Arms are the Mark of a Free Man

Victim of Violence in the Family

2012-01-17T16:17:00.004-05:00

I was thinking of these posts by Baron Barnett and considered my own experience about five years ago when I bought my first firearm.

I had moved down to North Carolina from Massachusetts about a year and half earlier and, though I had heard that the gun laws down here were much more permissive than my former location outside of the Free America, I had trouble picturing it in my mind. "You mean, I don't have to fill out a mountain a of paperwork and hope that the local police chief likes me and isn't having a bad day in order to get permission to own a gun? Nah, you're pulling my leg!"

Needless to say, I soon started to make up for lost time. About 40 years of lost time. I had always been pro-gun, but didn't really get liberty until I left that socialist hell hole up in the Northeast. (Sorry, JayG, I don't mean to rub it in.) How many? More than I need, not as many as I want. After all, last I checked, the first ten amendments to the Constitution were referred to as the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

So in late 2006 or early 2007, I got the news that my sister had been mugged. She lives in another Northeast socialist paradise (New Jersey), and though her husband is a retired police officer and usually carries, I don't think she has even ever touched a gun. It was dark, but the parking lot wasn't really poorly lit and she had parked fairly close to the hotel lobby entrance. She had gone back to her car before entering the hotel to retrieve something, and there was this 6-foot plus thug standing right next to her pinning her between him and, the open door of her car, and the car next to hers.

Without a word, he simply grabbed her purse. But my sister, being unwilling to give in so easily, would not let go of the purse. The mugger proceeded to drag her until she let go.

Scrapped up knees and an injured right hand later, she wound up having multiple surgeries to repair damage to her hand. It's still not 100%, but at least functional.

If I hadn't already initiated the process to get my NC CHL and buy my first gun, I would have done it right then. In fact, I remember saying out loud to a friend, "that does it, I'm getting my conceal carry license," even though I had already started in that direction.

My sister was violently attacked, but, fortunately, wasn't killed. At the moment of her attack, there was no way for her to know whether or not she was going to make it through the ordeal alive. If statists in control of New Jersey hadn't made it so difficult for her to keep and bear arms, and she was carrying and managed to stop the attack, possibly resulting in the death of her assailant, would CSGV, The Brady Campaign, and company have considered him a victim of gun violence?

Let me be clear. He would not have been a victim. He was the perpetrator, and should he have perished in that encounter, no matter the means, it would have been due to his own actions. And all you have to do is read a week of Sean's posts to come to the conclusion that he's likely a multiple law breaker that should have been behind bars, and may soon meet his demise, anyhow. How many victims must he rack up before it's Too Many Victims? I'm not at all advocating that he should simply be killed, indiscriminantly, but that, one way or another, he should be taken off the streets to prevent him from creating yet more victims.

Alan Korwin is author of several books on state gun laws and, among other writings, the classic article, The Noble Use of Firearms. During a speech at a Gun-Control Symposium at Duquesne University, as the sole (brave, I might add) pro-gun voice, he said:

We can’t get to that world because of what I call the Four Horseman of Human Havoc -- Angry, Hungry, Stupid and Wicked. Oh, we might be able to solve Hungry someday, but the other three? And that’s the rub. Until there is a fundamental change in human nature, the good guys need the guns to protect themselves from the bad guys. That’s why you have all those armed people in the room, right? No one disagreed. If guns suddenly disappeared, the good guys would have to invent them all over again. That’s because Guns Protect You.

A gun death is no worse than a non-gun death. A death is a death. And if those who hate guns so much were really concerned about the number of deaths in this country, they ought to be going after automobiles, given that about 50% more people die from their use (even though there are, from many sources, more guns than cars in the US), than do from guns. But even that would be a failed effort. Why? Because it focuses on the object, rather than the operator of the object.

Badge of Honor

2012-01-10T23:42:00.003-05:00

As Kurt Hofmann said, [T]here is as much nobility in being despised by the despicable as there is in being admired by the admirable.

Barron Barnett posted today that it is a badge of honor to have our effort to participate in the vigil they called for (in memory of the victims of gun violence -- note that it seems that the victims of violence not carried out with guns don't seem to mean much to them) called offensive.

I agree, and it is despicable that those who hate guns are so willing to dance in the blood of victims of criminals before the blood has dried on the pavement to further their agenda of control.

WE honored the victims of ALL violence and added that we will not ourselves be victims, and every day we encourage others to take responsibility for their own safety, and we are appreciated when we do.

Stick that in your candelabra and light it.

Lighting a Candle and More to End Violence

2012-01-08T00:13:00.006-05:00

Doing my part to put an end to violence in my world. My contribution to Weerd Beard's idea.

Full size Rock Island in .45 ACP, two spare 8 round mags with one in the pipe (for 25 rounds total) carried in a BlackHawk Standard CQC holster and BlackHawk mag holders. The SureFire flashlight is a backup for the candle.

Go to Weerd's link above or Jay's if you don't have your own blog and want someplace to have yours posted.

Act of Defiance

2012-01-06T12:22:00.003-05:00

Via Unc, this is the kind of thing that makes one feel like a fool for putting up with low 120 degrees for hot water heaters, toilets that don't flush, showers that don't spray, and detergents that don't clean. I've already started adding TSP to my dish detergent with only marginal improvement. I'll be following Unc to see what recipes he's used and how they worked.

But one thing I will definitely be doing as soon as I get the chance is turning up the temperature of my water heater. Heck, I may go to 135 or 140, but I'll start at 130 to see how that goes.

Sticking my finger in the eye of Leviathan is satisfying. Especially since it annoys the busybodies.

h/t Knitebane for the heads up on Unc's post.

So I've Got This Survey

2012-01-03T14:50:00.003-05:00

The Republican National Committee has sent me a (second) 2012 Presidental Platform Survey that is so bereft of understanding of the threats that our republic faces that the RNC should give up the "Republican" name for good.

This survey is so important to the RNC, that it is REGISTERED (OMG!) to my name and address. Oh, no, it gets worse! I have been DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OF VOTERS residing in my district. Lest you think I'm CAPS KEY happy, the CAPS are in the original.

Nearly all of the 34 questions are either the wrong questions to be asking, or they shouldn't be yes/no questions, which they all are. The nature of this survey makes it abundantly clear that the GOP leadership thinks that wishing away 2010 will actually make it go away. Robert Spencer has said -- though I don't know if it originated with him -- that Hamas is the fast jihad and Fatah is the slow jihad. Same end goals, different tactics. I assert that the Ds are fast socialism and the Rs are slow socialism. Same end goals, different tactics.

I'm going to have some fun with this survey. I doubt it will do much good other than some venting for me. But, Michelle Malkin ran a series of RNC rejection of the day articles and I have to wonder how many they got. I do hope that it contributes to scaring the pants off those of the permanent political class regarding their political futures. Or perhaps more.

I'll post my comments on this survey when I've marked it up.

Sarah Palin as the head of the RNC. Now there's an awesome idea, sure to cause more than a few heart attacks among the CBC.

Appleseed, Here I Come

2012-01-02T21:23:00.005-05:00

So, on the urging of Sean I signed up for the March 24-25, 2012 Appleseed event.

I had tentatively planned to go last November, but a number of things came up and I wasn't able to go. But I did take the time before that to upgrade my 10/22 to a Liberty Training Rifle, in addition to replacing some of the parts with Volquartsen alternatives (hammer, trigger, bolt release, and, soon, the firing pin). I'm actually still getting about one FTF per 100 rounds and I'm hoping the new firing pin (already ordered) will resolve the problem. Ammo doesn't seem to matter, as I've tried a number of different brands and types with similar results.

I know there are wide and varied opinions of Appleseed, but I'm willing to give it a shot (sorry) myself and highly doubt there can be anything damaging about it. At least not for me with a few years of shooting under my belt already, having participated in Vintage Rifle Matches where I've gotten a lot of one-on-one help from several more than willing experienced shooters, most of them former or currently serving military.

I'll plan on doing a review of the experience, so watch this space in late March for my report.

Happy New Year!

2012-01-01T22:32:00.002-05:00

I'm getting this under the wire, but I wanted to wish any readers out there a happy new year, and also expound a little on what I hope for in the new year.

I've never been much for new years resolutions, but after reading David's article on New Year's gun rights resolutions, and listening to the sermon my pastor gave this morning, I'm going to break with the tradition and make a few commitments.

I'm dividing them into four categories and if I can make progress with at least one of the four every week, I will consider it a success. I will still aim for progress in at least one every day, but I want to make a commitment I'm sure I can keep. So I'll start with one step of progress a week.

First area I will be working on is what I'm calling Prayer. But I'm really referring to a much more broad topic. What I want to do is deal with some personal demons of mine more seriously. In tough times, which I believe are coming for this country, and this world, having a ball and chain of conscience can be a great hinderance to survival, even if it's just emotional and spiritual survival we're talking about. Whatever I write here regarding this will be in general terms, of course, but I think it's important at least to mention progress and I hope it encourages others, as well.

Second, I want do something for the cause of Liberty in general. A recent is example is my letter to Richard Burr regarding the TSA. Letters to the editors, calling or meeting with congress critters, filling out a contact form to tell a sheriff to stop abusing his power are all important to this effort. Participating in a Tea Party event or even just having a constructive conversation with someone with a bit less understand of what it means to be free. I won't be cutting off any arms while declaring "Tell Xerces he faces free men here," Stelios style, but hope to have anecdotes of facing down wannabe tyrants.

Third, though I have been preparing for some form of collapse to some degree, it's been quite haphazard Preparedness. There's been no organized thinking to my prepping. I think one of the first things I will do is go buy some waterproof matches, pay in cash, and demand privacy after being asked by a wannabe Judenrat sales dweeb what I'm up to. Face it: we're all on those much feared lists, anyhow. And besides, hmpf, lists. Why is it that people think the government is the only one with lists?

Lastly, I will step up and organize my efforts at the county, state, and federal level to turn back the tide of infringements on the Human Right to Keep and Bear Arms that has been marching along at least since the Jim Crow era. This also includes some of the ideas presented by David Codrea at the article above and the addendum by Dave Workman: Follow Fast & Furious to the end.

So that's my list for this year. I'll do my best to accomplish at least one thing from one of the four categories per week, but will work hard to make that per day.

I have a hunch this year is going to be one hell of a ride.

May you live in interesting times.

A Policy Abetting Murder

2011-12-30T12:24:00.004-05:00

To the jerks at Circle K management:

So you fired Eric Henderson for fighting for his life against the lowlifes who tried rob your store AND threatened his life. Only in an alternate universe where good is evil and evil is good would it be possible to justify this indefensible action of firing a man from a job for defending his life, your suicidal corporate policy notwithstanding.

There are Circle K stores in my vicinity. Don't expect me patronize them until I hear that you have publicly fired the individual or individuals who devised that above referenced policy and eliminated said policy. And readers of my blog will be encouraged to do likewise.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2079972/Store-clerk-fired-disarming-gunman-urged-shoot.html

Go here and do likewise if you are so inclined.

h/t: David

Why Is One of My GOP Senator Trying to Help the TSA?

2011-12-30T11:54:00.004-05:00

A portion of an legislative update email I received from Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) on December 16, 2011:

In addition, I joined Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (ID – CT), Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-ME), and Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) on Wednesday in introducing legislation to provide employment protections to Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) who are called up for active military duty. The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, commonly known as USERRA, guarantees that when employees in both the private and public sector, who are also members of the National Guard, reservists, or veterans, are called to active duty, they can return to their civilian jobs when their service is complete.

There is no reason that TSA should not adhere to the same guidelines under USERRA that virtually all government agencies and businesses have to follow. We owe it to our nation’s National Guard members and Reservists to ensure that their jobs are protected when they sign on to sacrifice in defense of our safety and freedoms, and this bill represents a step in that direction. Click here to learn more about the bill.

Note how he joined Demonrats, an "Independent" (who's essentially a Demonrat), and a RINO.

Here's what I just sent him:

Senator Burr,

Please withdraw your support for USERRA protection of the incorrectly named "TSOs". To begin with, they are not sworn officers and shouldn't be referred to as officers. They are screeners and they were unjustifiably renamed to officers by the TSA in 2005, regardless of the fact that they receive no law enforcement training.

Based on the fact that TSA is one of many ever expanding overreaches of government, you should instead be advocating making the TSA the most unpleasant place to work in this country. Possibly only second to the ATF.

I understand your efforts to protect veterans, but due to the egregious infringement of human and constitutional rights by this agency, it deserves derision and nothing more. It should be abolished. I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists than the completely incompetent and tyrannical TSA.

You should instead be proposing a Senate version of Marsha Blackburn's (R-Tenn.) H.R. 3608 which would prohibit TSA screeners from deceiving the public by impersonating law enforcement officers by way of their uniforms and badges.

$40 Should Buy About 160rds, I Believe

2011-12-22T16:12:00.003-05:00

Regarding this, here's my response:

Much like Davd Codrea of the National Gun Rights Examiner, I could buy some 7.62x39 mm FMJ Ammo to go with an AK-type rifle just like the ones your Justice Department allowed to be walked into Mexico.

Yup, it's no game. And we WILL get to the bottom of it, stonewalling and damn lies from your administration notwithstanding.

Not that $40 matters, though. This is the proverbial finger in the Dike.

Obama and his minions want to put a bandaid on this, while the GOP wants to put a large gauze pad on it. All while what's needed is a resurrection. Of principles. The current regime has none.

Let Me Get This Straight...

2011-12-22T11:42:00.003-05:00

A quick thought.

Had a lively discussion with a friend over last weekend regarding HB822. This is a guy I took shooting for his first time (well, he participated in some reenactments (Revolutionary War or War Between the States, I don't remember)) several months ago. He is apparently against the bill as he thinks it violates state sovereignty (i.e.: a violation of the 10th Amendment). But he's from New Jersey, so I can forgive him for not fully grasping what a Constitutional Republic is. After all, being from the Volksrepublik of Massachusetts, it took me a while to really get it. And I'm still learning.

