This is what happens when you try to ban guns based on cosmetic features. Yeah, it's ugly, but its legal.

The company, Black Rain Ordnance, said the rifle would eliminate features that were made illegal under the SAFE Act. The gun will not have a pistol grip and will include a non-threaded muzzle and a 10-round low-capacity approved magazine.

"With the continual trampling of the 2nd Amendment in New York, Black Rain Ordnance is proud to announce their 'New York Compliant' rifles," the company said on its website. "These rifles feature all of the quality and craftsmanship of the standard BRO-lines, but with the added features that allow for legal possession."

This will no doubt be characterized as a "loophole", because after all, the gun grabbers want to ban the guns themselves, not the features. But banning all guns doesn't pass Constitutional muster, and banning guns by name never works because that's just marketing. So instead they try banning specific features that the guns have in an attempt to make them simply go away.

But enter the free market, and voila, you've got NY Compliant rifles selling for a premium price.

The ATF, which duped mentally challenged individuals into committing crimes and then arresting them for it, says they had no idea they were mentally challenged. That's the bureaucratic equivalent of "my bad".

"We do not target the developmentally disabled," [ATF Director Todd] Jones told House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., adding that ATF learned of that the people were disabled as "the result of defense pleadings" in court.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that ATF targeted developmentally disabled people during undercover drug and gun-buying operations throughout the country. "In Wichita, Kan., ATF agents referred to a man with a low IQ as 'slow-headed' before deciding to secretly use him as a key cog in their sting," according to the Journal Sentinel.

[...]

Jones told Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich., that "hindsight's 20-20," but said that ATF agents hadn't apologized to any of the mentally disabled people they recruited and then arrested in undercover operations because the individuals are in prison, so "the opportunity for interaction is limited."

Hey, why bother catching actual criminals when you can simply make up crime and arrest people for it?

A federal judge issued a scathing opinion against the ATF for their "stash house" stings in Los Angeles. The stings, which the judge referred to as made-up crime, involve soliciting people to rob houses that are supposedly chock full o' drugs, but which don't actually exist. The ATF then arrests the suspects for the supposed robbery, with penalties based on the fake amounts the ATF invented.

[U.S. District Court Judge Otis] Wright said agents had no evidence that [defendant Antuan] Dunlap had been involved in drug house robberies in the past or that he would have participated in one had an undercover ATF agent not offered him the chance to steal as much as 25 kilograms of non-existent cocaine. He criticized the government for basing the severity of the charges Dunlap faced on the "whims" of federal agents and questioned whether the ATF's investigations have done anything to benefit public safety.

It's about damned time. This is not the first time the ATF has resorted to entrapment and other questionable tactics (not even counting Operation Fast and Furious). A few years ago they solicited a mentally challenged man to get people to buy them guns at exorbitant prices in a Milwaukee sting that included plying juveniles with alcohol.

The news organization found the agency used mentally disabled people to promote operations and then arrested them on drug and gun charges; opened storefronts close to schools and churches, boosting their arrest numbers and penalties; and attracted juveniles with free video games and alcohol.

Agents paid inflated prices for guns, which led to people buying weapons at stores and selling them to undercover agents hours later, in some cases for nearly three times what they paid. In addition, agents allowed armed felons to leave their fake stores and openly bought stolen goods, spurring burglaries in surrounding neighborhoods. The ATF operations themselves were burglarized.

In Milwaukee, Operation Fearless' lead undercover agent had three of his guns, including a machine gun, stolen from his car. The machine gun and a handgun remain missing, a Milwaukee police spokesman said Thursday.

Crime in the surrounding area actually spiked thanks to your friendly neighborhood ATF agents.

After 9/11, ATF was changed from being a tax collection agency and moved from the Department of the Treasury to the DOJ. Since then they have proved time and again that they are not cut out to be a full fledged "law enforcement" organization.

Congress should just disband them and turn their duties over to the FBI.

In Virginia it's legal to carry a gun in your car in a closed compartment without a concealed handgun permit. The Attorney General issued an opinion as such, and Virginia Judges and case law agree that the compartment does not have to be locked, it merely has to be closed (think center console or non-locking glove box). However, the actual text of the law says "secured" compartment which is ever so slightly ambiguous.

House Bill 962 would have clarified the law to make it align with the AG opinion and existing case law. It's pretty non-controversial and passed with veto-proof majorities and bi-partisan support, however our carpet bagger, campaign finance cheat, and gun-grabbing Governor Terry "The Punk" McAuliffe decided to veto it anyway.

His vote was largely symbolic, because it doesn't change Virginia law, rather than merely clarify the law. Let's hope the bi-partisan majority votes to override his veto later this year.

Obama wanted stories about gun violence so I submitted one. I couldn't help myself...

