). So to follow the Brady Campaign's logic the ATF would be forced to deem all Ruger 10/22 receiver's as contraband & start confiscating them since the receivers are capable of being used in an “assault weapon” & are not marked in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 923(i) which reads in its relevant part:

"...The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured..."

I just checked mine & Ruger does not have the date stamped on the receiver, even though according to the Brady Campaign's argument my Ruger 10/22 is an "assault weapon" since the receiver has the potential to be assembled into a complete firearm that violates the ban.

Only rifles that are assembled can qualify as an "assault weapon". Further if you were to remove the features that made a rifle into an "assault weapon" then you would clearly not have an "assault weapon" as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(B).

Now another flaw with the Brady Campaign's logic is that all the replaced receivers will be used for assembling an "assault weapon". For example let's look at the AR-15 type rifles which Bushmaster primarily manufactures.

By their design they come with a pistol grip & the ability to accept a detachable magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds so one more proscribed feature would make this into an "assault weapon". But let's assume that the owner of said rifle is a High Power Rifle shooter. Let's further assume that he has been using custom made barrels which do no utilize a flash hider or a bayonet lug. & since he's shooting in competitions the odds of him having a collapsible or folding stock are nil (I believe they're not legal in match use according to the rules of the game, but I could be mistaken). Now despite his having a pre-ban receiver that was originally used on an "assault weapon" his replacement receiver may in fact be used to assemble a firearm that would not violate the "assault weapons" ban even if he had used a brand new receiver instead of a pre-ban receiver. He merely has the option of assembling it as an "assault weapon". So it's entirely possible that the bulk of these replaced receivers are being used to facilitate the continued use of firearms that do not meet the definition of an “assault weapon”.

The Brady Campaign's argument, if taken to its logical conclusion, would cause virtually every semi-automatic firearm manufactured since 1994 to be deemed contraband & become subject to confiscation. Hell, if we apply this reasoning across the board then ever firearm ever made (excluding muzzle loading firearms) would be in violation of the NFA of ’34 as they could be made to have a barrel less than 16” (or less than 18” for shotguns); be fitted with a sound suppressor or in the case of handguns be fitted with a detachable shoulder stock. Now this result wouldn’t bother the Brady Campaign as it would expedite their main goal which is to disarm everyone except those who work for the government, but I guaran-damn-teeya it would not be a popular concept amongst most Americans.

Now at Item 64 we find the following:

"Despite the fact that the Assault Weapons Act defines a frame or receiver as the 'firearm' for purposes of the ban, see 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(B), ATF stated in its October 30, 2003, letter that '[t]he definition of a SAW necessarily involves a complete firearm, with specified parts. Until the frame or receiver is assembled with all the component parts necessary to make a complete weapon, it cannot be determined whether the weapon is a SAW or a sporting firearm.”

Now 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3) has the following definitions:

"(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; "

But those definitions were in 18 U.S.C. § 921 long before the “assault weapons” ban was drafted. So it is incorrect to say that the “assault weapons” ban defined a receiver as a firearm since the definition of “firearm” already existed in 18 U.S.C. § 921. The reason a receiver was defined as a firearm had nothing to do with the “assault weapons” ban; it was simply to clarify which part of a firearm would carry the serial number & be subject to (unconstitutional) federal regulations such as the NFA of ’34 & the GCA of ’68 to name a few.

As I pointed out earlier the Brady Campaign is using flawed logic to claim that a receiver by itself constitutes an “assault weapon” since a receiver that can be used to make an “assault weapon” can be made into a firearm that does not fit the definition of “assault weapon” as found in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(B).

The Brady Campaign doesn’t seem to understand that a receiver manufactured before the effective date of the “assault weapons” ban can be made into an “assault weapon” or a firearm that isn’t considered an “assault weapon”, just as they can’t seem to understand a receiver made after the effective date of the “assault weapons” ban cannot legally be made into an “assault weapon” for civilian use. They seem to be reasoning that since receivers are identified as “pre” or “post” ban that this supports their theory that the receiver itself is subject to the “assault weapons” ban no matter what type of firearm it is actually assembled into. Or at least that’s what their arguments would have us believe.

At Item 70 the Brady Campaign alleges that the ATF violated the law by allowing Bushmaster to issue replacement receivers that did not have the exact same serial number as the damaged receiver. But if we look at 27 C.F.R. § 478.22 we find that there are alternative & emergency measures which may be applied for & granted under certain circumstances when dealing with administrative issues. So for their claim to be valid in this regard they’d have to demonstrate exactly how the variance that was granted Bushmaster was not in accord with 27 C.F.R. § 478.22(a) which states:

"(1) Good cause is shown for the use of the alternate method or procedure;
(2) The alternate method or procedure is within the purpose of, and consistent with the effect intended by, the specifically prescribed method or procedure and that the alternate method or procedure is substantially equivalent to that specifically prescribed method or procedure; and
(3) The alternate method or procedure will not be contrary to any provision of law and will not result in an increase in cost to the Government or hinder the effective administration of this part. Where the licensee desires to employ an alternate method or procedure, a written application shall be submitted to the appropriate Director of Industry Operations, for transmittal to the Director. The application shall specifically describe the proposed alternate method or procedure and shall set forth the reasons for it. Alternate methods or procedures may not be employed until the application is approved by the Director. The licensee shall, during the period of authorization of an alternate method or procedure, comply with the terms of the approved application. Authorization of any alternate method or procedure may be withdrawn whenever, in the judgment of the Director, the effective administration of this part is hindered by the continuation of the authorization."

They do not seem to make any case other than the ATF granted variances from the usual procedure therefore it violated the law.

In Item 76 they cite 27 C.F.R. § 478.92 as having been violated as Bushmaster was not told they had to stamp the replacement receivers with either the date of manufacture or “Restricted Law Enforcement/Government Use Only” or “For Export Only”. But if we look at 27 C.F.R. § 478.92(a)(3) we find the following:

"Special markings for semiautomatic assault weapons, effective
July 5, 1995. In the case of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after September 13, 1994, you must mark the frame or receiver ``RESTRICTED LAW ENFORCEMENT/GOVERNMENT USE ONLY'' or, in the case of weapons manufactured for export, ``FOR EXPORT ONLY,'' in a manner not susceptible of being readily obliterated, altered, or removed. For weapons manufactured or imported on and after January 30, 2002, the engraving, casting, or stamping (impressing) of the special markings prescribed in this paragraph (a)(3) must be to a minimum depth of .003 inch."

Please note that it speaks of marking the receiver when an “assault weapon” is made. Now if the receiver itself is an “assault weapon’ under the law then why would the regulations state that when an “assault weapon” is made the receiver must be stamped? Wouldn’t it have said that when a receiver is manufactured that is defined as an “assault weapon” it must be treated in the described manner? By implication the regulation itself differentiates between a receiver & an “assault weapon”.

But the most substantive rebuttal to the Brady Campaign’s argument concerning how the receiver is to be marked can be found in 27 C.F.R. § 478.92(a)(4)(i):

"Exceptions. (i) Alternate means of identification. The Director may authorize other means of identification upon receipt of a letter application from you, submitted in duplicate, showing that such other identification is reasonable and will not hinder the effective administration of this part."