He set up a straw man argument saying that, assuming that a state's laws are constitutional (a huge and largely incorrect assumption, in this case), then why should states not be able to set up their own rules for carrying a firearm?

My answer to that is that first, any restriction on keeping or bearing arms is unconstitutional, so the argument is moot in this case. However, New Jersey and New York (and really, Maryland, as well, but I don't hear about them violating FOPA in practice like I do NJ and NY, but they do join NJ and NY in violating my right to bear arms), are also interfering with my right to travel to New Hampshire. His response was "...travel with a weapon."

Well, I say that even the "weapon" moniker is a distinction without significance. After all, there are a number of things I can use as a weapon. Are you going to allow for states to require that I travel naked, encased in a straight jacket? Heck, even if I acknowledge that the primary purpose of a gun, particularly a handgun, are to repel a threat (i.e.: used as a weapon), is that not the right that the 2nd Amendment acknowledges and guarantees?

So then we went on to discuss the nature of a right. I explained that it is perfectly appropriate for the FedGov to intervene when a state is stomping on individual rights, as it is also appropriate for state or local governments to intervene when the FedGov is harassing the people and eating out their substance. But what it came down to is that we had different opinions on the nature of a human right. He brought up voting rights, but I quickly shot back that that is not a human right, as it is quite irrelevant if there is no government to begin with. The RKBA exists regardless of the existence of any government.

My friend apparently missed the "infringed" part of the 2A. He seemed to believe it was not an infringement for state government to require training or impose other restrictions on a right.

Anyhow, what boggled my mind later, and what I'll probably ask my friend when I see him next, is this: So you are okay with forcing states to recognize my license to propel a 3000+ lbs. hunk of metal barreling down their highways with up to 15 gallons of liquid explosive? And it kills up to 50% more Americans every year than guns.

All that said, I do agree with the GOA that HB2900 is a much better piece of legislation, partly because it relies on Full Faith and Credit, rather the flawed basis of the Commerce Clause. It also doesn't leave Vermont in the dust, and if I'm not mistaken, will also allow, for example, MA residents to obtain FL carry permits that allow them to carry in MA.

h/t to Unc for the link to the bamboo weapon article and to Mike for the raw milk article.

Government Without Effective Oversight an Invitation to Tyranny

2011-11-18T16:13:00.003-05:00

So Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) wants to make the claim that it's convention for junior staff to write memos to the AG that he'll never read.

Let's take him at his word. There's no way one man can read everything that comes across his desk. And even if he does, he might only skim it.

So what is Whitehouse suggesting? Maybe that government is just do flippin' big? I doubt he's suggesting that, but it's a fair question.

Any government institution that is so big that it cannot be effectively overseen by one man appointed by the president and answerable to the president, Congress, and the American people, is, by definition, to big.

I posit that it is pretty much guaranteed that a government too big to oversee is a government on the path to tyranny.

Spread This Wide and Far

2011-11-18T15:43:00.004-05:00

I haven't even read all of this yet, but given the excerpts at Michelle Malkin's place, it sounds like a good start. Also be sure to check out the video of Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) being kicked out by Schumer staffers. Such slime in that swamp we call Washington, D.C.

I love that Mike Lee proceeded with the meeting in a location outside of the control of those so corrupt, so evil, that they DO NOT want to hear from constituents.

I've heard some fiscal conservatives say that they'd like to see the size of the federal government cut in half. I'd call that building momentum. At about 5% of the current size, I'd say we're finally winning. And yet, even then I'd say it wasn't time to quit fighting to reduce it more.

Our baseline budget to start cutting should be '08.

1908.

(That last line shameless stolen from Knitebane.)

Battered Utopia

2011-11-16T13:42:00.004-05:00

The collectivists of today may not want us to consider that the government of every socialist hellhole in more than the last century has not just seen it necessary to slaughter a goodly portion of the humans inhabiting the land they saw themselves fit to rule over, but actually glorified their obliteration.

Today's would be rulers want us to think that it's just a small matter of the wrong people being in charge.

So what happens next time the liberty stealing pigs bump up against those of us who only want to be left alone?

My advice? Don't try to find out.

Your utopia has been beaten to a bloody pulp and left for dead. And we'll stand guard over its body while it bleeds out the way the Pima County SWAT team stood over its prey, Jose Guerena after riddling his body with government bullets for no good reason.

May your hopes of a utopian workers' paradise die a vicious death. It deserves no sentimentalism.

h/t Mike for the Daily Iowan link.

Stay in the Fight!

2011-10-30T23:01:00.005-04:00

Had a great time at the TigerSwan class last weekend that Sean at the NCGUNS blog arranged. Some of it was a refresher of some techniques in the basics from classes I've taken in the past from David Bramble of Shoot to Live who teaches his classes out of Personal Defense and Handgun Safety Center on Tryon Road in Raleigh. There were some differences, but none of any real significance. Grip, trigger control, sight alignment, stance were all basically the same.

But an interesting thing happened to me near the end of the all day class. We had just finished up with some shooting from retention exercises.

We would stand about two feet from the target in front of us, within hands' reach, and at the buzzer, draw but not extend the gun out. If you do extend it, there's a good chance your assailant is going to be able to hit the gun away or possibly wrench it away from you and maybe even break one or two of your fingers. So you draw, and keep the gun at our hip, possibly wedging it between your holster and your side, being careful not to hold it in a position that would cause the slide to hit you and cause a malfunction.

You fire three rapid shots, then back up at about a 45 degree angle and fire three more shots to center of mass while on the move. In this situation it's often better than backing up in a straight line as it might be unexpected and forces your assailant to reorient a bit and either shoot at an angle (if he's also armed) or change his stance. This may give you a slight advantage especially if he's already been hit by your previous shots, but is still a clear threat.

So onto the last course of fire we worked on which was extreme transitions. There were four targets probably less than eight feet away, two on the left and two on the right. The angle between the two targets farthest from each other (with respect to angle) was about 120 degrees. You would fire two shots per target. Outer targets first, forcing you to move between the furthest targets, leading with your eyes/head first and then moving the gun to reduce the chance of over travelling and missing the second target. Then transition back to the other side and shoot the targets that are closer together.

Well, immediately after I drew and before I was on target, I let my first round off, about two feet in front of me into the ground. Yes, I believe this could rightly be called a negligent discharge. No one was hurt and no property was damaged, but I did violate rule 3. My sights were not aligned with the target. There was another time during another training class where this almost happened to me, but in that case it was actually a good shot. So it was probably more of the training working out well, as I was doing what I was supposed to nearly automatically. Not this time, though.

I'm guessing the previous exercise where we were shooting from the hip had me slightly conditioned as to when to pull the trigger.

But it was what happened afterward that concerned me even more. I was startled enough by the errant shot, that I froze. Brian Searcy, the teacher (who is also a co-founder of TigerSwan) said "Stay in the Fight." Only after he said that did I continue with the course of fire.

I knew in my head from other training that an important mindset to develop for survival in a defensive situation is to Stay in the Fight no matter what. Don't give up. Tam linked to a rather remarkable self defense event in this post. Two injured and bloody hands AND a shot above his left pec (that he didn't realize until it was all over) and he still stayed in the fight.

No need to send him a pair of these, I guess.

Even if it was the only insight I gained (and it certainly wasn't), it was worth the time and money spent. I need to work on not being concerned about shots already fired that weren't perfect (or were pretty bad, as in this situation) and stay in the fight and continue engaging threats until there are no more threats.

So thanks to Sean and all the good folks at TigerSwan for a Saturday well spent.

Smoking Guns

2011-10-28T11:26:00.003-04:00

Wow, just wow.

Q: What do the FN57 pistol, AK-47 pattern rifle (WASR-10, specifically), Draco pistol (also an AK pattern), AR-15, and 50BMG rifle all have in common, other than the fact they are all firearms?

A: They are all among the most hated by subversive, liberty-stealing, anti-freedom, bigots AND also the most common ones purchased under the 0bama administration's vile Watergate-esque-with-dead-bodies scandal AND mostly not that desired by the cartels.

Bob Owen's hits another homer.

Article here.

h/t Mike

Going to a TigerSwan Pistol Class

2011-10-20T23:22:00.005-04:00

Much thanks to Sean for arranging a class with an outfit he's take a class with before (and highly recommends). I'll be join several other bloggers and some other friends of Sean's.

I'm missing my usual monthly Vintage Rifle Match for this class, but I have a hunch it's going to be worth it.

I'll post a review of the class some time after the weekend.

Below are a few pictures of the facilities.

PS: I will likely still post some pictures and/or video of our Bacon and Boomsticks shoot, even though it's been over six weeks. I want to be sure to clear it with the subjects of those images before posting.

QotD 09/15/2011

2011-09-15T10:50:00.001-04:00

From Sean, discussing Colin Goddard:

Many people, when thrust in a dangerous situation find God. Colin has discovered the State.

Cheap Mags

2011-09-13T15:27:00.001-04:00

It works!

Thanks, Robb.

I Will Not Be Intimidated

2011-09-11T20:56:00.009-04:00

To commemorate those murdered 10 years ago today, I went shooting on some land I have about an hour from where I live with another blogger, his wife, and three friends from church. Some time this week, I will have photos and maybe videos of the event, probably both here and at the Bacon and Boomsticks site. It wound up being more a fun day of shooting than a commemoration. In a way, yes, it was also to celebrate the freedoms we have -- while we still have them, at least -- and a statement that we will not be defeated. We will not be intimidated. And the sensitivities of those who share the ideology of those who committed those atrocities ten years ago today are not something with which we will ever concern ourselves. Yes, we ate pork, as well, to celebrate that right while we still fend off any all attempts to impose sharia law anywhere in this country.

The title of this post comes from a thought I had three years ago after returning from a mission trip to Venezuela. On that trip, we had a four hour bus ride from the airport in Maracaibo to a chalet in the mountains in La Puerta.

We wound up running into an unexpected checkpoint, and while the leader of our group was outside the bus explaining what our purpose was, one of Hugo's thugs got on board and stood at the head of the bus. He, very, very, slowly, scanned ever single passenger on the bus with his eyes and had a smile on his face that, although almost imperceptible, seemed to me to be rather gleeful. I believe he was gleeful that he is in a position of power to intimidate every civilian he encounters. I remember thinking to myself, "give me a break, you two-bit thug." I don't remember whether or not this Hugobot was even armed. It's likely that he was, given the thugocracy we were in.

A short time after we arrived back in the states, I told this story, (including my thoughts during the experience), to a liberty-loving relative of mine and he rather seriously said, "Yeah, but if anybody was suspicious looking or defiant in any way, he would have just killed him."

I've considered that caution since he said it, and the conclusion I've come to is, "So? I will not be intimidated." In Hugoland, I'm sure I would have been killed had I acted too snotty or maybe made the shape of a gun with my finger and pointed it at him. And every situation requires its own analysis regarding when to resist, talk back, or comply. It was simply wise, and rather non-intrusive to comply in that situation and location. I'm am not interested in fighting that battle for Venezulans. My battle is here.

Today, before going shooting, we stopped at Smithfield's for some barbecue (shredded pork for you yankees), and as I do as often as I can, I was carrying my sidearm openly. I got one question from a customer asking what caliber it was, one glance from the clerk at the counter, and, I'm told, a serious scowl from some woman customer in the corner. I hadn't even been to Smithfield's before, so I had to ask one of the folks with us if they serve alcohol. (From what Bubba says, it sounds like it is legal to open carry in NC in restaurants that serve alcohol, but not conceal carry. Didn't really matter in this case, because I was concealing a backup piece, as well.) Every new (to me) place I carry is yet another risk that I'm going to run into unfriendly staff or some panty-waist customer will call the police with a man with a gun report, to which our Sheriff's office will likely and ridiculously respond -- and without asking a single question, such as "Is it in his holster? Is he waving it around pointing it at people?" -- regardless of the legality of the act.

But I will not be intimidated! And I will continue to carry openly wherever I can, no matter how many scowls I get. Bite me. And trust me, there just aren't that many scowls.

[For people who are supposedly on our side, but think "bite me" shows I'm too immature to be carrying around openly supposedly being an ambassador for all gun owners, well, bite me. You see, I'm not going to say "bite me" to someone who asks me leave his restaurant. Although I might plagiarize Bubba's letter to Bonefish, modified appropriately, and send it to them. And I'm not going to say bite me to the lady in the corner who scowls at me. Or to the cop who has to attend to the call -- though maybe reluctantly here in Johnston County -- reporting a man with a gun. But I do say that if you are supposedly pro-gun, yet you resort to arguments against open carry that are perfectly equivalent to the arguments used by the anti-gunners against carrying (or even owning) guns, then, please, stop helping.]

So that is my logic behind eating pork and shooting guns on the tenth anniversary of the murderous attacks on September 11, 2001. The pork is intended to offend the sensibilities of those who would force us to convert, be subjugated, or be killed.

And the guns are to say, I WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED.

This is America!

And we will fight you until either there is not a single one of us left, or your unholy book is tossed on a dung heap and there isn't single soul left who will be willing to carry out its exhortations.

Or, you can keep your book, believe what it says all you want...and back off.

Your choice.

Your move.

Update: Michelle Malkin had a post today that linked to a 9/11 fifth anniversary post of hers from 2006. So here is my pledge. Lan astaslem. I will not submit.

Update 2: Via RTC, we will never forget these bottom dwellers. May they be stranded in a field surrounded by hog farms.

In the Face of Murdering Scum

2011-09-01T15:11:00.002-04:00

I'm in! I'll be putting together some ham sandwiches and/or BLTs, iced tea (I'd make it Manhattan Iced Tea to tick off our enemies even further, but due to NC law, one mustn't carry concealed - which I do everywhere I can - and have *any* alcohol in one's system) packing up all my undisclosed number of guns (or at least the American made ones), a camera, maybe with some Bin Laden targets and a Koran. Weather permitting, I will head up to an Secure Undisclosed Location with a few friends and commemorate all those who died in the attacks on September 11, 2001, except, of course, the 19 subhuman wastes of oxygen consumption that carried out the attacks.