So four of nine Supreme Court Justices think that the Bill of Rights is optional. Letting you know how they feel about the victory for gun rights, the Washington Post headline says "Supreme Court extends gun rights nationwide" instead of "affirms", "protects", or "guarantees".

The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.

Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and four liberals opposed. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.

Arizona joined the ranks of Vermont and Alaska of allowing citizens to lawfully carry concealed handguns without a license. Kudos to the Arizona legislature and governor for finally pushing this through.

The AP, in typical liberal fashion, ran the story with an image of scary black rifles (which don't have anything to do with concealed carry).

The Violence Policy Center conducted a study on crime and concluded that black people shouldn't have guns (link in PDF).

Conclusion
Blacks in the United States are disproportionately affected by homicide. For the year 2007, blacks represented 13 percent of the nation's population, yet accounted for 49 percent of all homicide victims...

For blacks, like all victims of homicide, guns - usually handguns - are far and away the number one murder tool. Successful efforts to reduce America's black homicide toll must put a focus on reducing access to firearms.

Readers of this site ought to know that gun control has very racist roots. But as Pajama's Media put it best, "for an organization to make a public declaration that suggests an entire race be denied the same level of constitutional protections as others is both shocking and bewildering."

Talk about your quagmire. The "War on Drugs" dates back to the Nixon Administration, and it highlights an ever growing need for law-abiding citizens to arm themselves for protection. From CNN:

Drug traffickers are planting millions of marijuana plants on U.S. public lands ever closer to tourist sites, guarding their plots with heavy weaponry, federal authorities say.

"We destroy their plants and they come back, sometimes to the same spot, and replant," said U.S. Forest Service Special Agent Russ Arthur.

"It's definitely possible that hikers and campers are going to find themselves in the middle of a field facing some very dangerous, armed bad guys, because this problem is everywhere, and it's only getting worse."

Guns are currently banned in National Parks thanks to an activist judge, US District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Judge Kotelly slapped an injunction (citing environmental concerns) on a DOI regulation change to allow the carry of guns in National Parks consistent with state laws (similar to National Forests). Congress has since passed legislation repealing activist Judge Kotelly's ban, but the rules do not change until February 2010.

You may have heard the hoopla about the black man with a gun (not Ken Blanchard) at a protest rally in Arizona. (Or maybe you saw it on MSNBC where they cried racism and edited out the fact that the man carrying the rifle was black.)

Either way, after seeing this interview with the guy, he's definitely earned my respect...

Note also that the media continuously calls it an "assault rifle", "automatic", or "assault weapon". It is in fact, a semi-auto AR-15. In the interview the GFW proves she knows nothing about guns by calling it an AK-47.

In Virginia, I open carry all the time. In the summer its just too hot to conceal your sidearm with a coat or overshirt, and a plastic holster against your bare skin can be unbearable too. Open carry is pretty common and I've only ever been questioned about it once.

In Wisconsin, one of two states where concealed carry is strictly verboten, open carry is causing a panic. What's worse is that it is the police (who themselves carry openly) who are doing the panicking.

Police arrived up to investigate Krause while 12 News was interviewing him about his previous arrest for carrying a holstered gun on his hip outside his home. One officer saw Krause's gun and asked what agency he's affiliated with.

"I'm the same guy I was when you arrested me the last time," Krause said.

The officers asked for his name and called dispatch.

"The reason I'm checking is because felons can't have guns in Wisconsin," West Allis police said.

Krause is not a felon. He's a certified firearms instructor.

Just because you are carrying a sidearm, they assume you are up to no good.

"I'm totally opposed to it. I do not think we need more guns on the streets," state Rep. Leon Young said.

Young, a former Milwaukee police officer who represents part of Milwaukee's north side, said he's working on fast track legislation to clear up confusion with Wisconsin's gun law.

"If you're walking down the street with a gun in your hand and people can see it or you've got one in your holster here and people can see it, it's going to create a disturbance," Young said.

But until there's a new law, the officers explained to Krause, the attorney general's ruling is brand new to them and they'll act accordingly.

"How it was explained to us is that if somebody calls and makes a complaint -- in other words, they feel threatened -- they feel it's causing a disturbance or they feel that it's disorderly in some fashion. They call us and we respond and we investigate it," a West Allis police officer said.

The mere presence of a gun is considered a "disburbance". [emphasis mine]

The officers said in a different situation [without news cameras standing nearby] they would likely still order someone carrying a gun to the ground until they could make sure the situation is safe.

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said his memo was simply intended to "clarify" the law, and he does not believe more people will start openly carrying guns because of it.

Gov. Jim Doyle hopes it won't change how police officers respond when they see weapons.

"Our advice was people are permitted [permitted? whatever happened to government of, by, and for the people?] to openly carry firearms -- that it wasn't in and of itself disorderly conduct. We intentionally didn't go into any factual-based scenarios because they're all different," Van Hollen said.