If they would have just bothered reading the paragraph below the one they claimed was violated, they might have seen that it wasn’t violated as there is a provision that allows exceptions.

But I sincerely doubt that the Brady Campaign filed this due to a misreading of the law. Their complaint is simply an attempt to expand the scope of the “assault weapons” ban through the judiciary & I’m a firm believer in never attributing to ignorance what can be explained by malice.

The lawsuit filed by the Brady Campaign & the Dozen Million Mom March stand a fair chance of proceeding to trial if they can get it before the right judge. & filing in the District of Columbia won’t hurt the odds of that happening one bit.

Now I hope that this will be dismissed with prejudice as it’s based on some fairly obvious misreading of the law. Then again all of the gun control laws on the federal level are based upon blatant misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment & few if any judges seem to recognize that. If this case did make it to trial & was presided over by a fair & competent judge I wouldn’t doubt for a minute that I could argue against it & win decisively even though I’m not a lawyer. But considering the difficulty in finding a fair & competent judge in that particular district (especially when it comes to firearms related issues) then I’d say that the case has a chance of being successful.

I may need some help from any & all of y'all in Indiana. It seems that Fort Wayne.com is thinking about publishing the names of concealed carry permit holders. They have received some negative responses after they mentioned they intended to make the names available online so now they're going to think about it some more.

Quite honestly the idea of publishing the names of gun owners because they were forced to aquire a license is adding insult to injury. The violent criminals don't usually apply for licenses yet they carry when & where they wish. But peaceful citizens have to grovel & bribe their government to let them have permission to exercise what should be respected as a Right in the first place: having the means of defense.

From the second article linked above written by Miss Austin:

"...They said by putting the information online or in the paper, we're just making it more convenient for people to exercise a right they already have to examine the records."

I do not recall any philisophical, legal or moral theory that lists knowing which peacable people have arms is a Right. I do know of several theories as to why carrying & owning a weapon - even if concealed - is a Right & not subject to licensing or registration requirements.

"Another argument advanced for posting the list is that the state has determined that there's a public good in licensing people to carry handguns and making such information accessible to others."

There is no public good in licensing gun owners & there is no public good in publishing their names. The only - I repeat only reason for licensing & registration is to make confiscation easier. Now it may well be viewed as good for the state, but what's good for the state is often bad for the people.

But I would be curious as to how they think it is good for the public. As a journalist shouldn't Miss Austin have made some effort to explain why making those names available to the public is good rather than just relying on the generalization that the state made it so therefore it is good?

"The information has the potential to warn people about others who may be carrying a gun. If you're sending your child to my house to play, perhaps you'd like to know if I have a permit to carry a gun."

Here we have a logical disconnect. How would a list of concealed firearm permit holders clue anyone in to who has & doesn't have a firearm in their home? I don't recall Indiana requiring a Firearm Owner Identification Card & even if they did that's not the permit in question: it's concealed carry permits that are being discussed.

So it is very possible that if a hoplophobe wishes his or her child to play at a neighbors house who has no effective way of protecting their kids then they still would be allowing their kid to play at a house with firearms if the owner simply decided that they didn't need a permit to exercise a Right. To put it more plainly - not every gun owner applies for a concealed carry permit so the argument is flawed (to put it kindly).

"Or maybe you're curious about whether a potential business associate, or a neighbor or new acquaintance has a permit.
'There is danger for children when there is a gun present, and that is a strong point,' said Gregory E. Favre, distinguished fellow in journalism values at The Poynter Institute for journalism training in Florida.
'There are too many cases when youngsters have been killed or when parents' guns are used to kill others, as has happened in the school shootings. Will knowing about the gun permits completely stop this? No, but it might prevent some. Even one would be worth it.
'And while I am a strong advocate that people have a right to a private life, these folks have interjected themselves into the public by purchasing a gun permit,' said Favre, former president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors."

I'm sure a lot of people are curious about how people exercise other Rights, such as religion, speech, procreation, etc... but that does not mean I or anyone else is justified in satisfying our curiousity against another person's wishes.

& as to the danger to children when guns are present that is nonsense.Millions of children are around millions of firearms every day yet there are less than 1,00 accidental shootings & only a small precentage of those involve children under 14. Where the danger comes from is hoplophobic parents who fail to teach their children the proper & safe handling & use of firearms. Those kids who have never been exposed to firearms are naturally more curious & tend to be the ones who figure out how to acidentally discharge one.

& if applying for a permit to exercise what should be considered a natural & inherent Right thrusts a person into the public eye, then perhaps Mr. Favre wouldn't be upset if his home phone number & address were published since he has thrust himself into the public eye by exercise Rights that fall under the First Amendment? Of course I tend to think he would raise hell about that if it happened & perhaps rightly so. But considering his statement about gun owners that would make him little more than a misinformed hypocrit if his personal info was published & he objected to it.

"The list doesn't include everyone who has a gun. Plenty of people carry guns illegally. No permit is required for rifles and shotguns. And just because you have a permit doesn't mean you have a gun."

Why didn't they mkae the connection between that & their foolish argument about knowing who has a firearm at home in case they didn't want their kids around a means of defense?

"Some argued that because the list is a public record available to everyone, we should post it."

If that is how they truly feel then they shouldn't say nary a damn word when I & other bloggers publish all the information we can find on the staff of this publication.

Which is where any & all readers from Indiana come in. I need you to e-mail me at publicola_rd@yahoo.com with any & all legally obtainable information you can find on any & all of the staff at the Fort Wayne News-Sentinal.

Next I need you to call the appropriate numbers below & politely inform them that if they start indiscriminantly publishing the info of gun owners without each individual gun owners consent then I & other bloggers will post any & all information we can legally obtain on the staff of that publication.

I really would rather not publish anybody's info as I know damn skippy I wouldn't like mine published, but if they want to abuse their position by violating the privacy Rights of gun owners then I'll have no qualms about retalliating in kind.

Currently they're solicting feedback on the idea. Call 423-4646 if you want the list of permit holders published or 423-4793 if you don't want the list published.
I also found the following contact info which I believe is for the parent company which owns a few other publications:

Phone: 1-800-324-0505
Address:
Fort Wayne Newspapers
600 W. Main St.
Fort Wayne, IN 46802

Here is a list of links to contact various members of the staff:

Melody Schmitt-Foreman - Assistant Online Manager

Mary Jacobus - Publisher

Linda Austin - Executive Editor (The author of the above fisked piece where they ask for feedback as to whether they should publish the names or not)

Kerry Hubartt - Senior Editor

Mike Dooley - Metro Writer (who wrote the first piece on publishing the names of permit holders)

Eugene Volokh has pointed out some factual errors in the State Department's publication entitled Rights of the People: Individual Freedom & The Bill of Rights. As you might have guessed the errors Prof. Volokh discusses occur in the chapter entitled The Right to Bear Arms.

Now to be fair there was a government publication that did a better job of discussing the Second Amendment & the Right to Arms. It was published a while back & is known as The Right to Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. Senate 97th Congress Second Sessions February 1982. Unfortunately no one in government has been able to find & read a copy of it since it was written.

But go read Prof. Volokh's post to see what kind of quality work you can expect for your tax dollars.

For you legal types out there I have two items of interest. The first is a copy of a search warrant & the second is the SCOTUS decision concerning the legality of said warrant & the accountability of those who served it.

