Alphecca's Weekly Check on the Bias with New & Improved Graphics Still By Request is up (August 27th Edition)
Missed a Weekly Check? No problem. Alphecca now has them archived for your browsing convenience.
Friday, August 29, 2003
In Alabama there is a man who hosts hunts for those that are seriously ill &/or handicapped.
"Bushman is the founder and CEO of Buckmasters, an Alabama-based organization of deer hunters. As the publisher of Buckmasters Whitetail Magazine and host of the Buckmasters television show, Bushman gets to hunt all over North America.
But it is the deer hunts at Sedgefield Plantation, near Selma, Ala., that mean the most to Bushman.
For each of the past three years, Bushman, Buckmasters and Sedgefield have hosted about a dozen hunters who are either physically disabled or seriously ill. The hunters are joined by their families and by celebrities at the Buckmasters American Deer Foundation Disabled Hunter Services Life Hunt.
Hunters at this year's Life Hunt ranged in age from 9 to 58. Some of the participants had spinal cord injuries or genetic conditions such as spina bifida that required them to hunt from wheelchairs. Others were battling cancer and leukemia, yet they found the strength to get out in the woods and hunt."
"According to Buckmasters, about 1.7 million physically handicapped Americans enjoy hunting and the shooting sports. Besides hunts, the Buckmasters American Deer Foundation Disabled Hunter Services offers scholarships that cover the expenses incurred by disabled hunters, provides crossbows and grants for the purchase of mechanical gun rests that can be used by quadriplegics. For more information, visit www.buckmasters.com or www.badf.org ."
"Bushman is the founder and CEO of Buckmasters, an Alabama-based organization of deer hunters. As the publisher of Buckmasters Whitetail Magazine and host of the Buckmasters television show, Bushman gets to hunt all over North America.
But it is the deer hunts at Sedgefield Plantation, near Selma, Ala., that mean the most to Bushman.
For each of the past three years, Bushman, Buckmasters and Sedgefield have hosted about a dozen hunters who are either physically disabled or seriously ill. The hunters are joined by their families and by celebrities at the Buckmasters American Deer Foundation Disabled Hunter Services Life Hunt.
Hunters at this year's Life Hunt ranged in age from 9 to 58. Some of the participants had spinal cord injuries or genetic conditions such as spina bifida that required them to hunt from wheelchairs. Others were battling cancer and leukemia, yet they found the strength to get out in the woods and hunt."
"According to Buckmasters, about 1.7 million physically handicapped Americans enjoy hunting and the shooting sports. Besides hunts, the Buckmasters American Deer Foundation Disabled Hunter Services offers scholarships that cover the expenses incurred by disabled hunters, provides crossbows and grants for the purchase of mechanical gun rests that can be used by quadriplegics. For more information, visit www.buckmasters.com or www.badf.org ."
In Cortez, Colorado the city council has tabled an ordinance that would ban the open carry of firearms on all city owner property.
Before you think the city council felt guitly about trampling on the Rights of citizens to bear arms, keep reading.
"After hearing of court proceedings against other municipalities over their weapons ordinances, councilors voted Tuesday to table proposed Ordinance 999, which would ban the open carry of firearms in any area under city ownership and control."
uh-huh. So the threat of legal action caused the tabling - not a sudden epidemic of respect for Rights.
"It has nothing to do with the ownership of firearms or the ability to purchase firearms,' (Cortez Police Chief Roy) Lane said."
Nope. But it has everything to do with the carrying of firearms, which is referred to as 'bearing' in the Colorado & U.S. Constitutions respectively.
In the debate over what to do with the proposed ordinance, Councilman Jeff Gardner advised to table it. His logic was that the carrying of firearms had never been a problem before, so why make an issue of it now & risk potential legal action.
Next comes my favorite part:
"Long contended that the likelihood of a lawsuit was slim, which prompted an unidentified member of the audience to call out, 'Wanna bet?'."
Score: Statist police chief zero - anonymous citizen 1
But the foolishness continued.
"(Mayor Cheryl) Baker assured attendees that the ordinance was not aimed at responsible gun owners because, she said, responsible gun owners don’t typically feel the need to tote guns through parks.
'It (the ordinance) isn’t the ‘tip of the iceberg.’ People focus on the gun issue and pass the (federal) Patriotic Act, which ripped off far more of your civil rights than this ordinance would be doing,' she said."
Now granted, I am no fan of the Patriot Act, but the Patriot Act seemed to have merely built on pre-existing law. Not much newe was added by it. However a city council telling you that you must be defenseless in a park is the tip of the iceberg. Local laws banning weapons lead to state laws - not because there's some notorious plot a-brewin', but because it causes complacency. People get used to not having certain freedoms, so they don't fight as hard against new threats to those freedoms.
But yes, responsible gun owners do tote guns through parks. The reason you don't hear about it is because they are responsible gun owners.
"Councilman Joe Keck motioned to table the ordinance, pending the outcome of the Thornton case, but other members did not want it kept in limbo for what could be years. A time limit of 120 days was set in an amended motion. After that time, the ordinance will come under review.
Long was the lone voice to speak against tabling the ordinance. 'The threat of a lawsuit should not dictate public policy,' he said."
I guess the threat of violating a constitutional prohibition on the legislative power wouldn't be a deterrant either. In 120 days the Cortez city council will take up the debate over this law again. It's passage or failure depends solely on the putcome of a lawsuit filed against the city of Thorton, Colorado. Hopefully Thorton will have the court tell them they cannot keep citizens from carrying arms. But if not then I wouldn't be suprised to see Cortez pass this ordinance the day they hear the outcome of Thorton's case.
Before you think the city council felt guitly about trampling on the Rights of citizens to bear arms, keep reading.
"After hearing of court proceedings against other municipalities over their weapons ordinances, councilors voted Tuesday to table proposed Ordinance 999, which would ban the open carry of firearms in any area under city ownership and control."
uh-huh. So the threat of legal action caused the tabling - not a sudden epidemic of respect for Rights.
"It has nothing to do with the ownership of firearms or the ability to purchase firearms,' (Cortez Police Chief Roy) Lane said."
Nope. But it has everything to do with the carrying of firearms, which is referred to as 'bearing' in the Colorado & U.S. Constitutions respectively.
In the debate over what to do with the proposed ordinance, Councilman Jeff Gardner advised to table it. His logic was that the carrying of firearms had never been a problem before, so why make an issue of it now & risk potential legal action.
Next comes my favorite part:
"Long contended that the likelihood of a lawsuit was slim, which prompted an unidentified member of the audience to call out, 'Wanna bet?'."
Score: Statist police chief zero - anonymous citizen 1
But the foolishness continued.
"(Mayor Cheryl) Baker assured attendees that the ordinance was not aimed at responsible gun owners because, she said, responsible gun owners don’t typically feel the need to tote guns through parks.
'It (the ordinance) isn’t the ‘tip of the iceberg.’ People focus on the gun issue and pass the (federal) Patriotic Act, which ripped off far more of your civil rights than this ordinance would be doing,' she said."
Now granted, I am no fan of the Patriot Act, but the Patriot Act seemed to have merely built on pre-existing law. Not much newe was added by it. However a city council telling you that you must be defenseless in a park is the tip of the iceberg. Local laws banning weapons lead to state laws - not because there's some notorious plot a-brewin', but because it causes complacency. People get used to not having certain freedoms, so they don't fight as hard against new threats to those freedoms.
But yes, responsible gun owners do tote guns through parks. The reason you don't hear about it is because they are responsible gun owners.
"Councilman Joe Keck motioned to table the ordinance, pending the outcome of the Thornton case, but other members did not want it kept in limbo for what could be years. A time limit of 120 days was set in an amended motion. After that time, the ordinance will come under review.
Long was the lone voice to speak against tabling the ordinance. 'The threat of a lawsuit should not dictate public policy,' he said."
I guess the threat of violating a constitutional prohibition on the legislative power wouldn't be a deterrant either. In 120 days the Cortez city council will take up the debate over this law again. It's passage or failure depends solely on the putcome of a lawsuit filed against the city of Thorton, Colorado. Hopefully Thorton will have the court tell them they cannot keep citizens from carrying arms. But if not then I wouldn't be suprised to see Cortez pass this ordinance the day they hear the outcome of Thorton's case.
Some good news for a change. Mr. Bean has been pardoned by Texas Governor Perry. Mr. Bean still needs federal action - either through the Secretary of Treasury of The President - to have his Rights fully restored. The Supreme Court ruled last December that the two lower courts (a federal district court & the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals) who granted Mr. Bean relief were in error as they did not have jurisidiction to do that. They could only grant relief if the BATF denied Mr. Beans application for relief & they concluded that the BATF's not being able to rule either way on Mr. bean's plight did not constitute a denial. the BATF has been unable to hold hearings & grant relief to those whose firearms Rights were taken away since 1992 when Congress chose to abstain from funding that particular program. Congress felt it easier to deny funds to the program & forbid funds being used for it from other sources than to do away with the program altogether.