"I assume that local DAs and local police departments are gonna continue to act as they already have," Doyle said.

Police Response

Milwaukee's police chief said he'll go on telling his officers to take down anyone with a firearm despite Van Hollen's finding that people can carry guns openly if they do it peacefully.

Chief Ed Flynn said officers can't assume people are carrying guns legally in a city that has seen nearly 200 homicides in the past two years.

[can't assume people are following the law]

He said that means officers seeing anybody carrying a gun will put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide if the person has a right to carry it. [violate civil rights now, ask questions later]

Flynn said it's irresponsible to send a message that if someone carries a weapon openly, no one can bother them.

Milwaukee-area police chiefs have a monthly meeting on Wednesday, and they're expected to discuss this issue.

Shorewood Police Chief David Banaszynski is the leader of the state chief's association.

He said many departments are asking questions about how to deal with people openly carrying firearms.

He said it may end up being a community-by-community, case-by-case issue fraught with the potential for danger.

"Now, with open carry, which is legal, there may be no training. I could hand you my handgun, you could walk down the street carrying it with no training whatsoever. To me, there is a lot more danger now with people thinking, 'I have the right to carry it so I'm going to carry it, and not have the training,'" Banaszynski said.

Wisconsin should simply pass a concealed carry statute and avoid the kerfuffle altogether.

A few months ago, Danladi Moore was given $10,000 in hush money from the City of Norfolk (Virginia) for the questionable treatment by several of their officers. Since then, Norfolk PD has harrassed Mr. Moore on two more occasions.

The third instance occurred following a city council meeting in which Moore's treatment was a hot topic. I hate to admit it, but I'm beginning to see a pattern here. The VCDL reports:

After the meeting, a dozen of us, including Danladi Moore, went to a restaurant in the Waterside Mall. We had a great time - good company and good conversation. All of us were open carrying as the restaurant sold alcoholic beverages.

As I left the restaurant I said goodnight to Danladi as he and a friend were heading up an escalator to the second floor.

Little did I know what was about to transpire in the next 50 seconds...

Upon reaching the second floor and stepping off the escalator, a Norfolk police officer approached Danladi and his friend and told him that he couldn't have a gun in a public building.

NOTE: It is my understanding that they Waterside Mall is actually owned or partially owned by the City of Norfolk. If so, they CANNOT ban guns there, of course.

Danladi said that, especially as public property, he most certainly could carry there.

The officer the handcuffed Danladi, who is black, and issued a him summons with a charge of trespass at that point and released him. His friend, who is white and also open carrying, was escorted off the premises and not handcuffed or charged. Hmmmm.

So, does Norfolk PD have it out for all gun owners, black gun owners, or just Danladi Moore?

UPDATE: Posted a pic of Danladi Moore (w/o his permission) from his myspace page. Love the hat.

For some inexplicable reason, Norfolk (Virginia) has been harrassing people for the open carry of guns. Danladi Moore was harrassed and detained for open carrying, after which he was given $10,000 in hush money because Norfolk police realized they were in hot water for violating his civil rights. Shortly after that, Norfolk police stopped him again for open carrying. One of the same officers who had just cost the city $10,000 was party to the group that detained him, harrassed him, and finally let him go without charging him.

So VCDL plans to attend a town council meeting to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The town council is whining about the VCDL involvement, and in doing so violates Ravenwood's Law.

Councilman W. Randy Wright has a concealed-weapons permit, has won awards for marksmanship and believes in gun rights, he said. Yet he said he is appalled by anyone who walks around with a gun in a holster.

"Walking around downtown with a gun on your hip, that's just somebody trying to get attention, somebody trying to embarrass the city," he said. "This is not Wyatt Earp in the wild, wild West. It's an urban city with lots of problems."

Gee, if I were in an urban city with lots of problems, I might want to take measures to protect myself. You know, like carry a gun.

Seeing as they "duck and cover" at the sight of them, Democrats and liberals clearly have an irrational and unnatural fear of guns.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefly evacuated from her downtown Denver hotel on Saturday when a man carrying two hunting rifles and two pistols tried to check in to the hotel.

As an aside, I personally don't think Pelosi should have been evacuated. She should have been "locked down" and forced to stay in her room until the coast was clear. I mean, if those rules are good enough for our school children (who don't have the luxury of armed guards), they should be good enough for her.

Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley said 29-year-old Joseph Calanchini of Pinedale, Wyo., faces a charge of unlawful carrying of a weapon after police officers at the Grand Hyatt hotel noticed him carrying a rifle-type case while checking in. Calanchini did not have a concealed weapons permit, said Lance Clem, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Public Safety.