The short story is that SCOTUS decided that the warrant was no good & therefore the search executed was illegal, & further that the agent in charge of the search was not protected by the (overly broad) immunity given to most agents of the government when acting on the government's behalf.

I'd like to do a detailed post on the decision (particularly the dissents) but I'm just not sure if I'll get around to it anytime soon. So in case I don't you have the decision as well as the warrant in question if this type of thing interests you.

I will point out that the warrant was served by a joint force of local & federal agents with the ATF leading the search. Also the search turned up nothing. Seems the "reliable informant" that the ATF got its info from wasn't that reliable after all. Typically the ATF will threaten someone with prosecution over a bogus & trivial matter (then again all federal firearms laws are bogus & trivial) but offer him/her a deal: they'll graciously not prosecute if he/she will just rat out his/her friends "inform" on other gun owners. As you might imagine this can lead to a person making up something about an innocent person to get him/herself off the hook, which I suspect is what happened in this case.

But as I said, I'll try to get around to a more in depth post on this if I can. In the meantime thanks to KABA.com for obtaining the documents & making them linkable.

As reported over at Say Uncle & at this thread at The High Road a 16 year old kid killed a deputy & after a lengthy stand off killed himself. From what I gather the kid had gotten drunk the night before, & attacked his mother with a pipe when she refused to let him take her car to school. She called the cops & the kid shot the first deputy out of the car 4 times. That deputy died. SWAT teams from a few different counties converged on the house. They exchanged gunfire with the kid & then shot tear gas & sent in robots but had no luck. Turns out the kid was probably dead a few hours after this whole thing started. The kid had a history of mental problems. The kid was also the son of an Assistant District Attorney for the county.

The deputy's death is sad & my condolensces go out to his wife & family.

But there is another troubling aspect to this: most reports I've seen aledge the kid was using an AK-47 with 30 round magazines. Add to that the fact that he was a minor who had access to it & used it to shoot a cop & the anti's have a lot of ammo in one package.

Gun lock laws will be pushed since they'll claim that if the AK-47 in question was locked up then none of this would have happened.

AP ammo bans will be pushed since a cop was killed. Never mind that the cop probably wasn't wearing a vest & even if he was it most likely wasn't rated to stop rifle ammo, or that the bullets that killed him may not have been armor piercing: facts will not get in the way of exploting this to the greatest extent possible.

& of course the "assault weapons" ban will be pushed. At minimum they'll use this case to justify an extension of the current ban, but I wouldn't doubt for a minute that they'll try to strengthen the ban as well, esepcially if the AK-47 in question was a post-ban model.

So out of one tragic event they'll try to get 3 gun control laws passed.

If you go to the Violence Policy Center you can see on their front page that renewing &/or strengthening the "assault weapons" ban is a priority for them. Same with the Brady Campaign to Disarm Potential Victims to Prevent Gun Violence. They haven't picked up on the story about the kid yet (at leats they haven't printed anything about it) but expect to hear about it in depth over the next few months.

The facts are the kid (or anyone else) could have killed the deputy with any repeating weapon: a semi-automatic with a high normal capacity magazine was not a requirement. A pump action, lever action, or even a bolt action could have been used.

& any rifle ammo will penetrate all but the heaviest & bulkiest vest that are designed specifically to protect against rifle fire (& even those won't protect against all rifle fire as rifle ammo can generate tremendous power depending on the catridge used). So unless they think that banning all rifle ammo is acceptable then any type of AP or bullet proof vest pentrating ammo bans would have been ineffectucal.

& if the firearm in question would have been locked up it could have prevented the kid from gaining immediete access to it. However no lock or safe is immune to the efforts of anyone with determination. With the right tools it takes a few minutes to defeat all but the heaviest gun safes. With the wrong tools it takes a minute or two more. Assuming that the response time (from the time the mother called the cops to the time the deputy showed up) was 4 mintes or longer (which 5 to 10 minutes is very reasonable) then the kid could have defeated all but the heaviest of locking measures. So a simple trigger lock or even a wooden gun cabinet that was locked wouldn't have prevented this.

Now there should be some inquiry into the kid having access to any weapons. I presume the AK-47 was his fathers' firearm but it's not for certain that this is the case. If it did belong to his parents then I would question their judgement in allowing access to any weapons to a kid with a history of mental problems. However a mandatory gun lock law is not the right solution.

If a person is of the mind that locking up his arms is the prudent thing to do then a law will not make it any easier for him. Conversely if a person is not of a mind to lock up their arms (even when there is a reasonable justification to do so) then a law will not compel them to act. All you accomplish with gun lock laws is creating a prosecutable offense. It puishes rather than prevents. Also depnding upon the wording it can create liability for those who have done nothign criminal or negligent: it could open up to prosecution a person whose house was broken into & his arms stolen.

Now I have no kids & there are no people in my home who I do not explicitly trust, so as a consequence I don't see the need to lock anything other than my front door. But if a gun lock laws is passed (again, depending on the wording) then if someone breaks into my house when I'm not home & steals any or all of my arms then I could be charged with violating the gun lock law (again, I stress that this scenario is dependent upon the wording).

The other downside is that people who comply with the law will in essence give any criminal intruders a 60 second (minimum) head start. & in at least one case a gun lock law prevented a kid from having access to a weapon that she could have used to prevent her siblings from being killed.

& as I've said gun lock laws only offer prosecution after the fact - unless of course random unannounced inspections are mandated. & I heartily second the statement of Sen. Craig (R-Idaho) on this subject:

"I would hope that Americans would rebel at the possibility of the police entering their home to determine if they were fit to excercise what I believe is a Constitutional right..."

As to banning ammo that will penetrate a bullet proof vest: they'd literally have to ban all but the weakest rifle cartridges that exist. Even muzzle loading firearms can penetrate the majority of bullet proof vests. It's very simple physics: the ability to stop a projectile from penetrating is limited by the strength of the material when pitted against the energy, shape & composition of a projectile.

The vast majority of bullet proof vests are designed to stop handgun cartridges such as the 9x19mm & .38 Special from penetrating. Now if we look at the 10mm (which is more powerful than the two cartrdiges aforementioned) we find that a 150 grain bullet traveling at 1325 feet per second produces about 585 foot-pounds of energy. Now if we assume the vest is designed to stop cartridges with an energy level of around 700 foot-pounds then we can reasonably assume that it will stop a 10mm loaded to the specifications listed above. (well, barring any other factors such as projectile shape &/or bullet alloy that increase its penetrative potential).
However if we look at two rifle cartridges from the late 1800's & one from the 1940's we find that the bullet proof vest is outclassed:

The .30 Carbine that fires a 110 grain bullet at 1990 feet per second generates 967 foot-pounds of energy.
The .32 Winchester Special firing a 170 grain bullet at 2250 feet per second develops 1911 foot-pounds of energy.
The .45-70 cartridge that launches a 300 grain projectile at 1810 feet per second will have 2182 foot-pounds of energy.

The .45-70 was introduced in 1873. That's 13 years prior to the introduction of the first smokeless powder cartridge: the 8mm Lebel. The .32 Winchester Special was introduced in the late 1890's. The .30 Carbine was introduced in 1941 & its intended role was as a substitute for the 1911 pistol.