The Boredom of Open Carry

2011-08-28T18:57:00.005-04:00

Sean has a excellent write-up of the near complete non-event of carrying cell phones openly. Um, I mean, sidearms. But really, what's the difference? They are both just tools, right?

But, seriously...

I've been carrying openly in a few places here and there, more and more often for about a year, now. Or has it been two years? The first time I ever carried openly, other than the easy place of shooting ranges, was grocery shopping with my sister and a few of her kids in New Hampshire. It wasn't planned. It was a warm day, and I went along for the ride while she ran a few errands. She would go into a place with one or two of the kids, while I'd stay in the car with the remaining kids. The last stop was for groceries, and all of the kids were going in, so my sister, forgetting that I had gun on my hip, unconcealed, asked if I wanted to come in. When I reminded her of the gun, she commented, "oh, right, I've never seen anyone carrying in there, but it's up to you." I thought about it for a second, and decided, what the heck, New Hampshire is even more friendly to carrying openly than North Carolina.

It was pretty uneventful. I probably walked by about 100 people and maybe five people saw it. Two young girls, probably sisters, were chatting away in one aisle, and as one of them passed by me rather closely, her eyes suddenly widened and the two stopped talking. It probably didn't help that her height was such that her eyes were right at gun level. I'm sure a couple of people saw it while we were in line at the register. But we left without incident.

I was hooked.

Not long after that, I went to a few of the Triangle Open Carry dinners. I consider those mostly to help those not yet comfortable carrying openly to dine among others doing the same.

The next time I went it alone, it was after my weekly range time with Knitebane and Mrs. Knitebane. We usually get together for food and conversation afterward at a cafe a few doors down from the range. I had heard that they were friendly to open carriers, but I hadn't seen it. So I decided to take a chance. I'm sure the folks behind the counter noticed, but there was no comment. Mrs. Knitebane said that she about fainted, initially, and we laughed about it. Oh, she had no problem with it, but she just didn't expect it. And I will admit, that on a recent visit there when a police officer walked in, my heart rate about doubled. Turns out he had his mind on meeting up with his family, so he didn't notice.

I now carry openly at that cafe every week and they've gotten to know us as regulars. One of the employees once made a comment that we were her favorite. We usually stay after they close while they're cleaning up until they kick us out, anywhere from 5-30 minutes after closing time. There was no reason for her to say we were her favorite, since we never really had much of a conversation with her other than placing our orders. All I could think of is that with two young women (in many instances), alone at closing time, in a store in a rather isolated area, they probably appreciated, as Sean put it, an ally who was armed. Another time, the owner had locked the door and as we were exiting, he followed us to unlock the door and made the comment that he probably didn't have to lock it with someone packing a gun.

Once it was a bit crowded at the cafe, so we headed over to IHOP. I waited on the bench at the door for Knitebane, and a customer actually came out front and asked me for what reason someone would get turned down for a permit for a gun (presumably, he meant a NC purchase permit). I told him a couple of reasons are felony, or, I believe in NC, a misdemeanor in the past three years. He said, ah, yes, he had a few of those. (Made me glad I was armed, and backup was arriving momentarily.) He thanked me and went back to his table.

And like Edgar Friendly I now go grocery shopping armed.

Kidding, of course. Not the part about going shopping armed, just not in the way Mr. Leary's character had to. I'll typically spend about an hour shopping at Food Lion, carrying openly the whole time. I did have a funny encounter last time at Food Lion. There was a couple in one aisle with me and no one else, and as they walked past me the guy said, "Nice to see someone else carrying," and lifted up his shirt to show me his concealed piece on his hip. Not something I would normally encourage, but in that circumstance, it was fine, as he was simply acknowledging we were allies. As someone else mentioned, how many cases do you hear of someone with criminal intent carrying a gun in a $70-100 holster out in the open?

So, I will continue with the boring activity of carrying openly, and probably even expand the number of places. I agree with Sean about the extreme lack of anti-gun folks out in the real world. You'd think from the MSM and the Brady Bunch (but I repeat myself) that you would be walking down a gauntlet of scared and intimidated mothers cowering in fear and hurrying their children away from you like magnets of opposite poles.

It's just not the case.

So as Sean's dad (and others) says, any right not exercised is a right lost. If you live in a place that does not unconstitutionally limit your natural right to keep and bear arms, enjoy your freedoms and carry openly with open indifference, but internal pride. Where the rights are infringed, continue the battle and let your legislators know that you will no longer tolerate your state, county, municipality being turned into a police state.

Next Up, the Governor

2011-08-26T14:02:00.003-04:00

Here was my note to the governor. Submit yours here.

Governor Perdue,
In the Executive Order you issued yesterday declaring a State of Emergency for several North Carolina counties, you asserted the following:
"This order is adopted pursuant to my powers under Article 1 of Chapter 166A of the General Statutes and under Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes. It does not trigger the limitations on weapons in G.S. § 14-288.7 or impose any limitation on the consumption, transportation, sale or purchase of alcoholic beverages."
After the issuance of EO62 on 9/1/2010 right at the beginning of Dove season and the ensuing uproar regarding the ban on firearms off of one's own property that is spelled out in Article 36A, Chapter 14, all subsequent EOs issued by your office until this this one have specifically stated that they were only being issued under Article 1 of Chapter 166A.
Your comments following the issuance of EO62 indicated that you were not invoking the firearms ban provisions of the law (presumable due to the court case, Bateman vs. Perdue). I question your authority to invoke Article 36A of Chapter 14 in an a-la-carte fashion.
You have put the Sheriffs' Offices in the 39 counties listed in EO103 in a rather difficult legal position. Do they enforce the law as written? Or do they do as the governor says? This morning, I spoke with Johnston County Chief Deputy Bengie Gaddis and he indicated that his office will not be going after those exercising their right to keep and bear arms during this State of Emergency. But the question this raises is, why is a Sheriff's office choosing to selective enforce the law as written?
I implore you to terminate this Executive Order immediately and re-issue it invoking only Article 1 of Chapter 166A. You could also re-issue without the exclusion of the firearms ban, as well, which would at least provide clarity to the Sheriffs' Offices in those 39 counties. I believe those are the only legally sound actions you can take regarding the matter.
Thank you for your time.

Putting the Sheriff on the Spot

2011-08-26T10:25:00.003-04:00

If you live in Johnston County, NC go here and send your inquiry. If you live in any of the other 38 counties (Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Currituck, Dare, Duplin, Edgecombe, Gates, Greene, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lenoir, Martin, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Robeson, Sampson, Tyrrell, Washington, Wayne, Wilson) where the state of emergency has been declared, then find your Sheriff's office contact information and ask them, in your own words, what their policy will be.

Here's what I sent:

Sheriff Bizzell,
I note that Governor Bev Perdue's Executive Order 103 has this in Section 7:

"This order is adopted pursuant to my powers under Article 1 of Chapter 166A of the General Statutes and under Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes. It does not trigger the limitations on weapons in G.S. § 14-288.7 or impose any limitation on the consumption, transportation, sale or purchase of alcoholic beverages."

Unfortunately, there are many who are of the opinion that the Governor has no legal authority to invoke Article 36A of Chapter 14 in an a-la-carte fashion. She can invoke Article 1 of Chapter 166A, which has done with some previous Executive Orders if she so chooses, and I note she has in the past.

I typically go armed everywhere I can, as it is within my rights, and often carry openly. I carry openly when I shop for groceries. I plan to do so tonight to be sure I'm well supplied for Hurricane Irene.

Could you please clarify for me how your deputies will be informed regarding encounters with legally armed citizens during this state of emergency that on the one hand makes it illegal to possess arms off of our own property, but on the other hand, the Governor has unilaterally modified a codified statute declaring that she is not invoking the prohibition on firearms portion of it?

h/t to John for the info on the Executive Order.

Update: Although I am appreciative that I got a fairly quick call back from Chief Deputy Bengie Gaddis regarding this matter, assuring me that the Sheriff's office has got much more important things to do than go around looking for people carrying guns and that they pride themselves on respecting citizens right to keep and bear arms, it does raise an important question. And that is, why is the Sheriff's Department choosing to selectively enforce the law?

Admittedly, this is the fault of the governor for putting Sheriffs' Departments in the above 39 counties in this position. Hence, my next action: contacting the governor's office.

A Modest Proposal

2011-08-09T11:50:00.003-04:00

Once there is someone who actually understands individual liberty in the White House, and enough willing critters in the Senate, I propose lobbying for a new head of the ATF: Alan Gura.

Crosse Creek Vintage Military Rifle Match Report

2011-08-01T19:37:00.004-04:00

In the nearly three years since I started this blog (though I'll forgive my three readers if they think I forgot I had a blog), this is probably my first non-political post.

I recently bought an official Gunwalker T-shirt from Sean and just happened to receive it right before participating in the monthly Vintage Rifle Match hosted by Crosse Creek Rifle and Pistol Club. I figured I'd wear the shirt to the match and told Sean so in email and we then exchanged a few messages about the match. This is essentially one of those messages, edited and expanded.

The VMR match that Crosse Creek hosts is every fourth Saturday, come rain or shine, cold or heat. Though we don't get subzero temperatures here in North Carolina, it can get a bit nippy for shooting. On the heat side, the summer months it can get into the high 90s and 100s. It was 102 when we left the range this last match on July 23. One of the guys said that even the bugs knew enough to take shelter. I quipped, "you mean to say we's dumber than bugs?" "That's exactly what he's saying," said another.

Most of those competing are former or currently serving military. I'm probably the only one who shows up regularly that doesn't have any military background.

I'm not even a club member, but the guys who run it have no problem with that. I think that technically you have to be a member or a guest of a member, and there are usually enough members to offset non-members so that it makes no difference. And even if there are times when that's not the case, no one cares.

They are much more laid back than, for example, most high power matches. We had one guy last year who made some comment about some of us 'having a party' when we were making too much noise for him. He hasn't been back, and we've made a joke of the comment ever since. The decidedly military makeup of the group makes for some serious shooters, but we really are there just for the fun of it. We have maybe three official CMP matches a year, and we are even a little bit lax on the rules for those (though not too much, as we do want them to be official). And many of the participants also go to an annual match at Butner. I haven't been to Butner, yet, but I suspect that's where you may see a little more seriousness.

I've been going almost every month for the past year and half with a friend of mine from church who used to shoot black powder competitions there years ago. When I first started shooting the match, I was barely hitting paper with my M1 Garand. If five out of 10 of my shots even scored, I considered it a good string. But I was just a beginner at the time. So I kept at it.

And that's key for anyone getting into this. Keep at it. Don't get discouraged. Especially with modern firearms, it's probably 90-95% mechanics. Learn the mechanics, and you will score well, eventually. Practice, practice, practice.

With these vintage rifles it can be a bit different. Due to the wear of age and/or heavy use, it can take time "get to know" your rifle, so to speak. And sometimes, there's just no decent rifling left in the barrel and there's no way to shoot it consistently without replacing the barrel.

Targets are at 200 yards. I don't know the exact size of the targets, but I think they are official CMP 5-foot targets, with scoring rings of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and X, with the inner 9, 10, X rings being black and the outer rings being white. Each match consist of three strings of 10 rounds each, or 30 rounds per match. There are two matches on each match day. You can switch rifles between matches and there's a 10 minute 'sighting rounds' string for those who want to zero their rifles. Assuming 10 sighters per match, that comes to 80 rounds for the day.

Both matches start with a slow-fire (10 rounds, 10 minutes) prone and end with slow-fire off-hand (standing). The first match, second string is rapid fire (10 rounds in 90 seconds) prone and the second match, second string is rapid fire, sitting or kneeling (your choice).

Most of the participants shoot custom loaded ammo, some of them even casting the lead bullets. I had been shooting mostly surplus stuff, but the last two matches I've been pulling apart some '68 Lake City .30-06 and reloading it with 27.8 grains of SR4759 to reduce the recoil with my Remington M1903A3. It's made the world of difference for me. Turns out that even though the recoil doesn't bother me, per se, it was throwing me off quite a bit. This last match I shot a personal best of 241 in the second match. With the reduced recoil, I can now focus on the mechanics without the distraction of the recoil. As I improve on my score consistently, I can work my way back up to full loads.

Congrats to my buddy, Fran, who won the second match. On one of the strings in that match, he shot all black. The long time participants couldn't remember the last time anyone did that at the VMR match. Fran used to win black powder matches all the time, and I think he said he has shot 1000yd matches, too. But part of the challenge has been getting used to the fact that with these old rifles, shooting a four inch group is actually acceptable.

All in all, it was a fun day. Probably the most fun I've had at this match, yet, given I'm finally figuring out some of the mistakes I've been making and I'm seeing marked improvement. I don't doubt that I could probably benefit from an Appleseed shoot, but I'm kind of liking this way of learning. I've gotten to know the folks who attend these matches regularly and many of them are more than willing to help me improve my shooting.

Belated Johnston County Update

2011-07-17T22:41:00.006-04:00

It's been about four months since the illustrious Johnston County Board of Commissioners passed the Orwellian named Good Neighbor Firearms Ordinance. It was a quite a sight to see first hand. Sure, there were a number of citizens who spoke at the hearing, but it was clear that the commissioners were not interested in debate. They were not interested in facts. This entire process was simply to save face so that the commissioners could say, "hey, we listened." They didn't.

The vote was 7-0 for the ordinance and not a peep came from any commissioners other than Allen "Cradle to the Grave" Mims. Mims actually used that phrase during the February working group meeting. I wish I had recorded it. I'm sure one of the TV stations that was there has it recorded somewhere, but will probably never release it. I don't remember the exact context, but Mims showed his true colors as a collectivist by implying that it was job of commissioners to take care of Johnston County citizens from the cradle to the grave. What better definition of the Nanny State than that?

We've got some time before the next election, but some of us are considering what we can do to at least make these commissioners work to keep their seats.