Wiley said authorities were not releasing information about whether the weapons were loaded because the case remained under investigation. Wiley said the charge is the same whether the weapons were loaded or unloaded.

So apparently you cannot carry a cased, unloaded rifle in Denver. And according to agents of the federal government, there is no legal way to carry a rifle in Denver.

Contrast this to liberal Northern Virginia (the "blue-est" part of the commonwealth) where you can carry a handgun openly and it is generally accepted (or most likely ignored).

Via Bitter.

You'd think that if your application for a permit to own a handgun had the endorsement of the Supreme Court of the United States it would be approved. Indeed in it's majority decision against the District of Columbia, the SCOTUS writes:

Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights [ie: a felon], the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

But as Geek notes, D.C. REJECTED Heller's permit because they classify a bottom loading 1911 as a "machinegun".

So, after DC announces all sorts of draconian restrictions, basically throwing every darned obstacle they think they can get away with, including the ludicrous assertion that every bottom loading semi-auto handgun is classified as a machine gun, guess who shows up first in line to register handguns?

You betcha, our hero, Dick Heller. (No doubt, with our other Heroes, Gupta and Levy lurking somewhere in the background)

And what does he pull out and try to register? Daring them to reject him again?

[smile]
A 1911.
[/smile]

And what does DC do?

The inked up their "rejected" stamp, and stamped it on the application of the man who is the only human being on planet earth with a ruling from the Supreme Court of the United states...

So D.C. is essentially giving the Supreme Court the finger.

Bitter notes that D.C. wants to adopt Jim Crow laws. The Washington Post provides insight into the D.C. Attorney General's plan for legal gun ownership in D.C.:

Among the likely regulations: Gun owners would have to be 21 or older (*) and could not have been convicted of a felony or any weapon-related charge or have been in a mental hospital for the past five years. Registrants also will be finger-printed and required to pass a written test to be sure they understand the city's gun laws, Nickles said.

At least initially, he added, residents would be limited to one handgun apiece. The city will set up a hotline for firearm registrations.

That's right, a written test for exercising your Constitutional rights... in an area filled mostly with black people. Why does that ring a bell?

This article in the Washington Post (of all places) is a gentle reminder that the D.C. gun ban goes deeper than just banning guns.

The story is about Allan Lucas, a former Marine and Police Officer. Lucas was granted a D.C. gun instructor's license, but has been unable to open a shop because of D.C.'s anti-gun bureacracy. To teach police officers, security officers, and the privileged few who are permitted to carry guns in the District, Lucas has to take them to gun ranges in Virginia or Maryland.

Lucas tried opening his own business in D.C. and was caught in a catch-22.

To open such a business, you'd need a site zoned for a range. And there is no zoning category that allows a range. . .

At one point, a zoning administrator told Lucas that the problem was that it had been so long since the city had licensed a gun range that it simply didn't know how to do so.

And if D.C. loses the Heller case. . .

The need for a range will soon become far more pressing, Lucas figures. "If you're going to let people have weapons, they're going to need a place to train," he says. "The worst thing you can do is legalize guns and have no way for people to learn how to handle them safely."

The VCDL notes that a trio of Fairfax County (Virginia) police officers are giving the department a bad name. As someone who has had first hand interaction with Fairfax police officers, I can attest that in every encounter I have had, they have always treated me with respect. The Fairfax officers I have met were all well versed on gun laws and have never once detained me for carrying concealed or openly.

But then there's these three guys:

The gun owner was pulled over for running through a red light, a charge which the gun owner disputes.

The gun owner, believing that he had to disclose he was lawfully armed as they do in North Carolina, dutifully told the officer he had a NC CHP and was indeed armed.

The officer seemed to ignore the statement, but very shortly two more patrol units pulled up. The next thing the gun owner knew he is in a "felony stop" mode. He was asked to walk backwards towards the officers, who then disarmed and handcuffed him.

While trying to unloaded his gun, THEY DROPPED IT ONTO THE ROAD!

The two officers and a SERGEANT then proceeded to tell him that he was under arrested for:

1. Having hollow point bullets, which they claimed were illegal in Virginia (!)
2. Taking a loaded gun across the state line, which the gun owner was told was a FELONY (!)
3. Having a concealed gun that the police said he couldn't have since he was from North Carolina (!!)

His car and gun were impounded and he was taken off to a magistrate.

The magistrate looked at the charges and told the police officers that they had just made a false arrest.

The officers pointed out the possession of hollow point bullets. The magistrate asked, "are they teflon coated?"

"No," replied on of the officers.

"Then they are legal."

Trying to find something that would stick and justify the false arrest, one of the officers said, "We couldn't verify that his North Carolina permit is valid."

The magistrate looked at the permit, noticed the phone number on the back where one can call to verify the permit, called the number, and within a few minutes found out the permit was indeed valid.