So a cartridge designed for blackpowder; a cartridge designed very early in the smokeless powder days & a cartridge intended to replace a handgun cartridge all produce energy in excess of what a bullet proof vest (designed for handgun cartridges) can handle.

I will note that other factors aside from kinetic energy come into play: projectile shape & construction will affect the ability of a projectile to pentrate a vest. But this is only relevant when dealing with a projectile with an energy level below what the vest was designed for. Here's a chart of cartridges that the two most popular levels of bullet proof vests are designed to stop.

Also according to my rough estimates the most powerful ammo that a Level IIIA vest will handle is the .44 magnum with a 240 grain bullet at 1400 feet per second which produces around 1,044 foot-pounds of energy. So it's entriely possible that a Level IIIA vest would stop the .30 Carbine cartridge (if projectile shape & construction don't come into play) but it would still be ineffective against the two other rifle rounds that are each over 100 years old.

Now it should be noted that bullet proof vests are rated according to the National Institute of Justice standards which have been called into question in the past. The gist of it is that the NIJ tests were based on faulty science suspect criteria & has led to bulkier vests than necessary to stop pentration of a projectile. This led to the vest being more unconfortable than necessary & thus not worn as often. While the theory about the NIJ standards being less than ideal makes sense to me I admit I am not as knowledgable as I should be to firmly support or refute this theory.

What remains though is that bullet proof vests which are designed to stop rifle cartridges are simply impractical for everyday wear - well, unless you know that everday there's a significant chance that someone will fire a rifle at you. A NIJ rated Level IV vest will in theory stop a single .30-06 cartridge but you're looking at a minimum of 6 pounds per plate. So a front & back plate with the carrier vest will mean your "shirt" now weighs around 14 pounds or so. Not something you'd want to wear 8 hours a day is it?

So again I would submit that the more common bullet proofs vests are simply incapable of stopping 100+ year old black powder rifle cartridges & it is unreasonable to justify an ammo ban of any sort on a vest not stopping a projectile it was never intended to stop.

& just to be clear I have seen absolutely nothing that indicates the deputy who was killed was wearing a bullet proof vest of any sort. But facts haven't stopped gun control advocates yet & i don't expect this to be an exception. At the most you can expect to hear that "even if he was wearing a vest it wouldn't have stopped these dangerous armor piercing rounds". Which to be fair is almost true - if he'd have been wearing a vest rated for handgun rounds as most vests are then it wouldn't have prevented his death. But if he was wearing a vest designed to stop rifle rounds then it would have. They'll rely on the assumption by most people that a bullet proof vest is actually bullet proof under all circumstances - well, except when special "cop killer amror piercing ammo" is used.

But consider this a warning: the gun control advocates will use this tragic event in an effort to justify more gun control laws. It'd behoove us all to learn what actually happened & be prepared to counter the flawed arguments in support of gun control that will come from this.

No Quarters is a blog run by Gunner. Gunner was a reader here & probably the most frequent commenter we had; then he figured out how easy it was to blog. So I don't think of it as losing a reader (as I hope he still has time to check us out every now & then) but gaining a valuable (& most important) linkable source of info & insights.

That being said he has a post up about Australlians not going far enough in their victim disarmament weapons prohibition efforts.

Give it a read & then check out the rest of his blog as it'll be more than worth your time.

Alphecca's Weekly Check on the Bias is up.

End The War on Freedom has this post which links to a Vin Suprynowicz article that calls for the repeal of every federal law passed since 1912. He estimates we could cut our prison population by about two thirds which would make more room for violent offenders.

"Was murder illegal by 1912? Of course. Rape? Of course. Kidnapping, armed robbery, bunko fraud? All serious criminal behaviors had been outlawed by 1912. So why have the number of lawbooks on the shelf multiplied tenfold in the past 92 years?
Release everyone jailed on a drug law (unknown before 1916), for income tax evasion (impossible before 1913), for any kind of illegal possession of or commerce in firearms (laws unimagined a century ago), or for violating any kind of regulatory scheme or edict erected since 1912, and the federal prisons would be virtually empty, while even the state pens would probably see their populations cut in half.
Now declare that -- instead of having their guns taken away and being considered for prosecution -- any law-abiding citizen who shoots and kills (or at least permanently cripples) a felon during his commission of a felony will be given a free Browning Automatic Rifle and a $30,000 government reward (the current cost of jailing the culprit for a year while he awaits trial), be declared immune from any civil lawsuit, and will additionally be given a tickertape parade and a medal."

Give it a read.

Joey B. King has some thoughts on the Free State Project as well as an interesting alternative. Give it a read.

I have heard some talk of supporting Colin Powell should he venture into the '08 presidential race. Here's a good reason to re-think that:

"Powell next talked positively about arms control in a new Iraq, followed by mention of "rights" and 'liberty.'
'Read what it says about arms not being allowed within the society except under the control of civilian authorities,' he said. 'Read what it says about democracy, rights, liberty, and what the new Iraq will look like. ?…"

One sentence talks favorably about the restriction of an inherent, natural Right (the means of self defense) & the very next goes on to speak of liberty & Rights. & the most troubling part is that he probably doesn't realize that his views are self-contradictory.

& the Iraqi Constitution that Powell referred to? Here's what it says about arms in Article 17:

"It shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms except on licensure issued in accordance with the law."

Hell, that's all Sarah Brady, DiFi, Schumer & Boxer could ever ask for.

But there'ssomeonee else we should give credit for the Iraqi Constitution's views on arms:

"The U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority under the leadership of Paul Bremer has had significant input into the drafting of the new law. The preamble mentions the United Nations, saying the Iraqis are 'working to reclaim their legitimate place among nations."

Paul Bremer. The same Paul Bremer who announced the partial civilian arms confiscation program in Iraq just last May. & lest you think he's just the messenger I offer the following from the post I just linked to on the attempts at civilian disarmament in Iraq:

"The new weapons policy appears to be the outcome of a debate among top military officials in Iraq. Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, commander of U.S. and British land forces in Iraq, told reporters two weeks ago that he was skeptical about simply trying to disarm Iraqi civilians.
'For one thing, I don't think it would be enforceable,' McKiernan said at the time.
But Bremer, keenly aware that his political priority in Iraq is to restore law and order, strongly suggested that he wanted to prohibit most weapons in civilian hands." (emphasis mine)

The bright side is that this Constitution is temporary. A new one is supposed to be in the works as we speak & will replace this interim one when Iraq is ready to govern itself.

Of course there's no guarantee that Bremer, Powell &/or other gun control advocates won't influence the next constitution as well. I'm reminded of one of the most puzzling things I learned in my youth: Gen. Douglas MacArthur wrote Japan's Constitution in 1945. In it he included almost all of the U.S. Constitution's Bill or Rights. Can you guess which amendment he left out? Now you'd think that as a military man with hisexperiencee he'd be in favor of an armed citizenry. If everyFilipinoo had a rifle, ammo & some training in 1942 MacArthur probably wouldn't have had to take his unwanted detour inAustraliaa. But perhaps he feared a covert re-militarization of Japan. Maybe he just thought how badly it could go for him as an occupier if all the citizens had arms & decided they didn't like his presence there. Perhaps he had a fear that another Bonus Army scenario would happen but this time with deliberate & effective resistance to his troops. (in 1932 Gen. MacArthur & his aides Maj. Eisenhower & Maj. Patton were ordered to break up a group of WW1 veterans that were protesting in D.C. Their orders were to clear an area of the veterans as the protests were turning violent. MacArthur one upped his superiors & not only forced the veterans to move to their make-shift camp across the Anacostia River & burned them out. This played no small part in getting that socialist bastard FDR elected. For more look here, & here as well as here.)