In any event at least Texas recognizes an injustice when they see it & further they attempt to correct it.
In any event at least Texas recognizes an injustice when they see it & further they attempt to correct it.
Live in California? Feel like any republican would be an improvement over Gov. Davis? Think Sen. McClintock doesn't have a chance? Want to risk having your Right to Arms trampled even further? Then vote for Arnold.
Dave Codrea has a piece up at KeepandBearArms.com entitled Schwarzenegger Wrong for Gun Owners, Wrong for California For the rest of the nation it's not as important, but for Californians this is the one thing you should read if you don't have time ot read anything else today. Now personally I feel he hammers the monarchist angle a bit heavy, but in general Mr. Codrea nails it.
Mr. Codrea points us to the following quotes by Mr. Schwarzenegger on the subject of firearms:
"I don't run around every day with a gun in my hand," he reportedly said. "So I want kids to understand the difference; one is make-believe, like we do in the movies. But in reality I'm for gun control. I'm a peace-loving guy."
When asked by Sean Hannity if he supports "the Brady Bill or the 'assault weapons' ban or both," Schwarzennegger replied "Yes, I do [unintelligible] support that, and also I would like to close the loophole of the gun shows."
Still want Mr. Schwarzenegger in the Governor's mansion? Well, I guess California's victim disarmament laws weren't tough enough anyway.
For the heck of it here's a link to Hugh Hewitt's interview with Mr. Schwarzenegger. I listen to Mr. Hewiit as he's very entertaining. However he is a die hard Republican. Capital friggin' "R". & he has been know to be an apologist for the Republicans. Any center Right Republican can do very little wrong in Mr. Hewitt's eyes, & the wrongs that do happen he won't discuss - unless it's a bad campaign strategy move. So don't expect Mr. Hewitt to throw Mr. Schwarzenegger any curves, fast-balls, sliders, change-ups or knucklers. Expect a medium-slow underhand pitch right over the plate. & should any infield pop-ups occur expect Mr. Hewitt to knock the infielder out cold before he can make the catch. Mr Hewitt supports Mr. Schwarzeneggar over Sen. McClintock simply because Mr. Schwarzenegger would be an easier candidate to get elected.
Visit the McClintock campaign's home page. If you're still doubting that he should be the next governor of California then read this speech Sen. McClintock gave in 2001 called Freedom & Firearms. & I would point out that Sen. McClintock received a "100%" rating from GOA in 2001 & 2002. Contrast that with Mr. Schwarzeneggar's thoughts on firearms.
Now that Bill Simon has dropped out of the race, Sen. McClintock has a chance to narrow the lead that Mr. Schwarzenegger has on him. & should someone talk Mr. Schwarzeneggar into dropping out then Sen. McClintock would have an easy victory over Lt. Gov. Bustamante. According to an LA Times poll from August 24th, Lt. Gov. Bustamante had 35%, Mr. Schwarzenegger has 22%, Sen. McClintock had 12%& Mr. Simon had 6%. So if Mr. Simon's 6% swings over to Sen. McClintock, then he'd only be 3% behind Mr. Schwarzenegger. Ideally, if Mr. Schwarzenegger drops out & his 22% swing to Sen. McClintock then that would be 40% of the vote locked up.
In any event vote for Sen. McClintock. Encourage your friends to vote for Sen. McClintock. He is perhaps the best qualified candidate that California has seen in a while, & definitely the most pro-gun governor California could hope for.
Dave Codrea has a piece up at KeepandBearArms.com entitled Schwarzenegger Wrong for Gun Owners, Wrong for California For the rest of the nation it's not as important, but for Californians this is the one thing you should read if you don't have time ot read anything else today. Now personally I feel he hammers the monarchist angle a bit heavy, but in general Mr. Codrea nails it.
Mr. Codrea points us to the following quotes by Mr. Schwarzenegger on the subject of firearms:
"I don't run around every day with a gun in my hand," he reportedly said. "So I want kids to understand the difference; one is make-believe, like we do in the movies. But in reality I'm for gun control. I'm a peace-loving guy."
When asked by Sean Hannity if he supports "the Brady Bill or the 'assault weapons' ban or both," Schwarzennegger replied "Yes, I do [unintelligible] support that, and also I would like to close the loophole of the gun shows."
Still want Mr. Schwarzenegger in the Governor's mansion? Well, I guess California's victim disarmament laws weren't tough enough anyway.
For the heck of it here's a link to Hugh Hewitt's interview with Mr. Schwarzenegger. I listen to Mr. Hewiit as he's very entertaining. However he is a die hard Republican. Capital friggin' "R". & he has been know to be an apologist for the Republicans. Any center Right Republican can do very little wrong in Mr. Hewitt's eyes, & the wrongs that do happen he won't discuss - unless it's a bad campaign strategy move. So don't expect Mr. Hewitt to throw Mr. Schwarzenegger any curves, fast-balls, sliders, change-ups or knucklers. Expect a medium-slow underhand pitch right over the plate. & should any infield pop-ups occur expect Mr. Hewitt to knock the infielder out cold before he can make the catch. Mr Hewitt supports Mr. Schwarzeneggar over Sen. McClintock simply because Mr. Schwarzenegger would be an easier candidate to get elected.
Visit the McClintock campaign's home page. If you're still doubting that he should be the next governor of California then read this speech Sen. McClintock gave in 2001 called Freedom & Firearms. & I would point out that Sen. McClintock received a "100%" rating from GOA in 2001 & 2002. Contrast that with Mr. Schwarzeneggar's thoughts on firearms.
Now that Bill Simon has dropped out of the race, Sen. McClintock has a chance to narrow the lead that Mr. Schwarzenegger has on him. & should someone talk Mr. Schwarzeneggar into dropping out then Sen. McClintock would have an easy victory over Lt. Gov. Bustamante. According to an LA Times poll from August 24th, Lt. Gov. Bustamante had 35%, Mr. Schwarzenegger has 22%, Sen. McClintock had 12%& Mr. Simon had 6%. So if Mr. Simon's 6% swings over to Sen. McClintock, then he'd only be 3% behind Mr. Schwarzenegger. Ideally, if Mr. Schwarzenegger drops out & his 22% swing to Sen. McClintock then that would be 40% of the vote locked up.
In any event vote for Sen. McClintock. Encourage your friends to vote for Sen. McClintock. He is perhaps the best qualified candidate that California has seen in a while, & definitely the most pro-gun governor California could hope for.
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
There's something y'all should read over at the GOA homepage. It's called The Feds Want To Teach Gun Control
An excerpt:
"H.R. 1078, introduced by Rep. Roger Wicker (R-MS), would set up Presidential Academies to train educators in teaching civics and history. That certainly sounds innocuous enough. What's the problem with that?
The problem is that by further centralizing the training process for teachers, radical educators will find it much easier to excise Second Amendment rights and other important principles from this nation's classrooms.
The Feds have already imposed curriculum standards on the nation's government schools with previous legislation. The result was the publication of "guidelines" which are reflected in an anti-gun textbook called We the People.
The guidelines and We the People are so busy teaching multiculturalism and environmentalism that they have no time for teaching the Tenth Amendment, which severely limits what the federal government can do.
Is that a surprise to anyone? If kids are never taught there are limits to the federal government's power, then we shouldn't be surprised when tomorrow's leaders don't have problems passing gun control legislation.
We the People does mention the Second Amendment in the section on historical development. But it gets the student to start questioning the wisdom of the amendment, asking the student whether the right to keep and bear arms is still as "important today" as it was in the eighteenth century and to decide what "limitations" should be placed on the right."
Go read the whole thing & contact your congress-critters about this. However if this kind of thing doesn't make you give serious consideration to home schooling or private schooling for your kids, then perhaps this will. (Courtesy of The Bitch Girls' very own Bitter Bitch who credits the initial find to Wizbang)
An excerpt:
"H.R. 1078, introduced by Rep. Roger Wicker (R-MS), would set up Presidential Academies to train educators in teaching civics and history. That certainly sounds innocuous enough. What's the problem with that?
The problem is that by further centralizing the training process for teachers, radical educators will find it much easier to excise Second Amendment rights and other important principles from this nation's classrooms.
The Feds have already imposed curriculum standards on the nation's government schools with previous legislation. The result was the publication of "guidelines" which are reflected in an anti-gun textbook called We the People.
The guidelines and We the People are so busy teaching multiculturalism and environmentalism that they have no time for teaching the Tenth Amendment, which severely limits what the federal government can do.
Is that a surprise to anyone? If kids are never taught there are limits to the federal government's power, then we shouldn't be surprised when tomorrow's leaders don't have problems passing gun control legislation.
We the People does mention the Second Amendment in the section on historical development. But it gets the student to start questioning the wisdom of the amendment, asking the student whether the right to keep and bear arms is still as "important today" as it was in the eighteenth century and to decide what "limitations" should be placed on the right."