The gun owner was ordered to be released.

After being released from custody, the gun owner was given a hard time by another officer about getting his gun back, but he did finally get it back.

If all of that isn't bad enough, the arresting officer went ahead and gave the gun owner a ticket for the alleged offense of running a red light!

Geez, we have a formal reciprocity agreement with North Carolina. It's even posted on the State Police website. These guys are practically begging to be sued.

The debate on national park carry is heating up, and one anti-gunner's argument is enough to make a guy feel inadequate.

But carrying a loaded gun on a trail is not practical, [Dawson Wheeler, owner of Rock/Creek Outfitters in Chattanooga] said.

Handguns weighing five to 10 pounds are comparatively heavy, and if they are buried in a backpack out of sight it could take a hiker too long to reach one in an emergency, he said.

Five to ten pounds? I don't have a Desert Eagle or anything but my full-size GI model 1911 only weighs 39 ounces. Fill the 7 round mag and you might hit 45 ounces, well short of the 80-160 ounce handguns they are carrying around in Tennessee.

That'll teach Chicago to lock up gang leaders:

Nine people were killed in 36 shootings over the weekend in Chicago, reflecting what some community leaders say is a deadly breakdown in discipline among gang members after a crackdown over the past few years put many of their leaders behind bars.

Perhaps if they let the gang leaders out of jail, they could instill enough discipline in gang members to obey Chicago's gun ban.

How many anti-gun cliches can CNN cram into a news story? Let's see, the guns are just deadly guns, they're "cop killer" guns. They're the "guns of choice" and can shoot through schools. What, no Wild West reference?

The article itself is filled with anti-gun propaganda.

ATF special agent Tom Mangan says the .50-caliber rifle has become one of the "guns of choice" for the drug cartels. The weapon fires palm-sized .50-caliber rounds that can cut through just about anything.

Mangan showed CNN the power of the rifle on a gun range near Phoenix, Arizona. The weapon, a Barrett, was seized in an ATF raid. A round fired from 100 yards away tore through a car door and both sides of a bulletproof vest like those used by Mexican police.

"There's nothing that's going to stop this round," Mangan says.

Okay, so big guns are bad. Check.

The guns confiscated included AK-47 rifles and dozens of Fabrique National pistols. The semiautomatic pistols fire a 5.7-by-28 millimeter round, which is technically a rifle round, according to the ATF. Newell says the round has a special nickname in Mexico. "It's called 'mata policias,' or 'cop killer,' " he says.

Okay, so little guns are bad too. Hmm, what does that leave?

For what it's worth, our AR-15 can penetrate a car door and both sides of a "bullet proof" vest too. And compared to the .50, it's got a bullet the size of a pea. And where do they get off claiming the 5.7x28 is technically a rifle round? Wasn't it specifically developed for the 5.7 handgun? Has anyone yet made a 5.7 varmint rifle? And why don't they point out that MAC-10s, TEC-9s, and Uzi's "technically" shoot a handgun round?

Such media bias and misunderstanding of basic firearms knowledge is not surprising. (I'm still trying to find that 25mm handgun.) We expect more of it as the Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment nears.

First of all we're shocked, I say, shocked that the Washington Post actually characterized D.C.'s plan as "anti-gun". But if you look at D.C.'s plan, it's actually anti-civil rights. They plan to send policemen door-to-door searching homes.

D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier announced several new initiatives today aimed at combating gun crimes, including one encouraging residents to submit to voluntary searches of their homes in exchange for amnesty if the residents have illegal guns or drugs.

The "safe homes initiative" is aimed at residents, such as parents or guardians who know or suspect their children have guns in their home, who want to cooperate with police, Lanier said.

The program will begin March 24 in the Washington Highlands area of Southeast Washington, where officers will go door to door asking residents for permission to search their homes. It will then expand to other areas of the city.

Of course the searches are "voluntary". When intimidating officers show up at the front door asking permission to come inside and look around, they can always say no.

But as a casual watcher of COPS and other police-type shows, I am amazed to see people that volunteer to let officers rifle through their property looking for contraband. If you ever get pulled over or the police ever show up to your door, if they ask to look around the answer is always NO. If an officer wants to search your property, you should let him know in no uncertain terms that it is against your wishes and will be done under duress.

Don't fall for that "What are you hiding?" crap. Let them know that you are not going to voluntarily surrender your civil rights. Better yet, laugh it off and ask them if criminals ever really fall for that trick.

The Virginian-Pilot is beginning their assault on gun rights with a page dedicated to Virginia's gun culture. They include a series of anti-gun articles and a time-line that starts in 1918. (As if guns didn't exist before then.) Pull the trigger on their semi-automatic animation and you get the three-shot burst of a machine-gun.