Tony Braswell in particular has got to go. Somehow, after submitting some of my comments via the form on the county website, I got included in a email thread where Braswell was blasting a citizen for daring to "misrepresent our actions as anti gun just because some special interest group says its true" and implied that if the citizen who challenged him was not a "veteran of a foreign war" and has "a son wounded in Afghanistan," then he did not have a "right to criticize me and my board." That's right: Mr. Braswell actually tried to make the case that a citizen did not have the right to criticize the board unless he was a veteran and also that the board was his. Braswell included all six of the other commissioners in the list of recipients, so I challenged him publicly in email and then later at the hearing. I didn't mention his name specifically or look at him during my testimony, but I did see him fidget in his chair, and since all the other commissioners saw both Braswell's email and mine, they all knew who I was referring to.

He later sent me a non-apology apology. It amazes me that anyone would still think that anything that starts with "I am sorry you got involved in this email chain..." could be taken as an apology. It's clear that he's just not happy that he got caught and then called out in public at the hearing in front of his fellow board members.

This sad affair did not surprise me one bit. But I did get angry enough about it that I knew it wasn't wise to post anything here at that time. I'm glad I waited. And despite this lost local battle, we are winning at the state and federal level in more ways than we are losing. As someone posted recently, I cringe when I hear that another state has passed a law (or is attempting to) to allow Constitutional Carry, when what is really needed is for all gun laws to be repealed save one federal law that is a restriction on the government rather than the people: the Second Amendment.

But I'll take incremental victories where we can get them. After all, it took at least 75 years to get to where we are now, with gun rights, and at least 150 with several other unalienable rights.

I'm going to try and post a little more often, now. Really, this time. Now that I've had a taste of a bit of activism, I'm sorta hooked. And I'd like to document it a bit.

Johnston County Firearms Ordinance Update

2011-02-08T14:19:00.004-05:00

Sorry I'm not getting around to posting my summary of our meeting with Commissioner Jeff Carver until now. Tonight, the second meeting of the "Good Neighbor Firearms Ordinance" (how Orwellian of them) working group is scheduled to take place at 6:00pm, so I figured this would be a good time for another post.

Our meeting with Jeff Carver was civil, but the biggest concern I have is that the Board seems determined to pass something, anything, I think to save face. They were blind-sided by the opposition and instead of backing off, dug their heels in. Once, during our conversation with Carver, I started to say that, "sometimes the best thing for government to do is...," and then he completed my sentence with "nothing." I can't get inside his head and figure out what he was thinking, but I got the impression that he had heard it many times before, but, yet, didn't like hearing again.

I got the impression that a goodly portion of the calls the Sheriff's office was getting were from new residents of the county who came from anti-gun bastions like New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California, who were uncomfortable with the sound of guns. I told Carver that, to be frank, whenever I hear the phrase "let freedom ring" it is near impossible for me to not think of the sound of guns. The sound of gunfire is the sound of freedom. He couldn't disagree.

But he did indicate that it's not just new residents moving in that have called. It's also long time residents who don't like what they are seeing regarding the number of new developments building up around them, closer than they are accustomed. They can live with it, but there are apparently people doing dumb things and shooting in areas where its clearly not safe. The claim is that the Sheriff's office can't doing anything about those calls. No one has said why reckless endangerment or disorderly conduct laws already on the books can't be used. And there's always civil action, as well.

Johnston County has kindly posted the contact information of all members of the working group, including the citizen members. Below is the email I just sent first to the non-commissioner members of the working group, and then later decided to send it to all seven commissioners again with an introduction.

I will be attending the meeting tonight and will post an update (eventually) on the results. FYI, Knitebane also posted on this and will be attending the meeting tonight as well.

(Oh, and before anyone points it out, yes, I'm aware of the logic mistake I made indicating that especially in winter the "one hour after sunset" rule limited low-light/no-light self-defense training. Doh. Of course, one hour after sunset is the same amount of time of darkness or near darkness, regardless of the time of year. Nevertheless, the point is still valid that one our of darkness is too restrictive.)

The message below was just sent to the non-commissioner members of the working group formed to discuss the proposed firearms ordinance. After re-reading it, I saw no reason not to send it to all the members of the Board as well.

I am opposed to this ordinance. And the name, in fact, is quite Orwellian. No matter how you modify it, I will not buy that it is not an anti-gun ordinance. Your own gun ownership or NRA memberships do not give you a pass.

Want to convince me you are pro-gun? You can start by removing the restrictions on where I can carry, openly or concealed, i.e.: Johnston County buildings and require the Sheriff's office to remove the no-guns sign from its building. Oh the irony that in order carry concealed, I must obtain a permit from my local Sheriff (a state issue I hope will be addressed as it has been in Arizona recently) and in order to do it, I must enter a building where I am required to disarm.

I, and many people I know in Johnston County, will be watching how you vote on this and taking it into account in the next election. Follow the example of Lincoln County and kill this proposal now, before ever sees the light of a public hearing.

Here's what I sent to other members of the working group:
===
To: Citizen members of the working group of the Johnston County "Good Neighbor" Firearms Ordinance

My original feedback to all seven Johnston County Commissioners can be found on my blog at http://markofafreeman.blogspot.com/2010/12/johnston-county-nc-attempts-to-ban-spit.html.

Given the short time frame, since your next working group meeting is tonight, I wanted to get this out to raise at least one important question.

I've already spoken with Commissioner Jeff Carver on the phone and met with him face to face a few weeks ago about this. Our conversation was civil, but I'm still concerned about the intentions of the Board. Mr. Carver did indicate to me that every single person on the working group is 'pro-gun'. For that I am grateful, but still not willing to just leave this in the hands of the working group and the Board and not continue to make sure my voice is heard.

My concern is that, as I made clear to Mr. Carver, sometimes the right thing for government to do is NOTHING. And if I read the summary of the last working group correctly, Alan Mims 'clarified' the intent of the working group. And that is to see if we can modify the ordinance to be acceptable to all parties. From my conversation with Mr. Carver, and that statement from Mr. Mims, I have to wonder if the Board is intent on passing SOMETHING, no matter what the cost.

As you can see from my blog post, I made it clear what that cost may be...the commissioners who vote yes may not run unopposed in the next election. Yes, that was regarding the original draft of the ordinance, but I'm a little more than miffed that this Board seems to want to pass *something* to save face. I have to wonder if this whole idea of a working group was for nothing more than to save face.

Johnston County should follow the example of Lincoln County three years ago (see here: http://www.lincolntribune.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8205) and kill this idea now.

Prohibiting shooting after one hour after sunset, drastically limits low-light and no-light self defense training, particularly in the winter. Other than noise after a much later hour, there's no legitimate reason for a restriction like this, and a generic noise ordinance that specifically does NOT target firearms can deal with that.

The alcohol or controlled substance issue creates a problem for those on prescription medication or those who simply have a glass a wine with dinner and then, possibly, need to dispatch a pest out in the barn. For truly unsafe activity, existing drunk and disorderly laws can deal with that.

With the radical change from the first draft to the current draft of this ordinance, its clear that the Board cannot come to terms with the truth that they cannot define what the true problem is and that when you come right down to it, there is nothing that can be drafted that isn't already handled by current Johnston County ordinances or state law.

What I think is going on here is the Commissioners want to give law enforcement yet another tool to enforce 'neighborly' behavior. Of course, if it's forced, it's not neighborly. Additionally, with all due respect for what our deputies do, none of my liberties are up for negotiation to make law enforcement easier. Law enforcement, when you have to honor the rights of free men, is not easy. No one can deny that the quickest way to make the job of law enforcement easy is to ignore the US Constitution. Does anyone considering this ordinance think that is a good idea? Is the true intent of this ordinance to make law enforcement easier?

For those who don't understand the enemies of freedom, they forget that those enemies may some time in the future control the levers of the law (as they do in much of the country). If you want to craft a law, a good guiding principle is to consider that law in the hands of your worst enemy. Once you do that, the hope is that your enthusiasm for 'passing SOMETHING' should diminish. An Ayn Rand quote from Atlas Shrugged comes to mind here:

"Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with."

I am going to try to attend the meeting tonight and hope to get a chance to re-iterate publicly what I've written here if the points are not brought up. But please, use any of the content of this note to bring up the points yourselves to push the idea of passing NO ordinance.

Thank you.

There was an article I read a while back that I think was linked by David where a cop was quoted as saying, "officer safety trumps rights." Interestingly, when I did a web search on the phrase "officer safety trumps rights" including the quotes, I came up with one match. I know that the officer.com forum in the past has been an, let's just say enlightening peek into the minds of many of the "Only Ones" mentality. I am not all endorsing the killing of an officer during a routine traffic stop, but I do hope that no Johnston County deputies hold the view that their own safety on the job trumps rights. If they do, let it be known that I consider them oathbreakers and traitors of the republic.

Political Action - A "Necessary Fail"

2011-01-14T15:01:00.022-05:00

After sending the text of my previous post to all seven Johnston County Commissioners, I got a response back from three of them. The first one just said "Thanks for the email" and that was that. Nice discourse.

The third one was actually from a clerk who simply sent me Allen Mims' (the Chairman) memo explaining the delay of the hearing and formation of the working group, which I had already read.

But the second one was from Vice Chairman Commissioner Jeff Carver who said simply, "Thanks for the email, please call me to discuss."

Well. That was more than I expected. So I took him up on the offer, got his cell phone number from him and called him later that night. We spoke for 20 minutes or so about a number of things I mentioned in my email (which he said he thought was the longest he'd ever received, even outside his role as Commissioner) as well as some other points. I'll include some details from that conversation in another follow-up post.

But, at the end of the conversation he suggested I take a few days to digest what we talked about and that if I wanted to speak with him again, or even meet with him person, that he'd be happy to oblige. I'm happy to report that I took him up on the offer and Mr. Carver didn't renege on the agreement to meet with me. Knitebane, another friend from Johnston County and I met with the Commissioner today for lunch and discussed several issues surrounding this proposed ordinance for about 45 minutes. I would like to publicly thank Vice Chairman Jeff Carver for meeting with three Johnston County citizens in person to discuss our concerns. I'll include details of today's conversation in my follow-up to be posted later tonight or sometime this weekend.

I don't know whether or not, even with reinforcements, we've swayed the Commissioner much or at all. But what this post is mostly about is something I think Arctic Patriot said first not long ago. It's the concept of a necessary fail. I can't begin to describe my frustration with both family members and friends and acquaintances who assert that "it doesn't matter what you do or say or who you vote for...the whole process is corrupt and there is no point in participating." And yet those same people will complain to no end about one government action or another. Or even, if you can believe it, scream for the government to do something about some disaster or another (bank collapse, mass shooting). These same people who moan on and on about their government being corrupt, incompetent, or about them not having a voice, demand that that very government come to the rescue.

The necessary fail here is making your voice heard. Stand up and declare that your rights are not up for majority vote. They are not negotiable. Like I said once, Three Percenters (or the three percent credo) are consistently misrepresented. None of them I know are hoping for the shooting to start. But as Mike Vanderboegh keeps saying, there is little hope that this government will be able to restrain itself. They will overreach to the point of violence. Some say they already have, but I mean there will be a violent action by this government that even those who seriously believe that it can't happen here will be calling for resistance.

Should that happen, and you find yourself needing to make the choice to defend yourself and your family against a government out of control with rage and making up trumped up charges to boot-stomp your face because of what you believe, in my opinion, you will be obliged to ask yourself a simple question or two: "Do I have the moral authority to pull that trigger? Have I done everything in my power to prevent it from getting to this point?"

If the answer is No to either of those questions, then what makes you think fighting for your freedom at the point of a gun is going to bring about a restored republic if you haven't trained yourself through repetition and taught your offspring to keep on reminding those in political office who really is in charge?

Yes, I know it feels pointless. Yes, I know both major parties more and more seem to be two wings of the same party. Yes, I know that some of the tea partiers seem to have been compromised already. That's no excuse. You must do your part.

This is the first time I have ever met face to face with a politician in my life. And my life flashed before my eyes. ;-) Seriously, though, it was probably the most important political action I've ever taken in my life. No armed rally, no campaign contribution, no letter writing, no voting could accomplish what I did today. We made our voices heard directly, three feet or less in front of his face. He knows we mean business. He knows we will be at the hearing when it is rescheduled. If he doesn't listen...well, we've done our part. And I will feel justified in violating the ordinance every chance I get. And taken to a larger political scale with more egregious infringements, more serious acts of disobedience.

Stay tuned and later tonight or this weekend I'll have some information on what we talked about with Commissioner Carver.

Johnston County, NC, Attempts to Ban Spit-balls

2010-12-29T12:01:00.006-05:00

Okay, maybe not, but I'm told that the proposed ban on shooting any projectiles within 600 feet of any dwelling may be broad enough to include arrows, BBs, and pellets.

Looking here it's apparent the Board of Commissioners has gotten significant feedback. Significant enough to postpone the hearing. Well, let's just say that based on the wording of Chairman Allen L. Mims, Jr.'s memo (pdf), I don't have a lot of warm fuzzies. This whole idea needs to be scrapped.

Here's what I will be sending to the Johnston County Board of Commissioners, possibly via postal mail due to it's length. Please feel free to continue to give them feedback telling them what you think of this nanny state proposal.

UPDATE: I see from the December 20, 2010 memo by the Chairman that this hearing has been postponed pending the outcome of a working group study. I believe all of my statement below is still relevant. Even more so given this wording from the aforementioned memo:

...the Board and I have decided to develop a workgroup, consisting of Commissioner, staff and citizen representatives, who will review the proposed firearm ordinance, address the citizen concerns and develop a revised ordinance that is mutually acceptable among us all.

The concern this raises is that I believe NO ordinance will be acceptable. Existing laws against reckless endangerment already cover the necessary concerns. This is not about safety. This is about control.

Originally planned statement for January 3rd hearing follows:

Not to focus on the distance, but has anyone done the math on the 600ft number? That would essentially require a minimum of about 32 acres in order to comply. That's assuming a square lot and a dwelling on one corner and shooting in the center to guarantee that no neighbors' dwellings are closer than that same 600ft away. And this doesn't even take into account the travel distance of the bullets from the shooting position to the target.