But at least our government is consistent: they try to ignore the 2nd amendment here as well as abroad.

If you're in Colorado or willing to travel you might want to make sure you have May 14th, 15th & 16th free. That's when the Rocky Mountain Fifty Caliber Shooters Association is holding their machine gun shoot. It'll take place in Cheyenee Wells, Colorado which is about 185 miles east of Denver.

Now the cool thing is you not only get to watch other people sending vast amounts of lead & copper downrange, but most people on the firing line will let you shoot their firearms for a small price. This may not be exact but you're looking at $10 for 30 rounds of a 9mm subgun, $5 for 3 rounds of .50 BMG (either through a rifle or a Browning M2) & if I recall the 20mm (Soluthurn or Lahti) was around $5 per round. Thye also have mortars that shoot bowling balls, a musket that shoots bowling pins (as in the bowling pin is the projectile - not the target) & last year a fellow brought out his 25mm & 37.5mm (the show off - wonder how much factory ammo costs for him?).

Plus military vehicles & people dressed up in varous period uniforms.

Did I mention the reactionary targets (dynamite, propane cylinders & a gas filled wrecked car) & the Saturday night tracer shoot (imagine a horizontal 4th of July)?

If you need more encouragement click here for pics from previous shoots.

& holler at me if you plan on attending.

Robert of Backroad Blog finally gets around to answering my five questions.

Go read & learn a little bit more about Robert.

Alphecca's Weekly Check on the Bias is up.It's the
Postmortem Edition. Go read.

A Nazi - a friggin' Nazi - is serving a life sentence because he killed a few hundred civilians & some Italians are protesting it.

"To his supporters, Erich Priebke is an old man who paid for his mistakes and should be pardoned. To his foes, the 90-year-old convicted Nazi war criminal, who is serving a life sentence under house arrest, should never be free again."

House arrest???? The bastard should be serving his sentence under a house not in one.

"Priebke, a former SS captain, was convicted in 1997 for a wartime massacre in which 335 civilians were killed. He says he was only following orders.
'This execution was a tragedy for us,' Priebke said in an interview published Thursday in the right-wing daily Il Giornale. 'I don't feel the responsibility to repent for something I didn't want to do. I was against it. I had to obey like every soldier must do."

I bet the execution was a tragedy for the civilian victims & their families. & didn't anyone clue him in that the "just following orders" excuse was ruled bullshit a long time ago?

"Priebke's supporters insist the German national should be pardoned because of his age and because his crimes date to 60 years ago. They say his human rights are being violated. "

They want to pardon a convicted mass murderer. A convicted Nazi mass murderer. A convicted Nazi SS Captain who admits to mass murder. His age? Have they thought of how old any of hsi victims would be? They claim his human rights are being violated. These people would see someone swing for carrying an unregistaered pistol yet they're worried about a convicted Nazi/mass murderer's human rights being encroached because he's living under house arrest?

"Priebke's detention is against the Italian constitution and all principles of civilization,' Giachini said in an interview Thursday, referring to a constitutional provision saying penalties cannot be contrary to a sense of humanity."

Well if the first part of the sentence is true then it's bloody friggin' obvious that they need a new constitution in Italy & we need new principles of civilization. But didn't it strike anyone of these Nazi defenders that a murderer under house arrest for life only offends a sense of humanity because it implies he's still comfortable & alive?

"The March 24, 1944, massacre was ordered in retaliation for a bomb attack by Italian resistance fighters that killed 33 German soldiers. The victims, who included old men, young boys, Jews and Roman Catholic priests, were led one-by-one into the Ardeatine Caves outside Rome and shot to death.
Priebke has admitted to shooting two people and helping round up the victims. He has said he would have faced a firing squad had he refused."

He should face a firing squad for his compliance with an order to murder civilians. & since he pbviously has no problem killing old men then he shouldn't have any objections when they blindfold him.

this bastard lived in Argentina until he was extradicted in 1994. That's 50 years longer than any of the old men & boys he killed lived.

Now I might feel a little different about all this if there was some question as to his guilt: if there wasn't a positive I.D. of him or if he swore he was innocent - but the friggin' bastard admits to commanding the troops that did it as well as pulling the trigger twice himself! He's trying to claim that he was juts following orders & therefore isn't responsible for his crimes.

I can understand how he thought that would work - cops here do all sorts of unconstituional & vile things because they follow orders. So it's natural that in a country such as Italy he thought correctly that it would work.

Which is why we must nip this in the bud. Any & all Italians who happen to read this could do us all a big favor: get the death penalty re-instated in Italy, review his sentence & have this bastard shot. Have him shot in the arms & legs a few times before you gut shoot him & leave him to die. & then soundly bitch-slap all those who protested his inhumane treatment under house arrest. Take them to the victims' graves & then to their surviing relatives. & after hearing stories from eyewitnesses about what the bastard did then have them try to reason with them & convince them why the bastard should be freed from the inhumane treatment of house arrest. Then let the victims' relatives bitch-slap them.

Hopefully Kim du Toit will be back soon as he's much better at these kinds of rants than I am. Then again he is in Germany. Maybe he could make a day trip & straighten these misguided Italians out. Besides, that give our Ambassodor to Italy something to do for the next few weeks. Well, after the U.S. Marines save Italy from Kim.

KABA.com has outdone itself. They've done some digging, found & posted the testimony from the president of the NRA during the debates over the National Firearms Act of 1934.

I'll give you this question & answer to whet your appetite:

"The following question was asked by Congressman CLEMENT C. DICKINSON, Missouri, of the Committee on Ways and Means:

'Mr. DICKINSON. I will ask you whether or not this bill interferes in any way with the right of a person to keep and bear arms or his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable search; in other words, do you believe this bill is unconstitutional or that it violates any constitutional provision?'

...'Mr. FREDERICK. I have not given it any study from that point of view. I will be glad to submit in writing my views on that subject, but I do think it is a subject which deserves serious thought."

Read the whole thing. & please keep in mind the NFA of '34 originally included pistols but they were excluded from the final draft of the bill as there was concern that the people may not particularly stand for it.

Damn. Helluva week wasn't it?

I'll have more in a day or two but just wanted to jot down a few thoughts in no particular order:

The NRA actually did the right thing. Of course they waited till right before the vote to make up their mind to do the right thing, & odds are that they acted out of self preservation as many people would have left them in a heartbeat if their gamble had backfired. But still they did the right thing in the end.

Something screwy was going on. There were enough votes in the Senate to pass the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. A filibuster might have been attempted but then again considering how many voted for cloture it's not certain it would have succeeded. So what do they do? They get the motion for cloture passed & then announce a deal at 11 p.m. EST that instead of 30 hours with limited amendments & Frist being able to shoot down an amendment all by his lonesome, they're gonna chat about things for 4 days & allow damn near any & all amendments to be proposed. WTF?!?!?!? I don't know who's coming up with the strategies for our side, but I'd love to play some poker with them.