They research Virginia's gun freedom like it's an anachronism and lament the lack of gun control. They study gun owners like you would a gorilla at the zoo. They claim their agenda is to provide information to readers about where we are now and where we might be headed, but the tone of narrator's voice in the video lets you know what side they are on. Listen to the surprise in the reporters voice when she laments that law-abiding gun owners have even "greater freedom" in the wake of mass shootings. She then expresses shock and begins listing all the (gasp) legal places Virginians can carry guns.

Not once do they mention places that are off limits to carrying guns. They don't mention that a person can lose their gun freedom because of misdemeanor charges, or that dealers can lose their business because forms are filled out with "N" instead of "No". She doesn't mention that you can be arrested for driving on Virginia's GW Parkway with a gun, or that your concealed carry permit is no good when you go out to dinner.

They also don't mention the lives that guns save. They don't talk about women being murdered after getting a restraining order, or civilians using guns to thwart criminals. They don't mention gun control's racist roots, born out of the civil war as a way to keep free blacks from getting too uppity. So far there is a lot left out.

The four part special begins today, but if the introductory video is any guide it appears to be pretty one-sided.

Virginia's Republican House and Democrat Senate passed an amendment to our concealed carry laws that provides for carrying concealed handguns into restaurants that serve alcohol, as long as you aren't drinking. This is sometimes referred to as the "restaurant ban" but guns were never actually banned in restaurants and bars, you just had to carry openly.

So, as the Governor decides whether or not to sign the bill into law, local columnists are using PSH (pants-shitting-hysterics) to try to get him to veto it. Case in point is this column, seemingly dripping with anger and rage, by Nick Penning.

For those of you who don't have the time to read Nick's drivel, allow me to summarize:

Lies. Lies. All Republicans Fault. More Lies. VIRGINIA TECH. Lies. Blame the NRA. Lies. Racist innuendo. Lies. Lies. CALL THE GOVERNOR.

There. You owe me 10 minutes of your life.

Someone licensed to carry a concealed handgun... in Maryland! You gotta understand Maryland gun laws. This is the state that requires government approval for which models of guns can be sold. They have a waiting period, purchase restrictions, and countless other draconian anti-gun laws.

Step 1 on how to even *apply* for a Maryland permit is "don't bother". This is truly a red letter date in history.

Washington D.C. is doing another "gun buyback" this weekend. They are offering $10 for BB guns, $50 for rifles and revolvers, and $100 for auto-loading pistols. I saw a news report yesterday where the reporter raved over a semi-auto handgun that was turned in. Naturally it included references to large (actually normal) capacity magazines and concluded with the reporter calling it "essentially a machine gun" and the policeman being interviewed saying "essentially, yes."

A different video report from Fox 5 DC shows Rick Morrow turning in the guns his father left him. Eight rifles and a black powder pistol netted him $450 cash money, which he said he intends to blow on a nice dinner. Judging by the brief glimpse of the guns and the description of his father as an avid shooter, he probably could have sold them to gun collectors for a few hundred dollars each.

Guns (which are already illegal in D.C.) are being turned in for cash, no questions asked. The "buyback" is considered an amnesty, so police are not taking down any information and they cannot be traced back to the donor. Instead of tossing their murder weapons into the Potomac, criminals can sell them to the police with no chance of being caught. The police will even melt them down for scrap, ensuring they'll never be used as evidence against them. What a bargain.

It appeared as though many of the guns were junk and not likely to have been used in any crimes. Still, I've long wanted to hold my own personal gun buyback to catch those family heirlooms that idiots like Rick Morrow turn in. For a few thousand dollars I could get dozens of working guns to add to my collection. If any of them were worth less than $100, I could simply wait for the next D.C. buyback and turn them in for cash. And it would get them "off the streets" which is what D.C. wants to do.

Gun bigots show that they are willing to trade safety for the "feeling" of security, in this letter to the editor about campus carry.

Bradford Wiles, in his commentary "Gun bans defy common sense" (Nov. 19), appears to envision a safe and secure college or university campus as one where students are armed.

I beg to differ. Far from making a campus secure, classrooms and dormitories filled with gun-toting students would experience heightened insecurity and lack of safety, with the possibility of many gun accidents and even impulsive acts of violence.

Such a paranoid Wild West atmosphere would by definition be antithetical to the development of true communities of peaceful reflection and learning.

JAMES A. SMITH JR.
NARROWS

With the Supremes taking a Second Amendment case, and with gun grabbers thinking that Democrat gains in the Virginia Legislature will help them push their anti-freedom agenda, it doesn't take them very long to violate Ravenwood's Law.

As a discussion about guns grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Dodge City or the Wild West approaches one.

"You don't like the fact that you can't have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school." -- Peter Hamm, Spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Ownership

Has it come to this? You can't even debate Concealed Carry without being kicked out of school.