At a family member's house in NH, a racoon had to be eliminated due to its insistence on preying on their chickens. This was carried out with a 12 gauge shotgun maybe 50 yards from house.

Will this be prohibited?

At the same family member's house, a squirrel had to be eliminated due the damage it was doing to their deck. This was carried out with a 20 gauge shotgun directly under the deck, a few feet from the house.

Will this be prohibited?

We also shot clay targets off the deck of that house.

Will this be prohibited?

At a friend's house outside of Angier in Johnston County, we shoot at a target 100 yards away from a position mere feet from his own house.

Will this be prohibited?

No neighbor has ever complained. No one was ever injured or killed. All necessary safety precautions were taken. All four of Colonel Cooper's rules were followed.

According to the North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics, of the 84 accidental deaths (page 32) in Johnston County in 2009

31 were transport accidents (pedestrian, passenger, driver)
24 were falls
16 were poisonings and other accidental exposures
6 were drownings or other threats to breathing
4 were fire related
1 was contact with a venomous animal
1 was heat exposure
and 1 was firearm related.

I have no details on what this one Johnston County accidental firearm death was, but I would think an investigation was done and the responsible party was held accountable according to existing law. Given that 7 of those 31 accidental transport deaths were pedestrians, why are we not proposing a ban on driving within 600ft of any dwelling or within 600ft of any pedestrian walkway? If a law against a relatively safe, but not 100% risk free activity could prevent accidents, surely we should be focusing on the 7 pedestrians our county lost last year to transport accidents before even embarking on consideration of a target shooting, hunting, and pest control ban, should we not?

In all seriousness, I believe every member of this board knows that neither regulation makes sense. We already have laws against reckless endangerment.

I'm sure many private ranges exist across North Carolina which are very near dwellings. I have not heard of any confirmed reports of poor safety records that cannot be addressed by current laws. I've shot at one of these with the shooting position only a few feet away from the house.

Ask anyone with a barn how often they have to eliminate rats, possums, or other pests.

This is not about public safety. If it were, we would be hearing about these supposed investigated and confirmed unsafe ranges at this hearing. And even if we do, there are already legal avenues to address those problems.

We don't need this ordinance. This is not about public safety. This is about control.

Many of us here understand that there may be some on this board who will choose to ignore the facts presented here tonight about the foolishness of this proposal. So let me take a few more moments to explain what will happen should this pass, or frankly, even if it doesn't, but there are any affirmative votes for it.

Is it possible that this Board did not get the message of the last election? It's not just about the economy. It's certainly not just about messaging. Make. Government. Stop. Out of the seven board members here, three ran for re-election in 2010, each of them unopposed. In 2012, the other four will be up for re-election. I will make a promise to you here and now that if this ordinance passes due to your vote, I will make every effort to rally the citizens of Johnston County to ensure you do not run unopposed in 2012. And that goes for the three who ran in 2010 if you should run for re-election in 2014. And we will make it a central issue of the election.

In the current political climate, many more like me have awakened from our slumber and decided that voting is not enough and even contributing to campaigns is not enough. We will not stop until those who vote for this ordinance are removed from office.

We will be contacting Sheriff Steve Bizzell and requesting that he instruct his deputies to ignore this ordinance and refuse to enforce it.

We will also be contacting Susan Doyle and asking her to do what one brave Wisconsin District Attorney did recently. He has refused to enforce Wisconsin's unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. We will be asking District Attorney Doyle to refuse to prosecute any charges of violations of this ordinance.

Both of them will also be put on notice that they will not run unopposed in their respective primaries next time they are up for re-election should they not agree to refuse to file charges or prosecute cases, respectively.

If this ordinance passes, in addition to a future, concerted campaign to unseat you, we will host a 'Disobey Ordinance 16-3' shoot. We will shoot on my friend's property outside of Angier, but inside Johnston County, a mere few feet from his house at a target 100yds away. We may limit it to .22LR or .22 Short ammo at a closer range, but it will be our symbolic way of saying, NO MORE. Everyone attending will be required to take at least one shot, a .22 Short from a single action revolver if they want. All seven members of this Board will be invited as well as anyone on our side with this issue. There will be food, there will be talk that some government officials, possibly some of you, would disapprove of, and there will be some good, fun noise.

We will even consider making it a monthly event until the ordinance is repealed.

Something else will likely happen. As I've indicated, you've awakened a sleeping giant. And frankly, I expect to lobby for what I'm about to propose regardless of what is done here with this ordinance. It's just that if this passes, I will pursue it with much more vigor. You see, North Carolina has a toothless firearms pre-emption law. Places like Chapel Hill, Cary, and Durham have been testing its limits. Both Pennsylvania and Florida have much stronger pre-emption laws, but County Boards and City Councils in both states have been ignoring those laws with impunity.

So at least in Florida, a new approach is being taken. If the proposal passes, County Commissioners, City Councilors, Law Enforcement Officers, and Prosecutors will be held criminally responsible, personally, for ignoring the statewide pre-emption of firearms laws. This will be on top of 18 USC 241, Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights, or 242, Violation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law.

Grass Roots North Carolina indicates that with the recent elections, there is a much stronger pro-gun contingent in the NC state legislature. We will push for a firearms pre-emption law in North Carolina that has these kind of teeth, along with a revamp (elimination in most cases) of most gun laws at the state level.

And just so you understand where we stand in this negotiation, let me say this. We have come here because, metaphorically speaking, someone has threatened to cut off our right leg. We have to wonder if the hope was that we would settle for, oh, say, just giving up our left foot. Let me straighten out this potential misperception. We were threatened, metaphorically speaking, with amputation. Our position is that we are changing the starting point of this negotiation. We've come, metaphorically speaking, for both legs of those who are proposing this ordinance. And our hope is that everyone leaves with all of their limbs in tact. Metaphorically.

In short, back off.

For 75 plus years, gun owners have backed up upon every new gun regulation. We are here to say...NO MORE! NOT ONE MORE INCH!

I voted

2010-11-02T07:17:00.005-04:00

How about you?

;-)

NRA vs. GOA, part 31459

2010-10-13T00:15:00.003-04:00

I posted a version of this in the comments of SaysUncle's recent post regarding the GOA's downgrading of Representative Deborah Halvorson's (IL-11) grade from an A to a D in one year. The claim was that NRA's scoring was at least understood, and the implication that GOA's was not. I'd like to say that "understood != makes sense".

So if the NRA makes the trains run on time, will that suffice for you NRA-can-do-no-wrong apologists?

I'm not a rabid GOA supporter, nor am I a rabid NRA detractor. I am a life member of both organizations. Some valid concerns have been brought up about GOA, particular in the area of the budget and what portion of it goes to executive salaries. And their effectiveness has also been called into question, though I haven't really kept track of that. But I'm really not understanding how so many gun bloggers, when we are winning and have the truth on our side feel the need to cover for the NRA no matter what they do, even when it makes no bloody sense.

I'm so sick of seeing gun bloggers say things like "the R in NRA doesn't stand for Republican." I’d like to see evidence that those who are objecting to most of the NRA Democrat endorsements object because there’s a D beside each of their names. It’s tantamount to calling those who oppose our current president racists and it’s unbecoming of intelligent discourse.

What I object to in most of the Democrat endorsements and even some of the Republican endorsements is that this supposed single-issue organization* is ignoring some important strategic factors. When the NRA backs away from other issues extremely important to liberty, such as the Orwellian named DISCLOSE Act, it virtually guarantees that we will keep barreling toward socialism and it becomes more and more likely that those ‘Second Amendment remedies’ that Sharon Angle spoke of will be used. I am not advocating it, just stating that the more government bears down on the people, and not just regarding guns, the more likely that we will surpass the point where they will tolerate no more in the long train of abuses.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that it is monumentally stupid for the NRA to be absolutist in standing firm on being ’single issue’* because it completely ignores unintended consequences.

When I can name two Representatives that used to be considered somewhat centrist/blue dog Democrats just off the top of my head (John Spratt SC-5 and Bob Etheridge NC-2) who have become 97%+ Pelosi lock-step voters (and there are certainly more), there’s reason to be concerned about any Democrats being endorsed, especially when it’s so often about incumbency with the NRA. I realize that it’s not practical for the NRA to say this publicly, but the Democrats need to purge the Marxists from their leadership ranks before it makes sense to endorse any of them. At this moment, in this political climate, you help Democrats maintain their majority, you keep their Marxists leaders in power -- for a long enough period of time -- and then your precious Second Amendment rights are good for nothing except the last resort the founders understood, because you will have no other freedoms left.

If the NRA wants to continue to remain credible, they need to scrap their incumbent friendly policy and think more strategically. They need to do a lot more, to be sure, but this policy is beginning to look more and more ridiculous in these times.

It’s not a mystery, by the way, why GOA downgraded Halvorson. It’s quite easy to find the votes that the GOA considered in downgrading her, and she failed every one. Sure, none of them were pure gun votes, but were there any pure gun votes these past two years? None that I know of. You may not agree with GOA’s policy, but it’s not any more opaque than the NRA’s. It’s quite a mystery to me why they would only bump Reid from A to B based on his two votes for anti-gun Supreme Court nominees. That’s pretty egregious, as it has an effect for potentially a couple generations. The downgrade of Halvorson from A to D by the GOA would probably be mirrored by the NRA if it wasn’t for their incumbent friendly policy. Because the GOA does not have that policy, the four grade bump looks like a shocker, but makes perfect sense if you consider unintended (or intended, but poorly disguised) consequences, which the GOA apparently does.

The GOA absolutely has its flaws, but I really wish gun bloggers would stop attacking them when they do the right thing, which is more than some like to admit. To paraphrase someone I had a bit of a disagreement with a while back, when you do that, you stink up the tent (when referring Reagan's Big Tent philosophy) much more than you claim open carry demonstrations or Threepers do.

Remember that it was the derisively named Fudds who attacked the EBRs before you deride us for calling them Fudds. Might not be the best behavior to return insult for injury, but do remember that it was them who threw us under the bus. In much the same way it was a Prag who attacked a Threeper before anyone knew there was difference and before either of them even earned their respective monikers. You want big tent? Stop attacking those of us basically on the front lines of what just happens to be a different front in the same war.

(Side note: Oh, the irony. The trend seems to be that the Prags will defend the anti-liberty, incumbent friendly NRA choices (even when said incumbents will vote for a Marxist Speaker and Supreme Court Justices) and virtually guarantee that we will have to use that precious Second Amendment right, because it will be the only right we have left. Yet the Threepers, who are consistently misrepresented, want to prevent a shooting war by explaining to the [faux] powers that be that continuing down this path of less and less liberty will eventually spark an armed conflict -- and want you to know that to deter you from continuing down that road. You don't negotiate with a homicide bomber. We're dealing with the same mentality, here. As the sign says that I carried at the rallies at Gravelly Point Park, Arlington, VA on April 19, and Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, Greensboro, NC on August 14: "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Government officials do not fear the people. If we are to agree with Mr. Jefferson, that needs to change.)

I'm not wishing the NRA would go away. I'm hoping to change it from within. As they like saying, "I am the NRA." I've done more in the past two years politically than I've done all my life, previously, including calling Bob Etheridge's DC office to register my opposition to the health control bill and calling the NRA to specifically tell them that as a life member I disapproved of them backing away from opposing (and thus giving tacit support for) the DISCLOSE act. I'm tired of NRA apologists treating the NRA leadership like elitists who just must know what they're doing because, you know, they're NRA leaders. Stop defending the stupid decisions (seemingly on the increase) they keeping making and get on the phone and call them to the carpet on it. Collectivist look for leaders to be their elitists who purportedly know better than the rest of us. Emulating them in that is not a good idea.

It's tempting to give up on both the NRA and GOA and give my support to SAF. They’re a force to be reckoned with probably more so than both the others combined, given their key role in both Heller and MacDonald and their claimed 600,000 members. They are making the better strategic decisions.

But I don't plan on resigning my membership from the two former. I'd like to play my part in influencing the NRA to be more principled regarding freedom as a whole, and the GOA to become more effective both financially and politically. I will probably join and give additional support to the SAF. Neither the NRA nor the GOA has received anything from me other than my initial, life membership fee. The SAF is beginning to show how much more worthy it is in that area.

* For a clear example of how the NRA is absolutely *not* a single issue organization, but only claimed that to save face during the whole DISCLOSE debacle, see the cover story of the October, 2010 issue of America’s 1st Freedom by Edmund Burke. If they want to claim they are single issue, they need to stop referring to themselves as “the oldest civil rights organization” in the US.

Firearm as a Prosthesis

2010-09-23T13:08:00.004-04:00

From Beck:

You have no moral standing to authorize the taking of someone else's productivity for anything.

.

And from ESR:

...never, ever, ask permission to carry or give others an option to deny it – just do it and refuse to discuss the matter.

I hadn't read ESR for a while, mostly because I was kind of out of the "Open Source" world at least from the perspective of reading related blogs and such. Linux and Free Software have already won in so many ways that I figured why should I bother? I haven't had a job in years where I was pressured to switch to Windows. Times, they are changing.

My first reaction to his post linked above was, "WTH? You mean he wasn't carrying until 14 months ago?" I didn't grow up with guns. My Dad was in the US Air Force for 2 years and worked on base as a civilian for 35 years before retiring and as far as I remember was pretty anti-gun. Add to that the fact that we lived in the "cradle and grave of liberty" (as someone put it recently), Massachusetts.

Yet when I moved down to North Carolina 5 1/2 years ago, it wasn't long before I was making up for lost time. It's knitebane who finally encouraged me to go out and get my CHL (otherwise known as permission slip from busy bodies hoplophobes to exercise a supposed right ... but I digress) and then to finally go out and buy my first firearm. I've been carrying for four years, now, everywhere I can. It kind of surprised me that ESR, who has never been shy about his advocacy for gun rights, has only been carrying for 14 months. But, no matter. Welcome, ESR, as you join those of us who see no reason to go about our business unarmed.