It may not be over. DiFi wants the AWB extended & expanded. She thinks (& she's probably right) that she has enough votes in the Senate to pass it & it very well could pass the House. Bush hasn't vetoed anything yet & I doubt he'd veto something he promised to sign. So don't be surprised if DiFi soemhow gets the AWB on the table again. I doubt it would be on its own as offering it to a bill that everyone wants would be the way to do it, but then again proposing it by itself might happen. Don't mean to rain on anyone's parade but unless I'm missing something in the Senate rules we have to accept that it's possible it'll be voted on again.

The AWBextension didn't pass. I've heard Senators, gun control advocates & even a news story on some AM radio station say that it passed (actually the AM radio station was real screwed up - it claimed the AWB extension was passed as in it was now law & the AWB itself wasn't going to sunset in September). What passed was the AWB extension being added onto a bill that was yet to be voted on. Not that we shouldn't punish those who voted to add it on at the polls this &/or any November or that it doesn't have support in the Senate, but adding something onto a bill you want to see voted down is not the same thing as passing a bill outright.

Y'all made a difference. You called your senators & you called the NRA. It got the NRA to address accusations of treachery for the first time ever & it pressured them into doing the right thing. With the Senators we may or may not have been as influential as some were lost causes. But we let them know that we were not only watching, but we were reacting.

Blogs, internet message borads, Forums, non-mainstream news sites & C-Span2's streaming feed = a whole new world.

10 years ago we wouldn't have known what was going on unless we were in DC watching the Senate in person or had a friend who was a lobbyist &/or Senator. Now we can cuss the bastards out in real time & call "bullshit" as they lie - not merely afterwards. whent hey figure this out I'm sure they'll try to figure out a way to shut us down: politicians don't like being watched in action. But for now we have the most useful tool weapon that we've ever had that doesn't spit lead: connectibility. we can watch what's being said & done while looking up the Senate rules ot make sure it's legal & then e-mail each other & post on Forums & Message Boards to let eveyone know something's wrong (or right).

10 years ago you needed a full time lobbyist to know what was going on & why. Now a lobbyist is still a good asset to have, but a lot of the info we'd have been missing is now right here on our screens.

Schumer is an irreversible ass.

So what will happen? Who knows? But it's much easier to keep track of things & much, much easier to organize & carry out actions that could sway things.

Go read SayUncle & GeekWithA.45. The Countertop Chronicles & Triggerfinger have some interesting stuff as well. KABA.com was & is an irreplaceble source of news. The High Road had play by play posts & really helped spread the word. Alphecca was doing his best a susual making sure we knew not to trust everything we read in the papers, as well as spreading the idea that action beats inaction everytime. & for their (& many others') efforts to keep us all informed hit their tip jars &/or wish lists. If they don't have them, write them & tell them to get one or the other if not both.

I'll have more in the next few days. Right now I need to catch up (& clean up) with the mess I left untended while I was watching what was going on in the Senate.

I'm in a rush so forgive the brevity...


This bill has an extension of the assault weapons ban & the McCain-Reed gun show amendments attached to it. Cleaning it up in ther House is too risky & there's not anything solid that would guarantee we can kill it in the House. we have to stop it in the Senate.

Do not believe that it can be worked out later on. Stripping amendemnts in the Hous eis a very tricky process & our support in the House is not nearly as solid as the NRA would have you believe.

Call your Senators - call not e-mail - & let them know you want this damned thing killed. Ask them to withdraw it from the table if that's still possible or to vote against it.

800) 648-3516 or (202) 224-3121. That'll put you in touch with the Senate - just ask for your Senator. Go here if you need to find out who they are.

Again it is imperative that we stop this bill from passing the Senate. Call your Senators now!

things should start in the Senate at around 9:30 a.m. EST. Go to the Geek & Uncle for updates.

& be prepared to change the message to your senators to "vote against the bill" should the "assault weapons" ban or gun show amendments be added on. If either of those gun control laws are succefully added to the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act we won't have long to call & try to sawy Senators to kill it in the Senate, so have ye olde speed dial ready.

But watch the Geek & Uncle as they'll let you know what's happening.

There have been many many arguments over the past week. Most of which were betwixt gun owners about what startegy is best & who is working in our interests.

Later on this week we'll know more & be able to hash things out again. There'll be plenty of time for the squabbling that is so unfortunately neccesary.

Right now we don't have time for that. The Senate will vote tomorrow morning on amendments to the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Those amendments will include an extension of the "assault weapons" ban & a bill that will negatively affect gun shows. There may be more. I wouldn't be surprised if another amendment was proposed that could arguably do more damage to the Right to Arms than the two previously mentioned.

It is not certain that all the amendments will be attached but it is likely that at least one of them will be. Then comes the vote on the entire package - the Lawful Protection in Arms Act as amended.

Some of y'all have been here before & have a pretty good idea about my views. & Some will agree with me, others won't. That's part of life. Disagreements happen even between the closest of friends.

All the info that's available on the issue has been laid out for your dissemination between here, GeekWithA.45 & SayUncle. Between the three of us I doubt there's much we missed.

Now some of you may believe that an amended bill can be cleaned up in the House. I don't & I think I've made the case that our support in the House is not nearly as strong as some would like to believe.

The only chance we have is to stop these gun control amendments from being added in the Senate & barring that to kill the entire legislative package in the Senate. If it goes to the House with gun control on it then we will lose.

So I ask that you call your Senators & deliver a very simple message:

I want a clean bill or no bill from the Senate. If any gun control laws are passed I'll withdraw my support for you & your party. I will not accept excuses, even that you voted against them. If you & your party want my vote in November of '04, '06 or '08 then you'll chat with your fellow Senators & convince them to not pass any gun control laws. If you vote for gun control you'll lose my support, but if any gun control laws are passed you & your entire party will lose my support no matter how you vote.

Make this known to your Senators. You can reach them at (800) 648-3516 or (202) 224-3121.


As well as to VP Dick Cheney
vice.president@whitehouse.gov
(202) 456-9000

& make sure the NRA knows you don't want them taking any risks. Tell them if any gun control laws are passed you're dropping your membership &/or support of them & their state affiliates.

Now if you wish to sit around & tell yourself that the NRA knows what it's doing (that the Senate will do the right thing & if not then the House will sort it out) then fine. I cannot convince you if I haven't already.

But if you'd at least want to attempt to do something to protect your Right to Arms then call & tell them what you want & what you will & will not accept.

The choice is yours. But if in October I still cannot buy brand new factory fresh 11 round magazines or a folding stock for a Ruger 10/22 then don't you dare come bitchin' to me when someone wants to ban your wabbit gun.

I just saw this from RMGO & thought I would pass it on. I'll paste it below in it's entirety.


"Rocky Mountain Gun Owners

Oppose Gun Control -- Kill S.1805

March 1, 2004, 1700 hrs Mountain - Please read the following communication and then call your US Senators.

Senator Wayne Allard can be reached at (202) 224-5941.

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell can be reached at (202) 224-5852.

Also call the NRA -- tell them that S.1805 already has gun control attached to it (the Kohl Trigger Locks amendment), and, according to former NRA muckety muck Neal Knox, "Let me assure you: S. 1805 WILL CONTAIN A LOT MORE GUN CONTROL."