Hamline University has suspended a student after he sent an e-mail suggesting that the Virginia Tech massacre might have been stopped if students had been allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Student Troy Scheffler is now required to undergo a mandatory "mental health evaluation" before being allowed to return to school.

And any unfavorable results of said "mental health evaluation" could be used to keep you from owning a gun, forever.

So much for free speech in academia.

The South Bend Tribune reports on a man that was arrested by the ATF's Project Disarm Task Force for stockpiling ammunition.

Police and federal agents who searched a South 28th Street home on Wednesday were looking for ammunition, court documents reveal.

A federal affidavit unsealed today indicates that yesterday's search and arrest came after a months-long investigation into a man whom authorities believe is delusional and has long been stockpiling ammunition.

Not illegal.

South Bend police and agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives arrived Wednesday afternoon at the man's home, in the 900 block of South 28th Street.

ATF agents arrested the 38-year-old man, who was still in the county jail this afternoon, police said.

The federal affidavit indicates there was probable cause to arrest the man for receiving ammunition while he was the subject of a restraining order involving a former girlfriend.

Ahh restraining orders. Women get "paper protection", men lose their civil rights.

The 16-page document also reveals that the ATF's Project Disarm Task Force has been investigating the man since mid-April, and that a mental health investigation found he was "suffering from delusions with persecutory tendencies."

...said the persecutors...

Investigators believe the man thought the global economy was on the verge of a collapse that would result in widespread violence, the affidavit says.

Wonder where he got that idea (thank you drive-by media).

At one point, the man told an ATF task force agent that he wanted to project his property from "thugs from Gary and here in South Bend."

So there you have it. A man buys an unspecified amount of ammo and the feds throw him into jail for it.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, founder of the Mayors Against Guns coalition, is waging his own propaganda campaign on the streets of New York City. Amateur photog Ymg200 captures a few of the signs:

In case you can't read the fine print, it says "Guns=Prison".

Heh.

An elderly Iraqi woman shows two bullets which she says hit her house following an early coalition forces raid in the predominantly Shiite Baghdad suburb of Sadr City. At least 175 people were slaughtered on Tuesday and more.

CNN reports on a crazed psychopath who shot up a church:

The gunman had two small-caliber handguns and one 9 mm semi-automatic machine pistol with a large magazine, McCracken said.

Sounds extra special dangerous.

Via Say Uncle.

The gun-ban group Violence Policy Center shows us how to do a study on $5 a day.

Florida ranks second in the country in the number of drive-by shootings, according to the Violence Police Center on Wednesday.

Fifty-seven drive-by shootings were reported by news organizations from July 2006 to December 2006 in the state of Florida.

According to the study, Florida ranks second only to California. Texas ranked third in the country.

While it may sound disturbing, the way the data was collected is a bit controversial.

The Violence Policy Center used the Internet search engine Google to find stories with the term drive-by in them. However, not all reporters use the term drive-by in their stories.

The Violence Policy Center said their study is not perfect, but hope it sparks discussion with policymakers.

"Their study is not perfect." Understatement of the year.

They looked at only six months from July to December, and made this brilliant conclusion complete with a graph: "Drive-by shootings peaked in the month of July and continued to decline as the months turned colder."

Tragic:

Cop shoots at snake, kills boy, 5

Four Rules:

- Treat as loaded
- Safe direction
- Finger off trigger
- Know your target

A VCDL member was detained at Norfolk's Annual Harborfest for openly carrying a firearm. It seems Norfolk recently passed a law making illegal to carry a gun at the local festival. The problem for Norfolk is that their law is illegal. Virginia's "Dillon Rule" prevents cities from passing laws more restrictive than State law.

The contempt for gun owners by the Virginian Pilot is obvious, and it's not long before they openly violate Ravenwood's Law:

As always follows one of these stories, Virginia's firearm activists will fall in line to take aim at anyone with the temerity to suggest that their rights have limits. These same groups have so completely cowed anyone who disagrees that Virginians might well wonder whether they live in the Old Dominion or the Wild West.

According to CNN, I'm a psychotic.

SayUncle: Half of Americans want stricter gun laws

The founder of the newly formed organization, GMU Students for Concealed Carry got some local TV time and did a good job holding his own.

I went to the Bloomberg Gun Giveaway last night with Bitter and Countertop (who brought Politically Incorrect Son with him). Bitter has some great pics and a wrap-up. We had a much larger crowd. Countertop and I were both dressed as high achievers which concealed our sidearms. This apparently prompted a few of the protestors to inquire if we were standing in the wrong crowd.

I stayed up late and watched the local news coverage on as many channels as I could. As could be expected they focused on the two VT families that were protesting legal gun ownership. All the protestors wore orange and maroon ribbons. It irritates me that they are using my school as a protest prop. When asked about it, I told one of them that I actually went to Tech, still go back there 6-8 times a year, and carry a gun each and every time.