An important nugget of wisdom I take from his post is what I quoted above. But I would take it a step further. And my apologies to Breda, though I do think she will get it more than anyone and likely agree.

Imagine visiting a friend's friend at his house for the first time. This friend's friend doesn't know you've been injured many years back and as a result, have a prosthetic leg. During conversation as you are sitting on the couch across from this new acquaintance, you go to cross your legs and he suddenly notices that you have a prosthesis. He interrupts himself and gets up and says something to the effect of, "You didn't tell me you had a prosthesis! That's very uncomfortable for me. You'll have to leave that in the car and don't come back with it next time."

I know. Highly unlikely. But if someone said that to me about me carrying in his house, I think my reaction, now, would be the same. I am compensating for something. I am compensating for the fact that I'm not going to be high on PCP if I'm attacked by a thug who is. I'm compensating for the fact that I have a smaller build than most thugs are likely to have. I'm compensating for the fact that I'm getting older and more rickety as the years pass and have less of an ability to fight off an attacker hand to hand. And I'm also compensating for the fact that most attacks happen when and where you'd least expect and most people do not have the situational awareness, the survival mindset, nor effective tools to deal with those attacks.

My firearm is, quite simply, a prosthesis.

So if I am presented with a situation of someone asking (or demanding) that I come back without my firearm, there is really no response I can give them. Like ESR, I believe I should refuse to discuss it. The only questions I would ask someone making such an unreasonable demand would be simply, "Do you want me to leave? Do wish me to never return?" Don't even mention the firearm. Consider it inseparable and don't let a hoplophobe come between it and you. Make it clear to him that by rejecting your firearm, he is rejecting you and don't let him squirm his way out of it. Every time he says something like, "I don't want you carrying a gun in my house," respond with a question like, "You don't want me in your house, you say?" Do not let him get away with anything different than by rejecting the firearm he is rejecting you. Period.

I quoted Billy Beck as well (and do go read it all, as it's a good rejoinder to those on the supposed 'Right' who don't want to touch Social [in]Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) because the 'no moral authority' attitude applies here, too. No one has the moral authority to tell you that you must turn over your property to someone else who has not earned it from you nor to stop carrying your means of defense any more than he has the moral authority to tell you to leave a part of body at home before visiting.

Emergency Response

2010-09-01T22:13:00.003-04:00

Anyone think the Governess will make it at a higher priority to respond to this than to a violation of the diktat outlined in NC GS 14-288.7?

Didn't think so. Go here to let her know what you think.

His Last Hurrah?

2010-08-03T00:42:00.002-04:00

Via SaysUncle we have this gem of a bill. And by none other than the King of Corruption himself. Interesting note on the GovTrack page on the bill, though:

For context, Congressman Rangel has introduced this bill many times in the past. Each time, it has received very little support, and Rangel knows it has no chance of being passed. For more, see his press release.

And Obama and his allies want him to be able to leave with dignity? He never had any to begin with.

Oh, and remember this, if you have any questions.

There Are No Words

2010-08-02T09:34:00.006-04:00

No words to describe just how despicable this man is.

Via Mike we have a congressman -- who, by the way, keeps getting re-elected over and over again -- who leaves no doubt as to his tyranny. Listen and learn:

Blitzkrieg

2010-07-31T15:50:00.002-04:00

From David T. Hardy comes this:

[The Brady Campaign is] on the defensive (to the extent they act at all) and the progun side is on the offense. Since almost all of it has occurred over the last month or so, it's more than an offense, it's a legal blitzkrieg.

That made my day.

Now That's What I'm Talkin' About

2010-07-29T16:54:00.001-04:00

My Conservative Identity:

You are an Anti-government Gunslinger, also known as a libertarian conservative or Tea Partier. You believe in smaller government, states’ rights, gun rights, and that, as Reagan once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’"

Take the quiz at
About.com Political Humor

And I promise, no more of these quizzes until after I do a real blog post.

Oh, Thank the Lord!

2010-07-29T13:25:00.003-04:00

You are 0% hippie.

Ok, you conservative soul. Do you even believe in global warming? Loosen that necktie a little, and try some organic food. It actually does taste better. And go to a farmer's market--they're fun.

Are you a hippie?
Take More Quizzes

And I promise, there will be some more gun/freedom blogging soon.

I Write Like...

2010-07-27T21:02:00.001-04:00

Heh. Here's what I got after plugging in my earlier post titled In Defense of the Layman.

I write like
H. P. Lovecraft

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

Frank Deatrich Responds to Gun Rights Questionnaire

2010-04-07T23:32:00.008-04:00

After the passage of the despicable health control bill a few weeks ago, I made it one of my missions to do my part to send a strong and clear message to every single member of the House of Representatives who voted Yea that we will not tolerate tyrants who wish to rule over us as opposed to servants who do nothing more than their constitutionally limited powers. In times of peace, a Congress that does nothing would be a step up from what we've got today. Treat us with benign neglect and we will do what everyone throughout history has done in those cases: prosper.

So my target is Bob Etheridge of the North Carolina 2nd congressional district. Recent ratings from GOA, NRA, and GRNC put him pretty consistently in the F category, with occasional appearances in the D category, according to votesmart.com. The candidates I know of who are running in the GOP primary for a chance to unseat Etheridge are Renee Ellmers, Frank Deatrich, Todd Gailas.

I'm told that Dan Mansell is running again, but haven't seen any confirmation of that, and he hasn't updated his campaign website as of this writing.

A fifth candidate I believe is running is Jay Johnson of Harnett County, but I have yet to find a campaign website or email address for him. There is a Meetup.com posting from April of last year by him, so I signed up with Meetup and posted the questionnaire there.

So far, I've sent David Codrea's questionnaire to Jay Johnson (through Meetup.com), Frank Deatrich, and Renee Ellmers. I will soon be sending it to Todd Gailas, whom I just found out about and who has a detailed description of his support for gun rights that almost suffices on his campaign website. Dan Mansell will also get a copy. Out of fairness, I will also send a copy to Bob Etheridge, but he's already made his position against individual liberty pretty clear with his abysmal voting record. But my current focus is the primary and to the best of my knowledge, Etheridge has no primary challenger.

The good news is that I did finally get one response to the questionnaire which is posted here. I will post others as they respond. I would like to thank Frank for responding as that may help turn up the heat on the other candidates to go on the record as true supporters of gun rights. Questionnaires aren't a guarantee, of course, of good behavior while in office, but they serve their purpose, particularly when they are as specific as this one.

Here are Frank Deatrich's responses, modified only for formatting. His answers in italics:

Do you believe that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and that the Bill of Rights acknowledges our birth rights? Yes
If so, should these rights be proactively protected from infringement by all levels of government, including city, county and state? Yes
Please give some examples of gun laws you consider constitutional. The 2nd amendment covers our right to keep and bear arms and is the standard for our nation.
Please give some examples of gun laws you consider unconstitutional. The Gun Control Act of 1968, which turned the right to own a gun in the US into a priviledge rather than a right. The many Gun Control that have followed this 1968 Gun Control Act were a direct result of the 1968 act.
Does the right to bear arms include the right for any peaceable citizen to carry them concealed without a permit, as in Vermont? Yes, it does not state in the constitution that you have to have a permit.
Do you believe that Americans have a right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern, and will you use the prestige of elected office to publicly promote that right? Yes
Do you support or oppose registration of weapons? I oppose registration of weapons. Why? Because the constitution codifies us that right.
Do you support or oppose licensing requirements to own or carry firearms? I oppose. Why? The constitution does not state that it is required that you have a license to own or carry firearms.
What specific gun laws will you work to get repealed? The Gun Control Law of 1968.
If elected, will you back your words of support for firearms rights up with consistent actions? Yes How? By the introduction of a bill to repeal the above law and support NRA and publish my support on my website as well as speaking out publically.

If you're not visiting David Codrea's War On Guns blog and national Gun Rights Examiner column on a daily basis, you're missing out on a lot of important information that can equip you to contribute to the battle to roll back the decades-, or even century-long infringements on our freedoms and retain what few remain.

Update: Per Frank's request, I have changed the wording of his answer to question 7 above.

In Defense of the "Layman"

2009-12-10T13:55:00.003-05:00

Although it's nice to see someone else notice that this East Anglia Climate Research Unit email and data leak has more implications than just for climate science, it's not something the surprises me in the least.

I have often wondered how presumably intelligent people can use phrases like "science tells us," "the scientific consensus is," or, the most ignorant, "the science is settled" (or their equivalents "the numbers are in," and the "the debate is over"). These are not just utterances of people who can't argue, and therefore have to declare the argument over. They are rantings of check-your-brain-at-the-door religious fanatics. Science is not God, or even a god. It is simply our best, though flawed, effort to understand the world around us.

And they accuse us Christians of abandoning reason.

The process by which we as humans come to any conclusions about any facts ultimately comes down to this: Who do we trust? Who do we believe? Who is trustworthy? Unless you plan on doing the scientific experimentation yourself (and even that comes with its own set of biases), you must rely on someone else and their own preconceived notions, and, possibly (likely) their own agendas.

Human nature does not change simply because a person spends 4-10 years earning various degrees and can now tack a few initials after his name. We all have our unique biases and motivations. It's why, for example, honest writers will put disclaimers at the end of what they write when relevant. It doesn't completely invalidate their opinions or the results of the research they do, but let's the consumer of the information judge for himself if the results may be unduly influenced by the writer's or researcher's background, associations, funding, or ideological views.

When judging a conclusion I look at an author's previous work. How well was it received? Is it well corroborated? What do his critics say? How well did he deal with criticism? How about his critics? What is their previous work like? Their reputations? If nothing else, the leaked email archive exposes a clique mentality that is inexcusable and destroys the credibility of those involved.

What does this have to do with gun rights (i.e.: freedom)? Well, everything. A free man does not wish to depend on a nanny-state, know-it-all government to come to his rescue. We lay claim to our own lives and against anyone who wishes to lord it over us. There is zero earthly authority for any man to rule over another save the authority we all have to stop tyrants (which includes individuals who trample on the human rights of others). We demand to be left alone inasmuch as our actions do not directly and detrimentally affect the same rights of others.

I include among the definition of tyrants those who would claim that because of their years of study in a certain field, we have no right to question their conclusions, because we haven't devoted our lives to that same course of study. I will not sacrifice my liberties for your megalomaniac ambitions or chicken little arm waving about TEOTWAWKI.

Environmental-cases, gun grabbers, collectivists...they're all the same in the end. They treat us as sheep who need a shepherd. Oh, I agree, but that Shepherd is no mere human. And it is not our tasks to bring about a utopia. One of the best descriptions of these modern day teleologists I've seen was written by Steven Den Beste at HotAir.com. It sheds light on the thinking behind Barbara Boxer's focus on prosecuting the messenger (hacker or whistle-blower). The alarmists must dodge the credibility problem because the problem is real and that just can't be allowed to enter the public psyche. Because if they just believe then it will be true. And since their utopian dreams require the unanimous consent of the masses who cannot think for themselves, provide for themselves, and defend themselves, they've got to attack and keep the spotlight on the leaker, rather than what was leaked.

Books and other forms of media have never in history been so widely available as they are today. There is very little excuse for 'leaving it to the experts' at this point. The experts, when engaged in honest debate and disclosure, have value. But their monopoly on intelligent discourse ended long ago. And it doesn't take a degree in any of the sciences to see how obviously the leaked data sullies the involved scientists' reputations.

Same goes for the collective piggish attitude of some LEOs like this one (h/t David). Who are you to decide what "value this brings to the community"? And, though we do believe going armed creates a better society, our rights do not depend on that one iota. Our rights are our rights, and your discomfort with our exercise of those rights by anyone but your fellow JBTs is not, at its core, our problem. We do not exist to make you comfortable.

So, EPA, go ahead and declare CO2 a 'public danger'. I'm going to keep on exhaling more CO2 than I inhale and you can take a hike. I would encourage businesses around the country to quite simply disobey any new regulations that come out of this declaration. But as an unapologetic capitalist, I lament at the rent-seeker status of most big businesses today. Big business is married to big government in the US. That's not capitalism.

"Going Galt" is looking more and more attractive in these times.

Keep your power dry.

"It doesn't matter who was behind you"

2009-11-16T14:39:00.002-05:00

Say what?

Another couple of Only Ones, but even better, they're Booze Only Ones:

"It doesn't matter who was behind you," the judge said, while explaining that Almon was guilty of the charge for placing another person in fear of bodily injury.

So let me get this straight. Two people walking behind him at midnight and he takes out his pocket knife and asks why they are following him. And puts it away when they say they are cops. And he's guilty of "criminal threathening?"

Sounds like one from Across the Pond in Sarah Brady's Paradise, but no, it's New Hampshire.

And what does this judge suggest we do if being followed by two unknown people with unknown intentions at midnight.

Credit goes to David, of course, for the Only Ones and Sarah Brady's Paradise memes.

So, They're Coming to Take You Away, You Say?

2009-11-10T14:30:00.006-05:00

"I am not your serf"

That's how I signed a farewell note to some fellow employees at a former rather oppressive employer. In that case, I had the choice available to me to leave. With the bill just passed in the House with its criminal penalties for not participating, we're not being given a choice. The moronic comparison to auto insurance doesn't even come close. Even in that case, I can choose not to drive, and some people in fact can't drive for one reason or another, so don't have auto insurance. There is no penalty. By simply living and breathing we are being required to pay for something most of us don't want. Or at least we don't want government approved insurance.

Mike at Sipsey Street posts his latest to reiterate that we are not to fire first.

I've had no confusion about this since he first starting writing about Fort Sumter.

However, I think the question in many of our minds is, "how will we know?"

What I mean is, the FedGov and the complicit state run media will most certainly distort or outright lie about the reason for the standoff with those 'anti-government oath-whatever-amajigs'.