Call the NRA-ILA immediately toll-free at 800-392-8683 and/or e-mail them at Federal-Affairs@nrahq.org

Urge the NRA to pull the plug and kill S.1805 in the Senate, before it has any more gun control on it. Tell them to STOP approving anti-gun amendments like Kohl's gun lock-up law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More and more it's looking like S.1805 is a turkey that can't be saved.

We are already facing the ridiculous reality that the "gun liability" bill, which was supposed to PROTECT dealers and manufacturers from baseless lawsuits, now has a brand new liability built into it; penalties if handguns are not provided with gun locks.

As you know, we have fought and defeated similar proposals that would require that you render your guns useless, here in Colorado.

Though we've defeated this kind of law in the Colorado legislature, we are having this irrational requirement shoved down our throats by the Feds. What's worse, it seems like the NRA has bought off on this crackpot scheme.

In an alert dated Feb 27 '04 the NRA describes the Kohl amendment which mandates this new intrusion into your rights this way:

"The Kohl amendment is much less restrictive and also provides liability protection for gun owners."

But that "protection" is only for people who lock up their guns and render them useless!

If you read the amendment, it only provides liability protection IF YOU LOCK UP YOUR GUNS. In other words, the NRA is buying into the argument of the gun-grabbers -- that locking up your gun makes you safer.

According to Professor John Lott (in "More Guns, Less Crime", page 199):

"Safe storage rules also seem to cause some real problems. Passage of these laws is significantly related to almost 9 percent more rapes and robberies and 5.6 percent more burglaries. In terms of total crime in 1996, the presence of the law in just these fifteen states was associated with 3,600 more rapes, 22,500 more robberies, and 64,000 more burglaries."

Page 201 of the same book says "We find no support for the theory that safe storage laws reduce either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides. Instead, these storage requirements appear to impair people's ability to use guns defensively."

As more people are forced to get these "locking devices" the anti-gun politicians will take the next step: a law making you use them to lock up your guns or else you'll be a criminal. Then they can arrest you and confiscate your guns, which is what they wanted all along.

Later in the NRA-ILA alert they state :

"The Senate then debated and voted upon two amendments seeking to gut S.1805. The first related to the D.C. sniper case, but the proposal by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) was defeated, 56-40. A so-called "law enforcement" exemption offered by Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) was soundly defeated, 56 to 38.

NRA strongly opposed both amendments."

Why then, we must wonder, didn't the NRA oppose the horrible Kohl amendment? Is it because the two amendments "seeking to gut S.1805" were defeated and the Kohl amendment, which they don't even criticize, passed? Is this the strategy of the NRA, to claim, after the fact, opposition to bad amendments that fail, while giving tacit approval to bad amendments that pass?

Many of you have no doubt seen the internet traffic where some have accused the NRA of having cut a deal going into this bill. You may have also seen the strongly worded denials from NRA. But now we must say our concern is greater than ever. If there is no deal, as NRA has repeatedly stated, why the approval of Kohl's gun lock-up amendment? What are they willing to compromise next?

In the NRA alert described above, the NRA states :

> "NRA-ILA stands committed to enacting into law, a "clean" (without any
> anti-gun amendments) S. 1805. And, as we have from Day One, we will
> continue to vigorously oppose any anti-gun amendments to S. 1805,
> specifically, reauthorization of the 1994 Clinton gun ban in any way,
> shape, or form, and imposing restrictions on gun shows."

But the bill ALREADY HAS AN ANTI-GUN AMENDMENT AND THE NRA HAS NOT OPPOSED IT!!!

Already today (Monday, March 1) an amendment to reauthorize the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban was made (and will be voted upon on Tuesday). Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell voted for that inital ban. We also know that NRA endorsed- and- supported George Bush has promised he would sign a renewal of the semi-auto ban. Yet not one word has been written by NRA distancing themselves from Campbell and in same alert referenced above they state:

> Using the bully pulpit of the White House, President Bush offered the
> following statement highlighting his support for the lawsuit bill
> without
> any anti-gun amendments: "The Administration strongly supports Senate
> passage of S. 1805. The Administration urges the Senate to pass a clean
> bill, in order to ensure enactment of the legislation this year. Any
> amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is
> unacceptable.

But Bush NEVER says he won't sign it. Why would a new semi-auto ban "delay enactment" if he's already promised to sign it?

As NRA muckety muck Neal Knox wrote, "Let me assure you: S.1805 WILL CONTAIN A LOT MORE GUN CONTROL."

Much has been made of the promise that this bill will be "fixed" when it goes back to a conference committee with the House. That is pure speculation and wishful thinking. We were made similar promises about other bills like "campaign finance reform" and now we face penalties if we dare discuss candidates in the months before an election!

Please call:

Senator Wayne Allard (202) 224-5941

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (202) 224-5852

Also please call the NRA -- tell them that S.1805 already has gun control attached to it (the Kohl Trigger Locks amendment) and urge them to kill S.1805 in the Senate.

NRA insiders are now privately whispering that NRA leadership is nervous, and the grumblings are that this bill is out of control and growing its own legs.

Call the NRA-ILA immediately toll-free at 800-392-8683 and/or e-mail them at Federal-Affairs@nrahq.org

Urge the NRA to pull the plug and kill S.1805 in the Senate, before it has any MORE gun control on it.

The standard (public) NRA response is that they're working hard to pass a clean bill. Tell the NRA that the bill is already dirty, and needs to be defeated NOW -- before it gets even worse."

okay - nothing passed today but tomorrow is the big one.

The "assault weapons" ban renewal & the McCain-Reed gunshow bill will be voted on.

This is bad. If they would have been voted on today then there would have been enough time to get people to call their Senators & demand that they kill the bill. Now if the AWB or the gunshow amendment (or both) get tacked on then will have an hour or so (maybe less) to let our Senators know we don't want the bill to pass.

From what I read & saw (I caught the last hour or so of it on C-Span2) it was the same ol' same ol' - anti-gun Senators lying their asses off (& that was quite a feat considering the last time some of them saw a treadmill was in a bad dream) & urging other Senators to vote for the AWB & gunshow amendments. Kerry & Edwards will both make a special guets appearance in the Senate to add their votes for the AWB & any other anti-gun BS that gets voted on. & there was much talk urging Bush to stand by his campaign promise fo supporting the AWB & more urging of Cheney to be on hand in case there's a tie. (Yes - it's that close)

Craig would step up every now & then & call them liars without using the word "liar", correct some of their "facts", reiterate on the Right to Arms & then let them have at it again.

Folks, the anti's think it'll be a close vote. I think they're right, but whereas they're thinking they're one or two votes shy I'm thinking that a few will defect from our side & send them over the top. My own Sen. Campbell is a likely candidate for this & I must apologize in advance because if he does then it's my fault for not having a long chat with him when I moved into his state.

There's been a lot of talk about cleaning the bill up in the House or killing it in the House. That's like trying to rescue the hostage after the bad guys have got in the getaway car - sure it's possible but hell anything's possible. It's not probable & it damn sure ain't preferable.