Go read the whole thing & contact your congress-critters about this. However if this kind of thing doesn't make you give serious consideration to home schooling or private schooling for your kids, then perhaps this will. (Courtesy of The Bitch Girls' very own Bitter Bitch who credits the initial find to Wizbang)
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Some of you may remember a previous post concerning Denver Post columnist Jim Spencer who wrote an Op/ed praising Colorado Springs decision to ban open carry in meetings. Or perhaps it's more appropriate to say he wrote a column damning a citizen for peaceably exercising his Rights.
In the August 19th 'Letters' section of The Denver Post I came across several retorts to Mr. Spencer's column. One was of particular interest. It was penned by Anthony J. Fabian, the President of the Colorado State Shooting Association. The CSSA is the Colorado affiliate of the NRA.
Let's get on to Mr. Fabian's letter...
"Which way is it, Jim?
Re: “Bearing arms exposes gap in pro-gun logic,” Aug. 19 Jim Spencer column. Before Jim Spencer gives lessons in exposing gaps in logic, he should review his own amusing contradictions in his column regarding the recent Colorado Springs open-carry controversy. Spencer first states that the open carry of firearms should be illegal because the mere presence of firearms freaks out him and others, but later in the same column he also complains that lawfully concealed firearms that he never even sees bother him, too."
A good point to make. I would have written it differently, but that's just me.
Now on to the interesting part:
"As for Don Ortega being “one of ours,” Spencer could not be more wrong. We advocates of responsible firearms ownership continuously strive to separate and distance ourselves from the kooks in our ranks, while liberal gun-haters like Spencer are proudly identified and defined by the kooks in their ranks."
"...kooks in our ranks..."? WTF??? A man exercising his Rights in a peaceful manner is to be shunned as a kook? Was Mr. Ortega not a member of the CSSA & therefore not deserving of any defense by the president of that fine organization?
Lemme tell y'all something: I can accept arguments revolving around Mr. Ortega not being particularly wise in his actions. I disagree & will do so vehemently but I can accept that some people view things this way. In fact I can accept a lot of viewpoints as being (for lack of a better word) valid.
But Mr. Fabian is exactly the kind of person that makes gun control possible. His attitude of reasonable restrictions under the guise of responsible firearms possession is merely a way to avoid growing a backbone & making a principled stand. It is this attitude that has led to the compromises that collectively have enslaved us all.
Instead of attacking the Colorado Springs city council for deciding to outlaw the exercise of a basic Right recognized by two constitutions that they are ultimately subject to, Mr. Fabian chose to attack the man who was merely exercising his Rights. It's nothing more than a continuation of a school-yard tactic: when the bully you can't stand comes to pick on your friend, instead of standing up to the bully together you decide to help the bully pick on your friend thinking it will make you safe from the attacks of the bully.
Now admittedly I am a bit biased against the CSSA. This is because they tend to mirror the positions of the NRA as any good state affiliate is prone to do. More specifically though the CSSA had a lot to do with the tabling of a good CCW bill (as far as anything requiring a permit to exercise a Right can be considered 'good') & the passage of a carry bill that is in most ways worse than it's may-issue predecessor. For more details please look here.
But this abandoning of Mr. Ortega, who is a self admitted NRA member no less reinforces my belief that the CSSA is not any more of a friend to the gun owner than the NRA. I do believe either organization wouldn't fight too hard if a law was proposed that only allowed members of the NRA & its respective state affiliates to own arms.
& one other thing (albeit unrelated to this post's initial topic) that infuriates me about the NRA & its state affiliates: in order to compete in any state championship High Power match, one has to be a member of the NRA &/or CSSA.
In fact I was rejected for membership by a very promising looking gun club a while back because I was not an NRA member.
At the membership meeting they asked if I was NRA & I said I wasn't. They then started to explain how easy it was to be a member. I interrupted them & stated that it was always easy to sell your soul. I went on to tell them that I wasn't an NRA member for lack of knowing how to join, but because I felt giving money to the NRA was only marginally better than giving money to Sarah Brady. Of course I was a bit more polite about it than it seems from my recounting, but that was the gist of it. They then started laughing & lapsed into a ten minute bitch-session about the NRA. But eventually they calmed down & told me that the NRA gives them a deal on insurance & w/o it they couldn't exist. One of the stipulations is for the club to have 100% NRA membership. There was no way around it. So I thanked them for their time & left.
So the NRA & to a slightly lesser extent the CSSA have a captive membership - you're either a member of their respective organizations or you don't get to participate in certain activities, like a state championship or being a member of a gun club. Kind of explains why they never add the 'willing' qualifier when they boast of membership, doesn't it?
Back to the rant at hand though:
Mr. Fabian will gladly turn on one of his own if it means taking less heat from the other side. Never mind if Mr. Ortega should have carried a weapon into a city council meeting: he did. That's that. Further it was not illegal. In fact it was an act protected by the state & federal constitutions respectively. Want to argue etiquette? Sure, I'll be happy to argue if it was proper or not. But you must first realize that it is none of your damned business what anyone does with their property as long as it does not directly interfere with your Rights. In other words, before I take you seriously we must either agree that Mr. Ortega's action are really none of anyone's business since he broke no law & was in fact exercising a constitutionally protected Right, or you must provide a reasonable argument as to why it's anyone else's damned business how someone exercises a constitutionally protected Right, & how that applies to Mr. Ortega.
I leave you with the Colorado Constitution's language concerning Mr. Ortega's actions. Unfortunately Mr. Fabian has presumably read it without understanding that it's more than just a catchy slogan to keep the donations rolling in & his job security intact.
Colorado Constitution
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.
In the August 19th 'Letters' section of The Denver Post I came across several retorts to Mr. Spencer's column. One was of particular interest. It was penned by Anthony J. Fabian, the President of the Colorado State Shooting Association. The CSSA is the Colorado affiliate of the NRA.
Let's get on to Mr. Fabian's letter...
"Which way is it, Jim?
Re: “Bearing arms exposes gap in pro-gun logic,” Aug. 19 Jim Spencer column. Before Jim Spencer gives lessons in exposing gaps in logic, he should review his own amusing contradictions in his column regarding the recent Colorado Springs open-carry controversy. Spencer first states that the open carry of firearms should be illegal because the mere presence of firearms freaks out him and others, but later in the same column he also complains that lawfully concealed firearms that he never even sees bother him, too."
A good point to make. I would have written it differently, but that's just me.
Now on to the interesting part:
"As for Don Ortega being “one of ours,” Spencer could not be more wrong. We advocates of responsible firearms ownership continuously strive to separate and distance ourselves from the kooks in our ranks, while liberal gun-haters like Spencer are proudly identified and defined by the kooks in their ranks."
"...kooks in our ranks..."? WTF??? A man exercising his Rights in a peaceful manner is to be shunned as a kook? Was Mr. Ortega not a member of the CSSA & therefore not deserving of any defense by the president of that fine organization?
Lemme tell y'all something: I can accept arguments revolving around Mr. Ortega not being particularly wise in his actions. I disagree & will do so vehemently but I can accept that some people view things this way. In fact I can accept a lot of viewpoints as being (for lack of a better word) valid.
But Mr. Fabian is exactly the kind of person that makes gun control possible. His attitude of reasonable restrictions under the guise of responsible firearms possession is merely a way to avoid growing a backbone & making a principled stand. It is this attitude that has led to the compromises that collectively have enslaved us all.
Instead of attacking the Colorado Springs city council for deciding to outlaw the exercise of a basic Right recognized by two constitutions that they are ultimately subject to, Mr. Fabian chose to attack the man who was merely exercising his Rights. It's nothing more than a continuation of a school-yard tactic: when the bully you can't stand comes to pick on your friend, instead of standing up to the bully together you decide to help the bully pick on your friend thinking it will make you safe from the attacks of the bully.
Now admittedly I am a bit biased against the CSSA. This is because they tend to mirror the positions of the NRA as any good state affiliate is prone to do. More specifically though the CSSA had a lot to do with the tabling of a good CCW bill (as far as anything requiring a permit to exercise a Right can be considered 'good') & the passage of a carry bill that is in most ways worse than it's may-issue predecessor. For more details please look here.
But this abandoning of Mr. Ortega, who is a self admitted NRA member no less reinforces my belief that the CSSA is not any more of a friend to the gun owner than the NRA. I do believe either organization wouldn't fight too hard if a law was proposed that only allowed members of the NRA & its respective state affiliates to own arms.
& one other thing (albeit unrelated to this post's initial topic) that infuriates me about the NRA & its state affiliates: in order to compete in any state championship High Power match, one has to be a member of the NRA &/or CSSA.
In fact I was rejected for membership by a very promising looking gun club a while back because I was not an NRA member.
At the membership meeting they asked if I was NRA & I said I wasn't. They then started to explain how easy it was to be a member. I interrupted them & stated that it was always easy to sell your soul. I went on to tell them that I wasn't an NRA member for lack of knowing how to join, but because I felt giving money to the NRA was only marginally better than giving money to Sarah Brady. Of course I was a bit more polite about it than it seems from my recounting, but that was the gist of it. They then started laughing & lapsed into a ten minute bitch-session about the NRA. But eventually they calmed down & told me that the NRA gives them a deal on insurance & w/o it they couldn't exist. One of the stipulations is for the club to have 100% NRA membership. There was no way around it. So I thanked them for their time & left.