How can we be sure that if a standoff takes place due to the sequential events listed below, that the truth will get out?

a) bills pass both houses and result is signed into law
b) citizen oath keeper unenrolls from existing health insurance as a protest
c) tax time comes and, against the advice of citizen's tax adviser, citizen refuses to submit to $15,000 fine
d) citizen is contacted by FedGov informing them that he must pay the fine and asking why it wasn't paid
e) citizen informs FedGov of his refusal to submit to this affront to his God given liberty
f) FedGov officials arrive on the 'compound' (state run media word for 'more than 2 acres') to take citizen to jail to await show trial
g) citizen tells two FedGov officials at his door to go pound sand and slams the door
h) FedGov breaks down door with drawn weapons and one of them fires at 'armed individual' who only had a gun in a holster. He misses and citizen draws and fires, killing both officials
i) a perimeter is established, and media is called to the scene to witness federal officials' show of force in apprehending 'anti-government gunman who has holed himself up at his compound.'

All wildly hypothetical, of course, but the point is, I think we all need to be thinking about media contact. And new media will be essential.

I propose:

As much surveillance as you can afford at your place of residence, including audio and outside cameras if possible. There are many possible ways to set this up, but the key here will be collecting the video on a computer where it can be processed, cut into smaller manageable chunks and archived. Be sure to have remotely hosted servers (virtual servers like Amazon's cloud offering can be acceptable) and have video copied to it automatically on regular (or continuous) intervals. Security including encryption is essential.

At regular intervals, unless you intervene before the interval is up, the remotely hosted server should be set up to post video to Youtube, but also other on-line video services and sent to friends and family, or someone else, possibly, if you don't want to unwittingly implicate someone who doesn't want to be involved.

What I'm talking about here is sort of a dead man switch. If you are not able to prevent the posting, emailing, etc. of your surveillance video, then it will get posted.

That's just a rough idea. I plan on doing something like this myself and will work out the details. I may have to suggest a less public forum for discussions of the details.

Update: I should also add that it would be a good idea to record yourself, Youtube style, explaining at each step of the way what you are doing, and why you are doing it. I.e.: first one might be recorded when you first unenroll from your insurance. That way, anybody viewing the surveillance of a FedGov attack will have the full context.

Hunters, Open Carrying, and Hate Crimes

2009-10-12T22:58:00.004-04:00

Breda made a very good point today about the so-called "Hate Crimes" legislation with her "that word you're using..." post regarding the special, privileged class that is created. Breda says she's not really for gay marriage, but rather for getting the government out of the business of marriage altogether. Here's what I would propose:

Government no longer requires anything, including blood test, for marriage. I would still advocate encouraging those who wish to engage in an intimate relationship get blood tests, but not that nor anything else should carry the force of law.
Churches, mosques, synagogues, atheist organizations, etc, take over all of the administration of marriage as they see fit.
Any parties are welcome to enter into an agreement, much like they way any other contracts are administered, through lawyers and approved by courts. Many like to call these civil unions, but I see no need whatsoever to box them into a particular name. There may be perfectly good financial or other reasons having nothing to do with intimate involvement for people to enter this kind of contract and civil union carries a connotation they may not want.
The 16th amendment to the US Constitution is repealed and the income tax abolished. That way, there's no confusion about how to change the tax code since it's gone.

I know 4 is a stretch, but frankly, it's all a stretch in today's current political climate, but I spell it to make a point that one can be entirely opposed to any sort of homosexual behaviour, but not necessarily in favour of government control of that behaviour. Nobody in the homosexual world has a right to be seen as normal by everyone they meet. My strong libertarian leaning informs me in my position that I don't even think any (private) employers should be forced to hire or not hire anyone based on homosexual behaviour. Homosexuals are welcome to try and convince naysayers to see they're behaviour as normal. It is the right of those who don't to hold that view.

But I digress.

My main point here is that no one has any right to have their behaviour viewed as normal by anyone else. That includes gun owners. And that includes those who open carry. It is our determined goal, as expressed through opencarry.org and various other organizations to normalize the sight of people carrying guns on their hips, not only not being a threat, but being a stabilizing force in otherwise crime ridden areas. It is our human right to keep and bear arms, and that includes bearing them openly.

But just because we can't expect to be viewed as normal (there will always be those who will never be convinced of it), doesn't mean we should modify our behaviour to satisfy them. A right not exercised is a right lost. Virginia became, relatively speaking, one of the friendliest eastern states to open carrying of firearms by people carrying firearms openly. It was already legal, it just took some determined activist to change the view of a number of people and, I think in some cases, the local police.

I'm with Rob Allen in "Open carry is fine, so long as you don't do it where people can see you" where he demands proof of statements like "For every one person you turn on, two others are turned off." I asked Sebastian in the comments of Alan's "Sebastian Zumbos Himself" post to give evidence that leans heavily toward exercising a right causing a deterioration of the freedom to exercise that right.

I still haven't seen a credible answer.

I posted more on Open vs. Concealed carry here almost a year ago.

Update: Forgot about the Hunters reference. I also meant to point out Sebastian's post a week ago titled "High Public Approval for Hunting". In that post, he said:

The danger I see is that hunters have not yet accepted the “no one gets thrown off the lifeboat” philosophy that most in the shooting community have come to understand.

He's not quite doing that to open carriers just yet, but he's dang near close, so I challenged him with it. His comeback was to say that unless he was working to make open carrying illegal or sitting by while others were working for that, then open carriers were not being thrown off the lifeboat. Well...let's just say that seeing him jump on every opportunity to bash open carriers makes that hard to swallow. Not all so-called "Fudds" were necessarily working to make EBRs illegal, they just were not all that crazy about others having and using them. Sounds awfully familiar.

Update: Ouch. Fixed a couple of missing negatives in that last paragraph.

More DC March photos

2009-09-13T22:01:00.004-04:00

Go here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2338125/posts for some great aerial and other photos. h/t Pamela

Teaparty March on DC

2009-09-13T21:40:00.001-04:00

I may have more of a report later, but this is my favorite pair (out of the very few I took) of photos from the march in DC yesterday. I met up with some Three Percenters and Oath Keepers (with a surprising contingent from Massachusetts) around 9:00am in front of the White House. This woman had a sign in honor of Joe Wilson's comment that was, though inappropriate for the forum, most definitely, true. Here's the before:

And here is the after:

Her plan was to get as many signatures as possible and send it to Joe Wilson as a thank you. I never dreamed how many she would get. As you can see, the signatures completely cover the white space. People even started signing the back of it and filling that up!
Also, here's another one where I'm trying to show the size of the crowd:

You can see the Washington monument in the background. I'm told the crowd went all the way back to it and more people were still flowing in. Estimates varied from 1.2 million to 1.6 million.
Will they listen? If they don't, then it's worth taking note of what one sign said at this rally: "Plan A: Peaceful restoration of the Constitution. Plan B: Restoration of the Constitution." And that *wasn't* from a Threeper or an Oath Keeper. More people are waking up to the seriousness of current political climate. We were handing out Oath Keeper push cards and had several in depth conversations with people from all walks of life and I don't think we got a single negative reaction.
Please pray for Plan A to be successful. Plan B won't be fun for anyone.

Headed to D.C.

2009-09-08T16:39:00.002-04:00

I'll be heading to Washington D.C. this weekend for the Tea Party March on Washington on September 12. That's the generic reason, of course, as there are a number of liberty oriented groups that are congregating there on the 12th. Another notable group is the Oath Keepers which I hope to hook up with and, possibly, take the Oath for the first time, since I've never been in a position to take it before.

But my specific reasons are related, of course, to the Three Percenters that will be there. I have no big signs or any real clear plan, but I do hope to at least print out and laminate some makeshift Threeper Patches, so I can at least be recognized by other Threepers.

I do hope to have some good pictures and video of the event, however, so there may, possibly be something interesting to read about here. :-)

The sad and ironic thing about this event is though we say we will not disarm, we must disarm before entering D.C. or we will likely be arrested, due the unconstitutional edicts that the masters of that domain have instituted.

Doctrine of the Three Percent

2009-09-02T09:13:00.003-04:00

Getting motivated to start posting again. Figured a good way to start was to reiterate one of my favorite recent posts at Sipsey Street that Mike has added to his permanent sidebar on the right.

The Doctrine of the Three Percent.

We will not disarm.

You cannot convince us.

You cannot intimidate us.

You can try to kill us, if you think you can.

But remember, we'll shoot back.

And we are not going away.

Your move.

I'm not in any way sympathetic to groups such as Hamas or Hizballah, but I always thought it was odd when the "international community" was calling for Hizballah to disarm during the last conflict with Israel a few years ago. Why? Because disarming is what you do when you are surrendering. Then, and only then. If you are asking someone to surrender, the presumption ought to be that you have the firepower and the will to use it to wipe them out if they don't surrender.

(On that topic: Israel at the time, thanks in large part due to the pressure from most of the rest of the world, as well as impotent leadership, didn't have the will to do what was necessary. Hopefully, with Netanyahu as PM, they will, now.)

Another one down, 313? to go

2009-01-27T13:51:00.004-05:00

Another of the Bloomberg Bunch bites the dust. Will it ever end?

It was "a lapse in judgment"

"There is no excuse for it"

"I apologize for putting my family and my city under this situation."

However:

but said he did not commit a crime. He pledged to remain in office.

And yet we are supposed to believe this tripe:

As mayors, our highest responsibility is to enforce the law and to protect the people we serve.

Compelling Connectivity

2009-01-19T10:48:00.003-05:00

Though I know my readership is -- thanks in part to my very light posting and also in part to the newness of it all for me -- is low, I figured it was the least I could do to post a link to David Codrea's Gun Rights Examiner column.

It's been taking off beyond his wildest dreams. See this for the history.

MA LTC

2008-12-11T15:21:00.019-05:00

I wasn't sure I wanted to do this. I've heard a wide variety of views on how far we should go with respect to civil disobedience regarding conceal-carrying firearms. In my current state of residence, it almost makes no sense to have a conceal carry, given that the penalties for carrying where you are not supposed to are greater than if you have no permit at all and are caught carrying. I've been told that it's only a misdemeanor and if you've used it in a self-defense situation, you will likely have any 'gun charges' dismissed. No, I am not a lawyer, and haven't actually asked a lawyer about it, though. So caveat emptor.

But I do visit the VDZ of MA a few times a year. It's a long drive and I pass through a few other states that are problematic. I can at least transport my equipment through any of them and if any of the JBTs in those states decide to make an example of me, I may be able to slap them down in court with 18 U.S.C 926A.

But due to the draconian, anti-human rights laws in MA, it could involve much more than a short visit to the courthouse should you run afoul of the whims of the faux royalty in that state. So, given my typically three times a year visits up there per year, and the fact that it's not my state any more, I figured it's not my battle at the moment. Yes, I know we can all help with battles in other states, but I figure focusing my energies on my current home state and it's problematic laws as well as laws at the federal level would be the best approach. Don't want to wind up in a re-education cell in a foreign land. So I'll obey the statists in MA for now. At least until my few remaining relatives there defect.

I do feel like I'm conceding that MA officials have the authority to allow or deny me the ability to carry my mark. But one relative put it this way:

As for conceding that MA officials "have authority", I don't see it that way. I see it as conceding that MA is a communist, totalitarian thug state.

Soothed me at least a little bit.

The brief summary of the process is as follows. Note the first step may change if MA updates its web site. The current phone number for the FRB is (617) 660-4780, but here's how I got it for posterity:

Visit http://www.mass.gov/
1. Click on the 'For Government' tab
2. Click on 'A-Z Agency List' under 'Branches & Departments'
3. Scroll down and click on 'Criminal History Systems Board' (yeah, I know)
4. Click on 'Firearms Records Bureau'
5. Click on 'Firearms Possession Information'
6. Click on 'Non-Residents'
7. Call number listed on that page to have an application snail-mailed to you.
Get a pair of passport style photos taken. Most Post Offices will do this.
Fill out the application.
Take the fingerprint card and the actual blank license (in triplicate) to your local police department or sheriff's office. Be sure to call them in advance to see if an appointment is required. Note that one issue I had is that my sheriff's office no longer had a process for ink fingerprints which is what's needed for the actual license (just the right index finger). They dug up the old ink fingerprinting equipment just for me, but you may not be as fortuitous.
Draft your reason for 'all legal purposes.' I suggest avoiding statements like "It's my constitutional right!" or "It's the mark of a free man!". Either play the game and give a reason that doesn't rub their immature hoplophobia in their faces, or don't bother applying. My reason alluded to my elderly mother whom I visit in MA and take on errands and don't feel I can protected sufficiently due to my own advancing years.
Find an instructor at GOAL and schedule and take your safety course to get your certificate of completion. That'll likely run you about $100.
Bundle it all up with the $100 fee and send it along.

Note that MA issues Class B licenses that aren't really LTC licenses, but also issues two types of Class A LTCs, one of which, annoyingly, isn't really an LTC at all. It's only an LTC if it says 'NO RESTRICTIONS' on it or something else that indicates carrying is okay. Kind of reminds me of an airport I went to recently that has all these signs inside the terminal indicating what you must do to transport firearms on your flight. Yet there's this huge sign on the road leading to the airport warning drivers that no firearms are allowed on the premises and violators will be prosecuted. Leave it to a bureaucrat. I'd say weirdness like the non-LTC LTC in MA and the conflicting signs at that airport are a good indication that the policy was devised out of pure emotional panic and no rational thought. The cognitive dissonance of the hoplophobes never ceases to amaze.

III

Lose, lose?

2008-11-06T11:28:00.003-05:00

Reasonably good coverage of a citizen defense story. Even though the father didn't intend on killing the perp (or so it seems), it appears law enforcement at least acknowledges that deadly force was justified. But I take issue with the victim's statement that it was a "lose-lose" situation. Yes, the perp and his family lost. But the victimized family, without a doubt, won. Emotional trauma? Sure. A little sadness at taking a human life, possibly for the first time? Absolutely. But, Mr. McNally, you won. You won your daughter's life and likely your own as well. And, you won your dignity.