There's also been talk that the Lawful Commerce in Firearms act is the "killer bill" that gun control folks won't vote for. That's incorrect. I don't know any anti-gunner alive who wouldn't trade protection for gun makers in the courts for a renewal of an actual gun ban &/or a prohibition concerning gun shows. Either one is much higher up in the deck than being able to sue the gun makers. & hell, they might have figured a way around its language that'll allow most of the lawsuits to proceed anyway. Judges have been misinterpreting the constitution for how long now? Think they'll all of a sudden become stand up guys because of a mere law?

So i'm not ready to urge it's killing just yet. I'm not happy about the gun lock thing but if we could slip in a pro-gun amendment - like a repeal of the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA of '84 - then I could live with it. But let me be clear: the second (& I mean the very second) that an AWB renewal or the gunshow amendment get added on then Cmapbell & Allard will get a phone call from me demanding that they vote against the entire bill. The AWB &/or the gun show amendment are too high a price to pay for legislative protection from erroneous tort actions.

Anyway, go read Geek & Uncle if you haven't already.

Also Alphecca has his weekly check on the bias up. I was shocked at the way they treated the gun stories this week, what with the Senate debates & all,

Countertop Chronicles has also been keeping up with the Senate - go give him a read.

Triggerfinger is another place y'all should check out.

& call your Senators if you haven't already. New or renewed gun control laws = withdrawal of votes & support for them & their party. No excuses!

I'm just getting in & I'm not caught up. Just had to mention that Schumer is a lying bastard.

More in a bit.

As per usual I'll pass thing off to SayUncle & GeekWithA.45 until later this afternoon. Go check them out for coverage of the Senate today.

Angel Shamaya of KeepAndBearArms.com has a few questions for the NRA.

Go read.

It's not as cool as the TFP* kit, but at least they have the right idea.

Nicki Fellenzer writes about the plan hatched over at The High Road to mail gun locks (minus the keys & combinations of course) to Sen. Boxer.

Gotta love the internet.




* Tar, Feathers & Politicians kit - some assembly required.

In Colorado the heads of law enforcement in 7 respective cities have urged Sen. Campbell & Sen. Allard to vote for extending the "assault weapons" ban & to place federal restrictions on gun shows.

"In a recent letter, the chiefs of police in Louisville, Gunnison, Sheridan, Arvada, Colorado Springs and Denver, and the Boulder County sheriff urge Republican Sens. Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Wayne Allard to vote for the measures."

Bastards. Make sure to let them know how you feel about their disrespect for your Rights.

Now I could be mistaken but I thought I saw where Sen. Campbell was planning to propose a natiowide cops only CCW amendment. If so that would seem to indicate that law enforcement groups have some influence with Sen. Campbell which means it's very important to let him know how we feel.

Sen. Campbell is up for re-election this year. Call his office & let him know that if any gun control is passed into law that he not only lost your vote in his race, but your vote for his party. & don't neglect Sen. Allard; in fact don'
t neglect any of your Senators. They need all the guidance they can get.

Oh, lest I forget Amercians for Gun Safety is behind this particular push.

"Our nation's top law enforcement officers know better than anyone the importance of passing these bipartisan gun safety bills,' said Jon Cowan, president of Americans for Gun Safety, a group that says it supports gun-ownership for law-abiding citizens and tougher laws aimed at the use of guns in crimes.
'Keeping assault weapons out of the hands of criminals has helped to ensure that our nation's law enforcement officers are not outgunned on our streets,' he said. 'Likewise, closing the gun show loophole is one of the most important steps Congress can take to stop the illegal trafficking of firearms."

Bastards. (Yes - I'll be using that word a lot over the next few days) Lying bastards. (that phrase too) But let any doubts be removed from your mind that Americans for Gun Safety is anything other than a gun control group who tries to fool the unknowing.

Here's a list of Senators that are up for re-election this year. Make sure they know that your support for them & their party depends on no gun control laws being passed.

Here's GOA's legislative Action page. Use it to find & contact your Senator.

Pejmanesque has a very relvant question that we all should ponder:

"What good is a Republican Senate on Second Amendment and gun use issues if it keeps falling for the peddled myths of the gun control movement?"

Now Pejman confuses the issue of "smart guns" & safety locks a bit, but I don't think so much that it invalidates any points being made.

It's my opinion that if the safety lock amendment gets passed into law then it will take us one step closer to a "msart gun" law on the national level. The idea is that once Congress extablishes the authority to regulate something it won't stop at the initial thing. So this year it might be safety locks required with the purchase of a handgun. Next year when the accidental death rate of children under 12 doesn't shrink considerably they'll extend it to long guns, then when that fails to produce results they'll have some precedent to justify their intent of requiring "smart gun" techinology in all new firearms.

Now the reason the accidental death rate won't be affected by any of these measures is that trigger locks are currently available relatively cheap in all gun stores. Any place you buy a firearm will have a gun lock that will work on it. But possessing a lock does not mean that it will be used. & a lot of times a lock isn't necessary.

The only thing that will reduce the accidental death rate in children (from the 80 or so a year it is now) is education. The Eddie Eagle program from the NRA is a good start, but the best solution is to have the parents teach their children (starting at a very young age - like 4 or 5) about the dangers of careless gun handling. For the kids under 14 or so make it clear that they're never to touch a firearm without an adult present, & most importantly have an adult preent every so often who will watch & instruct the child as he/she handls the weapon.

Most accidental shootings are simply the result of ignorance on the part of the kid as to how the firearm works. whether the kid just wants to examine the gun & inadvertently pulls the trigger or if the kid is playing with the gun & pulls the trigger the motivation is usually the same: curiousity.

Kids love seeing how machines work. They like learning how to operate a toll that seems complex & myusterious & this curiousity is increased dramatically when the kid is denied even supervised access to said tool.

think about it - most homes in America have an assortment of knives & other cutting implements. They're not locked up & the kid frequently knows exactly where they are. But the kid is not completely denied access to them & at some point the parent even teaches the kid how to use it & the dangers of its misuse.

If parents would take the same steps with firearms as they do with knives then we could probably cut the accidental death rate in half. But as long as "gun" is a dirty word & kids are forbidden from learning about them then simple curiousity combined with ignorance is going to result in accidental shootings.

Now I'm not a proponent of government schools. I feel it'd be in everyone's best interest if we privatized education across the board & let the market do its thing. But as long as we have government schools we should try to make them work to our benefit. One thing would be to have a class held once or twice a year with age appropriate curriculum dealing with the proper use, handling & storage of firearms. In elementery schools start off with the basic safety rules & by the time they get to the high school level have them take a clas similar to the state required CCW classes - including the range training & testing.

This would knock out two things at once: it would increase a child's knowledge about how to safely handle & be around firearms & it would negate the requirement for classes in order to get a CCW (& if we can elimate the class requirement as being redundant we're one step closer to getting people to understand that CCW permits are mainly a form of gun owner registration).

So if the Senators who voted for the safety lock requirement are serious about safety, then let them pass a law requirig firearms education in the public schools, & let them pass laws which make it easier for a responisble adult to take a kid shooting, & let the state legislators eliminate the class requirements for CCW permits.

But the fact is they won't. No matter how much they blather about safety & it being "for the children" their real goal is civilian disarmament. Don't believe me? bring up my suggestions th enext time someone supports mandatory locks with purchase or "safe storage" requirements. You'll find it's only "for the children" if it fits their other goals.

The Geek has "ammo" for us. Go over there & load up.