So the NRA & to a slightly lesser extent the CSSA have a captive membership - you're either a member of their respective organizations or you don't get to participate in certain activities, like a state championship or being a member of a gun club. Kind of explains why they never add the 'willing' qualifier when they boast of membership, doesn't it?
Back to the rant at hand though:
Mr. Fabian will gladly turn on one of his own if it means taking less heat from the other side. Never mind if Mr. Ortega should have carried a weapon into a city council meeting: he did. That's that. Further it was not illegal. In fact it was an act protected by the state & federal constitutions respectively. Want to argue etiquette? Sure, I'll be happy to argue if it was proper or not. But you must first realize that it is none of your damned business what anyone does with their property as long as it does not directly interfere with your Rights. In other words, before I take you seriously we must either agree that Mr. Ortega's action are really none of anyone's business since he broke no law & was in fact exercising a constitutionally protected Right, or you must provide a reasonable argument as to why it's anyone else's damned business how someone exercises a constitutionally protected Right, & how that applies to Mr. Ortega.
I leave you with the Colorado Constitution's language concerning Mr. Ortega's actions. Unfortunately Mr. Fabian has presumably read it without understanding that it's more than just a catchy slogan to keep the donations rolling in & his job security intact.
Colorado Constitution
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.
Saturday, August 23, 2003
I just stumbled upon a neat little essay that discusses the 14th Amendment, federalism & activist judiciaries. It's called Queer Eye for the 14th Amendment. The by-line says it was written by August 21, 2003 but I'm pretty sure that's a typo. It was found over at The Colorado Freedom Report. There are a lot of decent articles over there & I would recommend browsing the site if you have the time.
Friday, August 22, 2003
Kevin of The Smallest Minority has a post up entitled RACIST!™ about U.S. vs. European crime rates & possible causes. It's worth a read.
The only thing I would add is that it is my understanding that culture is the thing we should look at. Culture does tend to follow racial lines, but it is the culture, not any sort of genetic or hereditary qualities that could explain the stats.
But go read Kevin's thoughts on the matter.
The only thing I would add is that it is my understanding that culture is the thing we should look at. Culture does tend to follow racial lines, but it is the culture, not any sort of genetic or hereditary qualities that could explain the stats.
But go read Kevin's thoughts on the matter.
Thursday, August 21, 2003
For any & all new visitors might I point out a few things about this blog...
Of utmost importance are some links over to the left.
Armed Females of America, GOA, JPFO, Grass Roots North Carolina, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, The Liberty Belles, etc. are all organizations that offer you what the NRA can't - they're pro-gun. They actually believe that the Second Amendment means what it says & don't use their positions to compromise for the sake of their own welfare as organizations. So if you haven't already then give the links a look & if you like what you see then by all means join up.
Also there's a section in Previous Posts by Category called Events & Efforts where you can find information on things in which your assistance may be needed, such as donating cash to the effort to fund the Silveira vs. Lockyer case that may go before the Supreme Court, or signing a petition in Tennessee that asks for all federal firearms laws to be nullified within that state, or simply telling you that a .50 caliber/machine gun shoot or the National Matches at Camp Perry will be coming up soon.
Fairtax is a site that proposes to replace the prgressive income tax with a national sales tax. While I'm not happy about the rate they propose it is no worse than the rate we're paying now & their system is more advantageous for everyone. Definitely better than the porgressive system we have or even the flat tax system that's been talked about. Click their link & see what they have to say.
& anyone new to shooting might want to check out the Bloggers Firearms Instruction link. It lists bloggers &/or blog readers who offer free instruction & in some cases free use of their guns & ammo to people who want to see if shooting is for them. It also has a list & explanation of basic firearms safety rules. If you feel like volunteering your time in this as an instructor then drop me an e-mail with your location & any conditions you have.
Scrolling on down the left side you'll find some very good blogs. Most of better quality than you see here. Give them a look.
Finally we come to the Previous Posts by Category section. I try to keep it up to date but usually fail. But I haven't let anything drop off the front page w/o being archived yet. So if you wish to look up a particular item that I may have blogged about but it's not on the front page, then just pick a category & start scrolling. There are several posts that fit in more than one category so if you see the same post in a few different places it's intentional.
There are a few essays which I feel are important enough to mention specifically.
Rights are Absolute
Concealed carry & prior restraint: why it's not like shouting fire in a crowded theater
Reasons against CCW permits
The Means, Knowledge & Will to resist
Colorado's new CCW vs. Colorado's old CCW vs. Colorado's proposed but tabled CCW
Florida Constitution & concealed carry
Fisking of NC SB 919 (Domestic Violence law) Sunday August 10th 3:08 a.m.
Fuddite.
The above & more are found under Essays & Such. You'll also find the writing of Kevin at The Smallest Minority, Nicki Fellenzer, Dave Kopel, Ron Paul & many other fine writers who are more than just a little concerned about the state of the nation.
& I have added a wishlist. I would ask that no one bother clicking on the wish list unless they really feel that this blog is informative to them & they have already joined or sent a donation to a no-compromise pro-gun organization of their choice. As much as I'd like someone or many someone's to buy me supplies to keep up my shooting/gunsmithing habit, I'd much rather that any discretionary funds first be sent to GOA or JPFO or one of the local groups like GRNC or RMGO.
So enjoy your visit, make yourself at home & feel free to use the comments feature or e-mail me if you have any questions or answers. Thanks for stopping by.
Of utmost importance are some links over to the left.
Armed Females of America, GOA, JPFO, Grass Roots North Carolina, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, The Liberty Belles, etc. are all organizations that offer you what the NRA can't - they're pro-gun. They actually believe that the Second Amendment means what it says & don't use their positions to compromise for the sake of their own welfare as organizations. So if you haven't already then give the links a look & if you like what you see then by all means join up.
Also there's a section in Previous Posts by Category called Events & Efforts where you can find information on things in which your assistance may be needed, such as donating cash to the effort to fund the Silveira vs. Lockyer case that may go before the Supreme Court, or signing a petition in Tennessee that asks for all federal firearms laws to be nullified within that state, or simply telling you that a .50 caliber/machine gun shoot or the National Matches at Camp Perry will be coming up soon.
Fairtax is a site that proposes to replace the prgressive income tax with a national sales tax. While I'm not happy about the rate they propose it is no worse than the rate we're paying now & their system is more advantageous for everyone. Definitely better than the porgressive system we have or even the flat tax system that's been talked about. Click their link & see what they have to say.
& anyone new to shooting might want to check out the Bloggers Firearms Instruction link. It lists bloggers &/or blog readers who offer free instruction & in some cases free use of their guns & ammo to people who want to see if shooting is for them. It also has a list & explanation of basic firearms safety rules. If you feel like volunteering your time in this as an instructor then drop me an e-mail with your location & any conditions you have.
Scrolling on down the left side you'll find some very good blogs. Most of better quality than you see here. Give them a look.
Finally we come to the Previous Posts by Category section. I try to keep it up to date but usually fail. But I haven't let anything drop off the front page w/o being archived yet. So if you wish to look up a particular item that I may have blogged about but it's not on the front page, then just pick a category & start scrolling. There are several posts that fit in more than one category so if you see the same post in a few different places it's intentional.
There are a few essays which I feel are important enough to mention specifically.
Rights are Absolute
Concealed carry & prior restraint: why it's not like shouting fire in a crowded theater
Reasons against CCW permits
The Means, Knowledge & Will to resist
Colorado's new CCW vs. Colorado's old CCW vs. Colorado's proposed but tabled CCW
Florida Constitution & concealed carry
Fisking of NC SB 919 (Domestic Violence law) Sunday August 10th 3:08 a.m.
Fuddite.
The above & more are found under Essays & Such. You'll also find the writing of Kevin at The Smallest Minority, Nicki Fellenzer, Dave Kopel, Ron Paul & many other fine writers who are more than just a little concerned about the state of the nation.
& I have added a wishlist. I would ask that no one bother clicking on the wish list unless they really feel that this blog is informative to them & they have already joined or sent a donation to a no-compromise pro-gun organization of their choice. As much as I'd like someone or many someone's to buy me supplies to keep up my shooting/gunsmithing habit, I'd much rather that any discretionary funds first be sent to GOA or JPFO or one of the local groups like GRNC or RMGO.
So enjoy your visit, make yourself at home & feel free to use the comments feature or e-mail me if you have any questions or answers. Thanks for stopping by.
I was going to call it a day but then I came across this story about NYC's finest in action.
"While some city workers struggled to protect New Yorkers in the midst of the blackout, a city traffic agent wrote summonses even as private citizens directed traffic at a busy intersection yards away."
To protect & serve, huh? NYC makes it very burdensome to aquire permission to defend yourself, yet during a power outage they're trying to fill a ticket quota???