Sometimes, I Can Agree with the Lightworker

2008-11-02T00:28:00.003-04:00

But then, as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. (For all you young'ns out there, clocks used to have 'hands' that pointed at static numbers on a circle of numbers 1-12.)

According to an article referenced in John Sigler's TownHall article, Obama is quoted as saying:

National legislation will prevent other states’ flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents.

in a February 20, 2004 Chicago Tribune story.

What I agree with is the first part of that. Let's have national legislation that codifies the incorporation of the Second Amendment against the states. Part of that should be elminating states flawed conceal-weapons laws on the books and just, by golly, getting out of the way of citizens exercise of their God given right to bear arms. Vermont style.

Open vs. Concealed, Right vs. Privilege

2008-10-22T09:24:00.027-04:00

I have a video collection of presentations that were given as the 2006 (or possibly 2005) Firearms Law and 2nd Amendment Symposium that I grabbed from the NRA ILA web site. In there, Brian Patrick of the University of Toledo makes an allusion to a tidbit of information I hadn't heard elsewhere (and haven't heard since). And that is that even before this country reached the sorry state that it is in where so many people get their undies in a bunch at the mere sight of a firearm, that among those that carried guns, concealling a weapon was considered unmanly and it was actually this old gun culture that contributed to legislation prohibiting conceal carry.

Though I haven't been able to corroborate this claim, I bring that up because I see something coming from the open carry activist as well as something else from the conceal carry activists that both bother me. Not that we can be divided into those neatly segmented groups. Sure, there's some overlap. But I have heard on more than one occasion, someone from OpenCarry.org make the assertion that "open carry is the right, conceal carry is the privilege". I would like to know by what authority can someone make the claim that carrying a concealed weapon is not a right. All one has to do is witness this dash cam video of Danladi Moore being harassed by Norfolk Police and listen carefully to what they say to him regarding how harassing they are going to be if even lets the gun get ever-so-slightly covered:

at gunpoint in downtown Norfolk

Of course, the officer ignores the fact that Dan has a conceal carry permit. (Though, to be fair, I couldn't hear if Dan actually informed the officers of that fact.) That, of course, is the point: without the conceal carry permit, he can't comfortably risk carrying even openly in the face of this abusive, tyrannical police department.

And then there's the conceal carry crowd. A certain three letter gun rights group frequently sends out surveys to its members asking their views on some gun related issues. One of those questions has got to be one of the most awkward contortions of the English language I've seen. It asks if members support "Right to Carry Permits". Huh? You don't need a permit to excercise a right. If you are going to advocate for permits, then at least admit that you aren't acknowledging it as a right. "Conceal Carry Permit" would be more appropriate for what you're advocating, I believe.

Of all the fighting that this group does for conceal carry, which it is effectively conceding as a privilege, I don't think I've seen any advocating for what OpenCarry.org has been fighting for. Yes, there are only six states that outright prohibit it, but what about fighting for it in those six as well as working to eliminate the 'anamolous' states where it's not prohibited outright, but because of a lack of pre-emption, it's essentially prohibited. At least OpenCarry.org is honest about their position, erroneous as I believe it is, that they believe open carrying is the right, but concealing is the privilege.

The problem here is that whether you take the OpenCarry.org position or the NRA position, it forces you, if you are honest, to acknowledge that you are conceding that carrying a weapon, concealed or not, is a privilege. The problem lays in the fact that one official's open carry is another official's conceal carry. Just look at the despicable position of the current governer of Arizona.

She's not willing to admit that it is a problem when someone gets arrested for illegally concealing a weapon simply because an officer approaches him from the non-gun side and can't see the gun on the guy's other hip. Her response on several occasions has essentially been "get a permit". In other words in order to excercise the right to carry a firearm openly, which Arizona doesn't unconstitutionally prohibit (except possibly by prohibiting in certain 'sensitive' areas, I don't know), you need to get a permit to carry concealed or risk an obnoxious LEO hauling you downtown with a pair of nickel braclets.

Arizona is a year round warm climate, but what about seasonal places like the New England states. Ever try carrying openly on the *outside* of a heavy down winter coat? You effectively loose your ability to exercise your right to carry in New Hampshire (i.e.: without a permit) in the winter. Brilliant.

And as far as the NRA's advocacy for conceal carry, how about at least attempting to push for Vermont style laws (or lack thereof). I haven't heard a peep from the NRA about possibly pursuing that. Indiana now has lifetime conceal carry permits. Perfect opportunity for the first target area. Note that here I am acknowledging that the grass roots is where it has to start, but it would help to hear something from the leadership of our "leading" gun rights groups.

Let people who feel confident about their holsters, their retention skills, and their tactical awareness carry openly. And for those who would rather not give away an advantage, and can effectively conceal, let them carry concealed. Keep the criminals guessing. So the police are kept guessing, too. Isn't that already the case? Criminals will conceal and not inform the police that they are concealing. How is forcing someone who has no ill intent to reveal to an officer -- under penalty of law -- that he is armed going to help him identify those with ill intent and will never reveal to the officer that he is armed (until he engages in his criminal activity and is, hopefully caught, stopped, and, if necessary, put down by either the cop, or an armed citizen)? Same goes for forcing him to get a 'permit' to conceal a weapon. The mere presence of a firearm does not put a police officer in danger. If it does, then why does he carry one? The presence of a criminal, on the other hand, who is likely to ignore all laws requiring him to reveal he is criminal (notwithstanding possible 5A infringements), does endanger an officer (not to mention, everyone else).

I'm not naive, by the way, about the current political situation. But remember what people were telling Marion Hammer in Florida when she was lobbying for shall-issue CCW permits in there. They told her it would never happen. And after it passed against all odds, it spread across the country to ~40 states like a brushfire. We've got Vermont and Alaska (sort of). Let's get to work in IN and cause another brushfire.

1A can mitigate the need to exercise 2A

2008-10-20T14:21:00.017-04:00

Well, at least some of the time.

To most free men, the right to speak freely is as important as the right to keep and bear arms. If that describes you, you should be following the case of Ezra Levant closely. Yes, I know, this is up in the land of our nothern neighbor, and we don't have national or state (ironically named) "Human Rights Commissions" here in the US. But browse Ezra's archives and you'll see definite rumblings of it happening here in the good ole USA.

A recent example that sticks out is the case of Joey Vento of Geno's Steak in Philadelphia. He has a sign posted in his store telling customers "This is AMERICA: WHEN ORDERING 'PLEASE SPEAK ENGLISH.'" Someone, or many someones complained, and his case was referred to the city's Commission on Human Relations, previously unknown to this author, at least.

And then, of course, there are the Islamic supremacists fighting in the Underworld of the Nazgûl for strategically misnamed defamation laws across the globe which are really nothing more than blasphemy laws. You can find plenty on that in Ezra's archives, as well.

Start out by checking the archives from the very beginning of his blog around the beginning of this year. Look for the eight or nine part video of his hearing with the Alberta Human Rights Commission "Investigator."

It's been a while since I watched that interrogation, but I remember Ezra making an excellent point regarding just how important the right to free speech is. He pointed to some war torn areas of the world that got that way at least in part because citizens believed they had no other recourse. In the USA, we at least have a strong foundation for the redress of grievances. A process by which we can influence government and stop abuses of power and infringements on our rights. When citizens believe that speaking out has no effect, or carries with it the risk of imprisonment or violent suppression, then there is little else left to do but either submit and become enslaved, or resist using force.

So, although the right to keep and bear arms protected by our second amendment is extremely important, were it not for the right of free speech (and the like) protected by our first amendment, then we most certainly would, eventually, be exercising one of the rights implied by the second amendment: to fight against tyranny.

This is why that no matter who occupies the White House for the next four years, one of our most important fights is going to be to get campaign finance reform -- or as others have more correctly termed it, the Incumbent Protection Act -- repealed. It is a slippery slope that we have already stepped onto.

But getting back to Ezra Levant, I want to refer you to a particular post from August:

...I'm not really interested in trying to "convince" Moon -- or anyone else at the CHRC -- that censorship is wrong and freedom is right. I don't need to convince them, because those are my natural rights, and I don't need their permission. I think it's a moral mistake to even grant the CHRC and its contractors the legitimacy as arbiters of right and wrong

Some months before reading that, I had an encounter with a foreigner who is here on a green card, and whose country of origin shall remain nameless, at least for the time being. He's an admitted statist and believes the government should run everything. We were having a conversation about the right to keep and bear arms and he chimed in with "it's a privilege, not a right."

I walked away from the argument a little flustered. Not because I couldn't defend my position of it being a right. I could. But because he stated it in a way I hadn't heard before. Usually we hear either that it is a) a right, b) a right with some allowed limitations, or c) not at a right at all.

I hadn't heard anyone say it was a privilege before and wasn't prepared for how annoyed I was by it. I felt a little righteous indignation about the comment. And I found myself rehearsing in my mind what I might say to him should the topic come up again. It went something like this:

So, you think it's privilege. Well, you smarmy little *blank*, I don't care if you think it's a privilege, I claim it as my natural, God-given right. And you, personally, cannot take that away from me. Not even the Brady Bunch can. Nor can my legislators, nor law enforcement officers, nor judges. Sure, they can oppress me by passing unjust laws, arresting and charging me when I exercise the right, or convicting me when I'm innocent of any wrongdoing, but nothing on God's Green Earth will ever change the fact that it is my right. My final authority is not the opinions of men; it is the fact of God's gift.

Roberta X asks "why shoot?"

2008-10-19T22:22:00.000-04:00

Here is a question that I was faced with recently. And frankly, I wasn't happy with my response. Not in the comments on Roberta's blog, but see below.

As I've said, I live in a relatively free state where there at least is no requirement for a permit to own any shotguns, rifles, or handguns. But this state is what OpenCarry calls an "anomalous" open carry state. It's allowed at the state level, but there's no preemption preventing localities from restricting it. And some certainly do. So we have a patchwork of ordinances that make it legally risky to carry openly. There is at least preemption for concealed carry.

But none of that really matters while in one's own home. So I carry openly regularly in my home. But a few days ago I had someone come by and ring my doorbell. Doesn't happen very often for the simple reason that I'm relatively new to the area and don't know enough people who come by without calling first.

Before opening the door, I panicked and chickened out. I immediately disarmed (except I forgot about the two spare mags in mag holsters on my left hip) and went to answer the door. It was a cub scout with his father selling all that funky flavored popcorn to raise money for his pack. I was more than willing (even though I'm not wild about popcorn) to support the scouts. (Some day maybe I'll blog about my rather short lived experience with the scouts, but that's for another time.)

So I let the cub scout and his father in and proceeded to pick something from the catalog. The father then saw the large amount of ammo that I had recently purchased (a clearance sale at a price I couldn't refuse) sitting on my kitchen counter and asked if I was a firearms instructor. My response was, "No, not an instructor, just a fan."

*sigh*

First, I chicken out and disarm, just at a time when being armed makes more sense than ever...after dark when someone I don't know rings the doorbell. And second, I revert to the "fun" aspect of shooting instead of the "freedom" aspect. I had a perfect opportunity to talk to someone about the Arms = Freedom equation and I blew it.

As an aside, it turns out that the father was a retired LEO who had most recently worked in the metropolitan area closest to my home. He only recently retired and got a job paying about twice as much at a jewler's shop, only to be laid off four months ago and is now looking for work. I don't know why it surprised me, but it did bother me that the first thing this retired LEO assumed was that I was a firearms instructor.

I do hope he gets a job soon. Preferable at a local range teaching civilians how to shoot. If he's any good, that is. (smirk)

I've read quite a bit over the past few years indicating that the majority of in-the-trenches officers are in favor of an armed citizenry, but it is the Chiefs of Police and other bureaucrats who are against it. But I also hear quite a bit about training -- many non-LEOs spend a lot more time practicing than most LEOs. And regarding accuracy, the hit rate (hitting the intended target) and wrong person not getting shot (intended target was the correct target) also tend to favor the non-LEOs. I have no numbers at the moment, but I'm sure I can dig them up if anyone asks.

I'm on a mission, now, to find as many friends and relatives who are LEOs or former LEOs (my brother-in-law is at least one) and ask them what they think and why. If my sole reader (heh) can do the same, we might have something to report back.

Freedom is Nonnegotiable

2008-10-19T18:28:00.001-04:00

Does the world really need another gun blog? Maybe. Maybe not. But I can think of no better topic to write about given the fast approaching election and the lack of a real choice for freedom loving people. I may never gain the popularity of other gun bloggers out there, but that matters not to me. I think its important that more freedom loving people speak out against the increasing threats to those freedoms.

I grew up in a state in the northeast corner of the country that does not trust its citizens to run their own lives. Really, I often wonder if the entire country hasn't gone down that same path. But some places are definitely much further down the path to socialism than others. That aside, I live in a much freer state as of a few years ago. At least in regards to firearms. And I've been making up for lost time, so to speak.

There are many reasons I love my freedom to keep and bear arms. But the most important among them is not the "ooh, shiny" fun of it. But that plays a small part, to be sure.

It's not the target practice or shooting sports that so many find enjoyment in. Though I do enjoy that.

It's not the hunting opportunities it provides. Though I've never hunted in my life, I have a great interest in starting, even at this (semi-)late stage in my life.

Believe it or not, it's not even so much the self-defense -- against both four legged and two legged creatures -- aspect that captures my interest the most. Even though I see that as supremely important.

I've heard a lot about the gun culture (in a postive sense) in this country from many gun rights groups and the firearms tradition as well. And while all that is important, I don't think I can put it any better than Suzanna Gratia-Hupp did in her testimony before Congress many years ago:

"...the second amendment is not about duck hunting. ... but it's about our right, all of our right to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there"

I don't know about you, but I could think of only one word when I heard that: Wow. And right in the face of one of the worst anti-rights congress-critter ever, as he smugly looked on.

So I hope that sets the theme. I guess it makes me an SNBI gun rights advocate. But I stand with David Codrea of The War on Guns when he references Yuri Orlov in the silliness of that moniker. Be that as it may, I wear the label proudly. Consider me a member of Merry Band of Three Percenters.