"About a half-hour into Thursday's power outage, Dr. Robert Richter and two other New Yorkers took it upon themselves to ease the traffic jam at West 79th Street and Amsterdam Avenue.
Then, 15 minutes later, an NYPD traffic-enforcement car rolled up, but instead of directing traffic, the agent tagged a pair of cars on West 79th Street, Richter said.
"When I saw the flashing lights and the cars pull up, I said, Oh, relief is here,' Richter told The Post. 'Then they got out of the car and started writing tickets.'
'After they finished writing tickets, they drove away - I couldn't believe this. I was just amazed.'
At least 10 onlookers implored the agent not to write citations on the cars, a witness said.
But the stone-faced summons man said nothing, wrote the tickets and drove off. "
uh-huh. Glad to see they're not letting a little thing like a total power failure across the region affect their ticket quotas. I wonder if they get paid by commission?
"But a picture showing the agent writing a summons - with Richter directing traffic in the background - was worth considerably less than 1,000 words to a Police Department spokesman.
The spokesman said the department would not comment unless they saw a copy of the summons.
He also declined to check whether any summonses were issued after the blackout began."
So Baghdad Bob is now doing PR for the NYPD?
As I believe I have mentioned before, if you were thinking about vacationing in NYC, might I recommend NC instead? Lovely beaches, pretty mountains & open carry for everyone.
"While some city workers struggled to protect New Yorkers in the midst of the blackout, a city traffic agent wrote summonses even as private citizens directed traffic at a busy intersection yards away."
To protect & serve, huh? NYC makes it very burdensome to aquire permission to defend yourself, yet during a power outage they're trying to fill a ticket quota???
"About a half-hour into Thursday's power outage, Dr. Robert Richter and two other New Yorkers took it upon themselves to ease the traffic jam at West 79th Street and Amsterdam Avenue.
Then, 15 minutes later, an NYPD traffic-enforcement car rolled up, but instead of directing traffic, the agent tagged a pair of cars on West 79th Street, Richter said.
"When I saw the flashing lights and the cars pull up, I said, Oh, relief is here,' Richter told The Post. 'Then they got out of the car and started writing tickets.'
'After they finished writing tickets, they drove away - I couldn't believe this. I was just amazed.'
At least 10 onlookers implored the agent not to write citations on the cars, a witness said.
But the stone-faced summons man said nothing, wrote the tickets and drove off. "
uh-huh. Glad to see they're not letting a little thing like a total power failure across the region affect their ticket quotas. I wonder if they get paid by commission?
"But a picture showing the agent writing a summons - with Richter directing traffic in the background - was worth considerably less than 1,000 words to a Police Department spokesman.
The spokesman said the department would not comment unless they saw a copy of the summons.
He also declined to check whether any summonses were issued after the blackout began."
So Baghdad Bob is now doing PR for the NYPD?
As I believe I have mentioned before, if you were thinking about vacationing in NYC, might I recommend NC instead? Lovely beaches, pretty mountains & open carry for everyone.
Mr. William Gates will not be prosecuted. Mr. Gates, if you recall is a resident of Charleston, S.C. who shot two men that were having a gunfight in his front yard with a third man. Mr. Gates' firearms have been returned, except for the shotgun he used to defend his home & community.
But let us move on to a closer examination of the Charleston Post & Courier article which relays this good news:
"Solicitor Ralph Hoisington said Tuesday he will not seek criminal charges against a West Ashley homeowner who shot two men waging a shootout in his front yard earlier this month.
Hoisington said he concluded that 67-year-old William Gates did nothing illegal Aug. 1 when he stepped onto the porch of his Tripe Street home and opened fire with a shotgun. Gates thought a shot had been fired in his direction, and he was defending himself and his home, he said."
Sounds alright so far, although why it took 19 days to figure this out is a bit curious.
"While I'm not necessarily encouraging this type of action, I do not intend to prosecute in this case,' Hoisington said."
Not necessarily encouraging justifiable self defense?
"Gates, a semi-retired brick mason, said he was pleased by the decision 'because I know darn well I didn't go on the other side of the law.'
'I'm sorry it happened, but I feel I did the right thing,' he said."
It seems that everyone but the Solicitor knew damn well that Mr. Gates was within the limits of S.C.'s self defense laws.
"Hoisington's announcement came the same day Charleston police filed assault and weapons charges against one of the men Gates shot.
Christopher Hampton, 22, is accused of wounding 27-year-old Kevin Hazel during the initial 4:40 a.m. shootout outside Gates' home.
Police say Hampton shot Hazel in the back after the two argued. Hazel's brother, 24-year-old Montez Hazel, then reportedly opened fire on Hampton, said Detective Sgt. Barry Goldstein
The gunfire woke Gates, who grabbed his 12-gauge Browning automatic shotgun, stepped outside and fired three blasts at the men, wounding Hampton in the abdomen and Montez Hazel in the torso, police said."
hmmm. Interesting. It is unfortunate that the other gentleman, Mr. Hazel, seemed to be defending himself & perhaps his brother & this was undiscernable to Mr. Gates. But when you believe you're being shot at, & you see two people with guns drawn it is not always wise to play 20 questions before you start to defend yourself.
"Hampton, who was released from the hospital last week, surrendered to authorities Monday night at the Charleston County jail, Goldstein said.
He is charged with assault and battery with intent to kill and possessing a firearm during a violent crime.
Magistrate Jack Guedalia denied bail Tuesday on the assault count and set bail at $200,000 on the firearms violation."
I'm hoping there was some kind of mistake. Mr. Hampton, who shot someone in the back & thereby instigated this whole incident, was released on his own recognizance? He voluntarily turned himself in when he thought it was proper? Not that I'm saying they should have held him w/o specifying charges, my point is they should have charged him before he was released. especially considering that at the time the Charleston P.D. had disarmed the man who had shot him.
"The Hazel brothers remained hospitalized in fair condition while recovering from their wounds, Goldstein said."
Hopefully they'll recover quickly.
"Two of the three men have previous drug convictions, according to Charleston County court records.Police confiscated Gates' shotgun and six other guns inside his home, but he was not arrested. Charles-ton Police Chief Reuben Greenberg said Gates merely was protecting himself and his home."
This is the part that bothers me: they took all of Mr. Gates weapons. All. After he had just shot two people that are believed to be involved in the drug trade in a moderate to high crime neighborhood. The Charleston P.D. Chief even said at the time it was self defense, but yet they still disarmed Mr. Gates.
"South Carolina case law historically has upheld the use of deadly force as a defense when a person's life and home are threatened.
In 2001, former attorney gener-al Charlie Condon instituted a home-invasion policy that protected citizens from prosecution for defending themselves against intruders.
Hoisington said the Tripe Street case caused him "a little concern" because Gates was outside his home when he fired on the men. The case would have been more clear-cut if Gates had been threatened inside his home, he said.
'I think there is a fine line between defending your residence and defending your property,' he said."
So it took him 19 days to figure out which side of the self defense laws Mr. Gates was on? I wonder if he is stressing the part about defending ones' property being distinguishable from defending your residence so there'll be no question by a citizen should he wish to take someone elses' property?
"Today's guns, however, have the ability to pierce walls, increasing the threat to those inside a home, Hoisington said. Gates also was entitled to go out to his porch to see what was happening, even if that might not have been the prudent thing to do, he said."
Yep. todays guns are far more powerful than those old, antiquated cartridges that were used in the ballistic dark ages. I mean who could really be satisfied with the 2914 foot-pounds of muzzle energy generated by a 165 grain bullet from the almost 100 yeard old .30-06 cartridge? I mean how can that compare to anything we have today? Just because it has killed everything on the planet that walks is no reason to even think about comparing it to the wondeful cartridges we have today. For example let's look at the military's choice of (ahem) rifle cartridge - the 5.56x45mm NATO (Actually we're looking at data for the .223 Remington which is virtually identical to the 5.56x45mmNATO Catridge): How can that almost century old cartridge compare to the whopping 1285 foot-punds of energy that a 55 grain bullet in this just over thirty year old cartidge generates at the muzzle?
Disregarding the solicitor's ignorance of external ballistics I am glad he felt that Mr. Gates was 'entitled' to go on to his porch & see exactly who the hell was shooting at him. Very generous of him.
Although I don't think the solicitor realizes that it may have in fact been the prudent thing to do. Granted, the situation wasn't quit what Mr. Gates thought it was at the time, but suppose those men had been firing at the Gates home with the intent on killing Mr. Gates. Then suppose that they decided to enter the home & make sure that Mr. Gates was dead.
I realize that Mr. Gates probably would have defended himself inside his home as he did outside his home, but things change just a bit in close quarters. A shotgun will throw a decent pattern at 20 yards, but withing 10 feet & the shot is still compacted together. just a little over .75 in diameter. Now if that shot would hit someone it would be devastating, but the chances of missing are greatly increased as oppossed to shooting at a distance that would allow the pattern to open up. Then again, perhaps Mr. Gates' aim wouldn't be a concern at that distance. But shooting at two men with a shotgun when they are shooting at you at fairly close range is far more dangerous than shooting at two men who are shooting at you from a distance. In short I have no doubt that Mr. Gates would have shot at least one person had they chose to enter his home, but the odds of him shooting both & emerging unscathed are greatly increased when the distance is close.
So when confronted with a direct & immediate threat as Mr. Gates believed at the time, it is best to engage them at a distance. I feel his actions may have been the most prudent he could have taken given the information he had to work with.
"When there is a perception that you are being fired upon, I think it's fairly clear you can return fire,' he said."
Then why didn't he just say that & leave the other BS alone?
"Gates said police have returned all of his guns but the shotgun, and he expects to get that back soon. He said no one has sought retribution against him for the shooting and that the drug dealers have stayed clear of his property."
Imagine that...shoot a couple of people in your front yard & criminals avoid you! Although not as common as it would seem from watching TV, retaliatory crimes do happen & should be of a concern to anyone involved in such a situation. especially when the local PD completely & totally disarms you.
I am glad that The Charleston PD returned 6 of Mr. Gates' firearms. I wouldn't be surprised if that had something to do with all the people calling up the Charleston PD & writing e-mails to the mayor. For that I thank all of you who put forth the effort.
But Mr. Gates is too kind. He expects he'll get his shotgun back soon? If I were him I'd have demanded the second they decided not to prosecute that the cop who actually confiscated it immediately go retrieve it & drop it off at the house. There is no justification for holding the shotgun now that charges are not going to be pursued. Not that there was justification for confiscating all of his firearms in the first place. They should return the gun immediately, if not sooner.
"The place is clean since it happened,' he said. 'I just hope they be cool and stay away from my place with that stuff.'
Gates said he has received more than 200 calls -- some from as far away as Canada and Germany -- from people congratulating him for taking a stand.
'Every one of them has been supportive,' he said."
I have a feeling Mr. Gates will be alright, even if someone foolishly decides to attempt to harm him. But it is also encouraging to know so many people heard about Mr. Gates' plight & have been supportive. Maybe the concept of Self Defense isn't as antiquated in this country as the anti-gun types would have us think.
& thanks to all the bloggers & readers out there who wrote about Mr. Gates & spread the word. It's not completely over yet, as they still have his shotgun, but I do believe that the interest generated by Kim du Toit, Rachel Lucas & Instapundit when they respectively posted about Mr. Gates got a lot of people to call & let Charleston know that a lot of people didn't like the idea of Mr. Gates being disarmed, let alone charged for doing what he thought was necessary. So thanks to you all.
But let us move on to a closer examination of the Charleston Post & Courier article which relays this good news:
"Solicitor Ralph Hoisington said Tuesday he will not seek criminal charges against a West Ashley homeowner who shot two men waging a shootout in his front yard earlier this month.
Hoisington said he concluded that 67-year-old William Gates did nothing illegal Aug. 1 when he stepped onto the porch of his Tripe Street home and opened fire with a shotgun. Gates thought a shot had been fired in his direction, and he was defending himself and his home, he said."
Sounds alright so far, although why it took 19 days to figure this out is a bit curious.
"While I'm not necessarily encouraging this type of action, I do not intend to prosecute in this case,' Hoisington said."
Not necessarily encouraging justifiable self defense?
"Gates, a semi-retired brick mason, said he was pleased by the decision 'because I know darn well I didn't go on the other side of the law.'
'I'm sorry it happened, but I feel I did the right thing,' he said."
It seems that everyone but the Solicitor knew damn well that Mr. Gates was within the limits of S.C.'s self defense laws.
"Hoisington's announcement came the same day Charleston police filed assault and weapons charges against one of the men Gates shot.
Christopher Hampton, 22, is accused of wounding 27-year-old Kevin Hazel during the initial 4:40 a.m. shootout outside Gates' home.
Police say Hampton shot Hazel in the back after the two argued. Hazel's brother, 24-year-old Montez Hazel, then reportedly opened fire on Hampton, said Detective Sgt. Barry Goldstein
The gunfire woke Gates, who grabbed his 12-gauge Browning automatic shotgun, stepped outside and fired three blasts at the men, wounding Hampton in the abdomen and Montez Hazel in the torso, police said."
hmmm. Interesting. It is unfortunate that the other gentleman, Mr. Hazel, seemed to be defending himself & perhaps his brother & this was undiscernable to Mr. Gates. But when you believe you're being shot at, & you see two people with guns drawn it is not always wise to play 20 questions before you start to defend yourself.
"Hampton, who was released from the hospital last week, surrendered to authorities Monday night at the Charleston County jail, Goldstein said.
He is charged with assault and battery with intent to kill and possessing a firearm during a violent crime.
Magistrate Jack Guedalia denied bail Tuesday on the assault count and set bail at $200,000 on the firearms violation."
I'm hoping there was some kind of mistake. Mr. Hampton, who shot someone in the back & thereby instigated this whole incident, was released on his own recognizance? He voluntarily turned himself in when he thought it was proper? Not that I'm saying they should have held him w/o specifying charges, my point is they should have charged him before he was released. especially considering that at the time the Charleston P.D. had disarmed the man who had shot him.
"The Hazel brothers remained hospitalized in fair condition while recovering from their wounds, Goldstein said."
Hopefully they'll recover quickly.
"Two of the three men have previous drug convictions, according to Charleston County court records.Police confiscated Gates' shotgun and six other guns inside his home, but he was not arrested. Charles-ton Police Chief Reuben Greenberg said Gates merely was protecting himself and his home."
This is the part that bothers me: they took all of Mr. Gates weapons. All. After he had just shot two people that are believed to be involved in the drug trade in a moderate to high crime neighborhood. The Charleston P.D. Chief even said at the time it was self defense, but yet they still disarmed Mr. Gates.
"South Carolina case law historically has upheld the use of deadly force as a defense when a person's life and home are threatened.
In 2001, former attorney gener-al Charlie Condon instituted a home-invasion policy that protected citizens from prosecution for defending themselves against intruders.
Hoisington said the Tripe Street case caused him "a little concern" because Gates was outside his home when he fired on the men. The case would have been more clear-cut if Gates had been threatened inside his home, he said.
'I think there is a fine line between defending your residence and defending your property,' he said."
So it took him 19 days to figure out which side of the self defense laws Mr. Gates was on? I wonder if he is stressing the part about defending ones' property being distinguishable from defending your residence so there'll be no question by a citizen should he wish to take someone elses' property?
"Today's guns, however, have the ability to pierce walls, increasing the threat to those inside a home, Hoisington said. Gates also was entitled to go out to his porch to see what was happening, even if that might not have been the prudent thing to do, he said."
Disregarding the solicitor's ignorance of external ballistics I am glad he felt that Mr. Gates was 'entitled' to go on to his porch & see exactly who the hell was shooting at him. Very generous of him.
Although I don't think the solicitor realizes that it may have in fact been the prudent thing to do. Granted, the situation wasn't quit what Mr. Gates thought it was at the time, but suppose those men had been firing at the Gates home with the intent on killing Mr. Gates. Then suppose that they decided to enter the home & make sure that Mr. Gates was dead.
I realize that Mr. Gates probably would have defended himself inside his home as he did outside his home, but things change just a bit in close quarters. A shotgun will throw a decent pattern at 20 yards, but withing 10 feet & the shot is still compacted together. just a little over .75 in diameter. Now if that shot would hit someone it would be devastating, but the chances of missing are greatly increased as oppossed to shooting at a distance that would allow the pattern to open up. Then again, perhaps Mr. Gates' aim wouldn't be a concern at that distance. But shooting at two men with a shotgun when they are shooting at you at fairly close range is far more dangerous than shooting at two men who are shooting at you from a distance. In short I have no doubt that Mr. Gates would have shot at least one person had they chose to enter his home, but the odds of him shooting both & emerging unscathed are greatly increased when the distance is close.
So when confronted with a direct & immediate threat as Mr. Gates believed at the time, it is best to engage them at a distance. I feel his actions may have been the most prudent he could have taken given the information he had to work with.
"When there is a perception that you are being fired upon, I think it's fairly clear you can return fire,' he said."
Then why didn't he just say that & leave the other BS alone?
"Gates said police have returned all of his guns but the shotgun, and he expects to get that back soon. He said no one has sought retribution against him for the shooting and that the drug dealers have stayed clear of his property."
Imagine that...shoot a couple of people in your front yard & criminals avoid you! Although not as common as it would seem from watching TV, retaliatory crimes do happen & should be of a concern to anyone involved in such a situation. especially when the local PD completely & totally disarms you.
I am glad that The Charleston PD returned 6 of Mr. Gates' firearms. I wouldn't be surprised if that had something to do with all the people calling up the Charleston PD & writing e-mails to the mayor. For that I thank all of you who put forth the effort.
But Mr. Gates is too kind. He expects he'll get his shotgun back soon? If I were him I'd have demanded the second they decided not to prosecute that the cop who actually confiscated it immediately go retrieve it & drop it off at the house. There is no justification for holding the shotgun now that charges are not going to be pursued. Not that there was justification for confiscating all of his firearms in the first place. They should return the gun immediately, if not sooner.
"The place is clean since it happened,' he said. 'I just hope they be cool and stay away from my place with that stuff.'
Gates said he has received more than 200 calls -- some from as far away as Canada and Germany -- from people congratulating him for taking a stand.
'Every one of them has been supportive,' he said."
I have a feeling Mr. Gates will be alright, even if someone foolishly decides to attempt to harm him. But it is also encouraging to know so many people heard about Mr. Gates' plight & have been supportive. Maybe the concept of Self Defense isn't as antiquated in this country as the anti-gun types would have us think.
& thanks to all the bloggers & readers out there who wrote about Mr. Gates & spread the word. It's not completely over yet, as they still have his shotgun, but I do believe that the interest generated by Kim du Toit, Rachel Lucas & Instapundit when they respectively posted about Mr. Gates got a lot of people to call & let Charleston know that a lot of people didn't like the idea of Mr. Gates being disarmed, let alone charged for doing what he thought was necessary. So thanks to you all.
Wednesday, August 20, 2003
Speaking of not spending a damn dime in a city or state that abuses its citizens Rights, may I direct your attention towards Chicago?
"...I immediately volunteered my FOID card stated my business and told them where to find my encased unarmed pistol. (Unknowingly I gave up my Miranda rights).
The police chose a different abuse for me, far more satisfying than death. Punish an innocent man forever, with a felony charge of unlawfully using a weapon I had never fired out side of a shooting range. But for transporting a weapon I was about to be charged with a Class IV felony, Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons (UUW)..."
This is from a letter written by Roderick Pritchett. Mr. Pritchett was arrested & is being prosecuted for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. This despite the fact that the firearm in question was unloaded, cased & being transported in the manner prescribed by law. Mr. Pritchett also had a valid Firearms Owners identification Card. Aside from the arguments about the FOID card being a not-so-covert registration program, Mr. Pritchett was obeying eveyr unjust, unconstitutional morally decrepit law Illinois burdens its people with.
But go read the whole account. Think it couldn't happen to you? The odds are in your favor. But odds won't save you when some statist bastard picks you to make an example of. & if you're the type to assume that anyone arrested must have done something wrong, then don't be suprised when no one comes to your aid.
Even if Mr. Pritchett is aquitted, that will not erase the damage that has been done to him. But yet if he had resisted the unlawful actions of those slimy human-wannabes with a badge on thier chests, chances are he'd be dead. Tough world we live in isn't it? Be free & dead while your reputation is smirched for attempting to resist 'the law', or endure what Mr. Pritchett endured because you try to obey the law - even the unjust ones.
In any case, until Chicago & the rest of Illinois gets their act together & stops whipping people for exercising their basic Rights, might I suggest NC for your next vacation? lovely beaches, pretty mountains & open carry for everyone.
Seriously, if a place disrespects the Rights of its locals, you think you have a chance in hell of getting decent treatment? do a little voting with your wallet: don't spend money in places that wil use the money to tighten the chains it wants to place on its residents. Yes, that may inconvenience some of you. Course I'd have you ask Mr. Pritchett about inconvenience beofre i took you seriously. & no, chances are Chicago, NYC, L.A.. Boston - any of the places I'd ask you to avoid won't notice your cash not flowing their way. Not unless a helluva lot of us get together & stick to a formal boycott. But personally I'm glad that none of my tourism dollars paid the wages of the scumbags who locked up a man for carrying a cased, unloaded firearm according to their BS rules.
Click the link. read about Mr. Pritchett. Know that for the grace of God that could have been you. Know that for the grace of God that could still be you.
Update: The Spoons Experience has more on it.
"...I immediately volunteered my FOID card stated my business and told them where to find my encased unarmed pistol. (Unknowingly I gave up my Miranda rights).
The police chose a different abuse for me, far more satisfying than death. Punish an innocent man forever, with a felony charge of unlawfully using a weapon I had never fired out side of a shooting range. But for transporting a weapon I was about to be charged with a Class IV felony, Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons (UUW)..."
This is from a letter written by Roderick Pritchett. Mr. Pritchett was arrested & is being prosecuted for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. This despite the fact that the firearm in question was unloaded, cased & being transported in the manner prescribed by law. Mr. Pritchett also had a valid Firearms Owners identification Card. Aside from the arguments about the FOID card being a not-so-covert registration program, Mr. Pritchett was obeying eveyr unjust, unconstitutional morally decrepit law Illinois burdens its people with.
But go read the whole account. Think it couldn't happen to you? The odds are in your favor. But odds won't save you when some statist bastard picks you to make an example of. & if you're the type to assume that anyone arrested must have done something wrong, then don't be suprised when no one comes to your aid.
Even if Mr. Pritchett is aquitted, that will not erase the damage that has been done to him. But yet if he had resisted the unlawful actions of those slimy human-wannabes with a badge on thier chests, chances are he'd be dead. Tough world we live in isn't it? Be free & dead while your reputation is smirched for attempting to resist 'the law', or endure what Mr. Pritchett endured because you try to obey the law - even the unjust ones.
In any case, until Chicago & the rest of Illinois gets their act together & stops whipping people for exercising their basic Rights, might I suggest NC for your next vacation? lovely beaches, pretty mountains & open carry for everyone.
Seriously, if a place disrespects the Rights of its locals, you think you have a chance in hell of getting decent treatment? do a little voting with your wallet: don't spend money in places that wil use the money to tighten the chains it wants to place on its residents. Yes, that may inconvenience some of you. Course I'd have you ask Mr. Pritchett about inconvenience beofre i took you seriously. & no, chances are Chicago, NYC, L.A.. Boston - any of the places I'd ask you to avoid won't notice your cash not flowing their way. Not unless a helluva lot of us get together & stick to a formal boycott. But personally I'm glad that none of my tourism dollars paid the wages of the scumbags who locked up a man for carrying a cased, unloaded firearm according to their BS rules.
Click the link. read about Mr. Pritchett. Know that for the grace of God that could have been you. Know that for the grace of God that could still be you.
Update: The Spoons Experience has more on it.
Yet another reason to not spend a damn dime in NY.
"In the Capital District, a new program is being tried called 'Project Fed Up.'
The goal of the program is simple and laudable: If you have an illegal gun or use a legal gun in an illegal fashion, you are going to go to jail.
For a long time. Five years, at least.
Prosecutors in the Capital District have agreed to turn more gun cases over to federal authorities. Convictions for illegal gun possession are more aggressively pursued in federal courts, and the penalties are significantly more severe than mandated by state law.
The program philosophy seems to allow for no lapses, no slaps on the wrists, no slippery deals, and that's as it should be.
...The public's help is sought, and so there will be a marketing program promoting 'Operation Fed Up' that will let people know any legitimate information one has to offer will be acted upon.
If you have any information about the possession of illegal guns, call 1-800 ATF-GUNS."
So they not only want to strengthen the penalties for violating uncoscienable laws that infringe upon our Rights, they want you to snitch out your neighbor if he/she is daring to defy an immoral law.
Might I recommened NC for your next vacation? Lovely beaches, pretty mountains & open carry for everyone.
"In the Capital District, a new program is being tried called 'Project Fed Up.'
The goal of the program is simple and laudable: If you have an illegal gun or use a legal gun in an illegal fashion, you are going to go to jail.
For a long time. Five years, at least.
Prosecutors in the Capital District have agreed to turn more gun cases over to federal authorities. Convictions for illegal gun possession are more aggressively pursued in federal courts, and the penalties are significantly more severe than mandated by state law.
The program philosophy seems to allow for no lapses, no slaps on the wrists, no slippery deals, and that's as it should be.
...The public's help is sought, and so there will be a marketing program promoting 'Operation Fed Up' that will let people know any legitimate information one has to offer will be acted upon.
If you have any information about the possession of illegal guns, call 1-800 ATF-GUNS."
So they not only want to strengthen the penalties for violating uncoscienable laws that infringe upon our Rights, they want you to snitch out your neighbor if he/she is daring to defy an immoral law.
Might I recommened NC for your next vacation? Lovely beaches, pretty mountains & open carry for everyone.
The Free State Project apperently has the support of New Hampshire's Governor
"...In late June, Governor Craig Benson (R-NH) met with members from the Free State Project (FSP) who were visiting to explore New Hampshire as a possible choice for the FSP. Benson welcomed the visit and noted that he had much in common with Free Staters. After careful consideration, Governor Benson has decided to sign on as a supporter of the FSP. While making no commitment to move with the Free Staters, he supports their efforts to reform state and local government in order to create a truly free society."
"...In late June, Governor Craig Benson (R-NH) met with members from the Free State Project (FSP) who were visiting to explore New Hampshire as a possible choice for the FSP. Benson welcomed the visit and noted that he had much in common with Free Staters. After careful consideration, Governor Benson has decided to sign on as a supporter of the FSP. While making no commitment to move with the Free Staters, he supports their efforts to reform state and local government in order to create a truly free society."
"...So it seems that anybody can still pack loaded pistols in City Hall. They just have to hide their heat.
The council is counting on the concealed-weapons permitting process to weed out the bad eggs, Heimlicher said.
That would be the same permitting process that the legislative gun nuts just made easier. Under a recent change in the state law, guys such as Ortega don't have to prove the need to carry a hidden weapon.
So it turns out that the new rule in Colorado Springs is not "no guns" in city-owned buildings. The new rule is "out of sight, out of mind."
As in crazy."
That is an excerpt from a piece written by Jim Spencer in the Denver Post. Apperently Mr. Spencer is not happy with a person actually exercising their Rights. Chances are he's not happy about people having the Right to Arms at all.
If you choose to read the piece linked above & you disagree with Mr. Spencer's take on the matter, please contact him & let him no you disagree.
jspencer@denverpost.com
303-820-1771
The council is counting on the concealed-weapons permitting process to weed out the bad eggs, Heimlicher said.
That would be the same permitting process that the legislative gun nuts just made easier. Under a recent change in the state law, guys such as Ortega don't have to prove the need to carry a hidden weapon.
So it turns out that the new rule in Colorado Springs is not "no guns" in city-owned buildings. The new rule is "out of sight, out of mind."
As in crazy."
That is an excerpt from a piece written by Jim Spencer in the Denver Post. Apperently Mr. Spencer is not happy with a person actually exercising their Rights. Chances are he's not happy about people having the Right to Arms at all.
If you choose to read the piece linked above & you disagree with Mr. Spencer's take on the matter, please contact him & let him no you disagree.
jspencer@denverpost.com
303-820-1771
"Drink Alcohol (optional), smoke Tobacco (optional), talk about Firearms (mandatory)!"
That's what's going to be going on in L.A. on ATF Night hosted by The Liberty Belles.
If you're not in L.A. you can listen live on the net. featured guest will be Gary Gorski, the attorney in the Silveira vs. Lockyer case. If you're unfamiliar with the case, look here, here, here, here & here for more info.
That's what's going to be going on in L.A. on ATF Night hosted by The Liberty Belles.
If you're not in L.A. you can listen live on the net. featured guest will be Gary Gorski, the attorney in the Silveira vs. Lockyer case. If you're unfamiliar with the case, look here, here, here, here & here for more info.
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Now I have seen some very screwed up things from the BATF, that over-rated tax agency with delusions of being a legitimate law enforcement agency, but this latest waste of tax-payer money is just insulting.
The BATF has decided to put up a site that features cartoons that explains a firearms dealers legal responsibilities.
Don't get me wrong - I like cartoons. I still think that the original Bugs Bunny stuff was some of the best entertainment ever made. & there ahve been some decent cartoons since then. But an instructional cartoon to explain the unconstitutional laws that the BATF uses to justify its pathetic existence? & to make it worse, the first cartoon which deals with the NICS & form 4473 explains that it's legal to make a sale if the NICS hasn't denied it within 3 days, but the fictional store owner sets the example by waiting until he here's from the NICS check even after the 3 days.
Maybe this is all too sophisticated for me. I wonder where they keep the page with the cartoons that explain why the federal friggin government can ignore its restrictions on passing gun control laws in the first damn place? I obviously need to see that BATF cartoon on how the second amendment had the words "unless we really want to" added on the end in invisible ink.
& they mention that 'some states' require you to pass a written 'safety test' before any transaction can be completed. Last I heard, those 'many' states all rhymed with Galifornia.
Oh, but the quality of the cartoons! & to think, the person who masterminded the production almost let this unique calling pass him/her by!
They do a surpisingly spooky job of presenting all the government imposed burdens upon your Rights as normal & reasonable. It's almost as if their target audience wouldn't be happy buying a firearm unless they had government approval to make them feel special. Ya know, I think these statist bastards who made this animated insult to the taxpaying gun owners actually believe there's nothing wrong with making someone 'prove' themself worthy of exercising a basic Right, or that 'certain people' don't deserve to exercise those same basic Rights.
They explain about calling in the NICS check & what the dealer must do with the filled out Form 4473. They mention it must be kept in the dealers records & the NICS check number must be recorded on it. They don't mention a damned thing about all the places where gun registration form such as these were essential to the confiscation programs enacted later. I wonder why?
But they didn't foget to 'recommened' that any firearm always be stored unloaded & seperate from the ammunition. That way, should they (that overgrown tax agency known as the BATF) ever decided to knock down your door, they'll have plenty of time to stomp your kittens to death before you can do anything about it.
Speaking of which, isn't it a bit ironic that in real life the BATF stomps kittens to death, but no hint of that kind of behavior is seen in their cartoons?
Go see them for yourself at the above link. But prepare to receive a direct insult to your intelligence as well as realizing that your tax dollars paid for this animated 'educational' experiment.
The BATF has decided to put up a site that features cartoons that explains a firearms dealers legal responsibilities.
Don't get me wrong - I like cartoons. I still think that the original Bugs Bunny stuff was some of the best entertainment ever made. & there ahve been some decent cartoons since then. But an instructional cartoon to explain the unconstitutional laws that the BATF uses to justify its pathetic existence? & to make it worse, the first cartoon which deals with the NICS & form 4473 explains that it's legal to make a sale if the NICS hasn't denied it within 3 days, but the fictional store owner sets the example by waiting until he here's from the NICS check even after the 3 days.
Maybe this is all too sophisticated for me. I wonder where they keep the page with the cartoons that explain why the federal friggin government can ignore its restrictions on passing gun control laws in the first damn place? I obviously need to see that BATF cartoon on how the second amendment had the words "unless we really want to" added on the end in invisible ink.
& they mention that 'some states' require you to pass a written 'safety test' before any transaction can be completed. Last I heard, those 'many' states all rhymed with Galifornia.
Oh, but the quality of the cartoons! & to think, the person who masterminded the production almost let this unique calling pass him/her by!
They do a surpisingly spooky job of presenting all the government imposed burdens upon your Rights as normal & reasonable. It's almost as if their target audience wouldn't be happy buying a firearm unless they had government approval to make them feel special. Ya know, I think these statist bastards who made this animated insult to the taxpaying gun owners actually believe there's nothing wrong with making someone 'prove' themself worthy of exercising a basic Right, or that 'certain people' don't deserve to exercise those same basic Rights.
They explain about calling in the NICS check & what the dealer must do with the filled out Form 4473. They mention it must be kept in the dealers records & the NICS check number must be recorded on it. They don't mention a damned thing about all the places where gun registration form such as these were essential to the confiscation programs enacted later. I wonder why?
But they didn't foget to 'recommened' that any firearm always be stored unloaded & seperate from the ammunition. That way, should they (that overgrown tax agency known as the BATF) ever decided to knock down your door, they'll have plenty of time to stomp your kittens to death before you can do anything about it.
Speaking of which, isn't it a bit ironic that in real life the BATF stomps kittens to death, but no hint of that kind of behavior is seen in their cartoons?
Go see them for yourself at the above link. But prepare to receive a direct insult to your intelligence as well as realizing that your tax dollars paid for this animated 'educational' experiment.
More on the Colorado Springs city council that is afraid of armed citizens.
"The Colorado Springs City Council has waffled on its stated position of favoring open carry and concealed carry in city buildings, and residents should be none too happy, according to the Libertarian Party of El Paso County. The council voted 5-4 today, with the mayor breaking the tie, to ban open carry of firearms in city-owned buildings. Voting for the measure were four Republicans and one Democrat, and voting against it were four other Republicans.
Prior to the April election, all of the current City Council, excluding the lone Democrat, responded to candidate surveys, indicating in a positive manner that they would support open and concealed carry of firearms in city buildings. Since then that resolve has been tested by one citizen, Dan Ortega, who has carried a dissembled and unloaded shotgun to two Council meetings, making Council members unjustifiably nervous."
All this despite a provision in the Colorado Constitution that states "...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."
& lete's not overlook this little gem: "...Inalienable rights.All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."
Perhaps the Colorado Springs city council should do a little reading of the Colorado Constitution.
"The Colorado Springs City Council has waffled on its stated position of favoring open carry and concealed carry in city buildings, and residents should be none too happy, according to the Libertarian Party of El Paso County. The council voted 5-4 today, with the mayor breaking the tie, to ban open carry of firearms in city-owned buildings. Voting for the measure were four Republicans and one Democrat, and voting against it were four other Republicans.
Prior to the April election, all of the current City Council, excluding the lone Democrat, responded to candidate surveys, indicating in a positive manner that they would support open and concealed carry of firearms in city buildings. Since then that resolve has been tested by one citizen, Dan Ortega, who has carried a dissembled and unloaded shotgun to two Council meetings, making Council members unjustifiably nervous."
All this despite a provision in the Colorado Constitution that states "...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."
& lete's not overlook this little gem: "...Inalienable rights.All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."
Perhaps the Colorado Springs city council should do a little reading of the Colorado Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)