The protest group was small and disorganized. Many of the signs were just posterboard with black marker hastily written on them in small letters. I noted that their gun death toll from VT included the murderer who shot himself. Because I didn't have anything nice to say, I tried not to engage them at all.

(This girl should probably try supporting edumacation)

We didn't win any guns, but it was a heck of a good time. Nice to catch up with Countertop and Bitter again too.

Virginia probably has the best Attorney General in the U.S.

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
April 13, 2007
Office of the Attorney General
The Honorable Michael Bloomberg
Mayor, City of New York
Municipal Building, One Centre Street
Tenth Floor North
New York, NY 10007

Robert F. McDonnell
Attorney General
900 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071
FAX 804-786-1991
Virginia Relay Services
800-828-1120
7-1-1

RE: Unauthorized Undercover Firearm Transactions in the Commonwealth of Virginia

Dear Mayor Bloomberg:

I write you regarding Chapter 509 of the 2007 Virginia Acts of Assembly, introduced at my request, addressing "simulated straw purchases" of firearms in the Commonwealth. A copy of the new law is enclosed herein for your reference. The intent of this legislation is to prevent unauthorized activity by non-law enforcement personnel to conduct otherwise illegal firearms purchases. The recent activities by agents of the City of New York in Virginia brought this issue to my attention.

As you know, the U.S. Department of Justice recently wrote to you that such activity is counterproductive to legitimate law enforcement efforts to police illegal firearm trafficking, and has potential legal liabilities. Representatives of your Office have apparently suggested publicly that they may continue such simulated firearm transactions in Virginia perhaps with a view towards further litigation.

The new legislation passed this year at my insistence and signed by Governor Kaine, makes clear that such non-law enforcement activities related to undercover illegal firearm purchases will be punishable as a felony in Virginia. While I understand that you are attempting to take steps that you believe may enhance the public safety of the citizens of New York City, such laws are Virginia's duty to enforce, and our outstanding state police take that duty seriously. Virginia police and prosecutors now have the tools necessary to stop such unwarranted firearms purchase activity by unauthorized outside agents, and will faithfully enforce the law when violations are discovered.

This new Virginia law strikes the proper balance between ensuring effective law enforcement and protecting the rights of law abiding firearms dealers and those of Virginia citizens under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. If in the future you have specific concerns about criminal justice matters in the Commonwealth, please contact me, the Governor, or the proper law-enforcement agency responsible for
investigating and prosecuting such conduct. We will be pleased to address any legitimate public safety concerns that you might raise.

Thanks for your future cooperation.
Robert F. McDonnell
RFM/pdw

You can see the actual letter here. (PDF)

Newsweek interviews Wayne Lo and asks him his views on gun control in the wake of the Virginia Tech serial killer.

Do you believe that stricter gun control would help prevent such tragedies? The people who do these things are people who don't want contact. They wouldn't be capable of going out there and stabbing people to death. But there's such a disconnect when you're using a gun. You don't even feel like you're killing anybody. . .

What sort of gun control do you propose, then?
Ideally, guns should be eliminated, but I know that won't happen. There should be stricter checks. Obviously a waiting period would be great.

Wayne Lo has a unique perspective on the subject. As Newsweek notes:

Late on the evening of Dec. 14, 1992, Wayne Lo, an 18-year-old student at Simon's Rock College of Bard in Great Barrington, Mass., approached a security-guard shack on the campus and began shooting, as he says now, "at anything that moved." Lo fired at least nine rounds during the following 20 minutes, killing another student and a Spanish professor and wounding four others."

The gun control movement has thus far been unsuccessful in drumming up support in the wake of such highly publicized mass shootings. But it's a bit surprising that they would align themselves with murderers who prey on innocent, unarmed victims in support of their cause.

Via Say Uncle.

Virginia Democrat Governor Tim Kaine just issued an executive order that retroactively takes away the gun freedoms of serial killer* Cho Seung-Hui, and any other Virginian who's been remanded to outpatient treatment.

It is shocking that we have a Governor who thinks he can take away someone's gun rights for life through an executive order.

This from the VCDL:

Earlier today, Governor Kaine signed an Executive Order (EO) prohibiting another category of people from owning firearms. Kaine's EO would take away gun rights for life of any person adjudicated dangerous, but only ordered to be treated as an OUTPATIENT. (Anyone who is committed as an inpatient currently loses their gun rights already.)

So, what's the problem?

1. Kaine's action is probably unconstitutional! If Kaine can just issue an Imperial Decree changing existing law without any debate from our elected representatives, why not just disband the General Assembly, if they aren't needed any more? :-(

The proper way to handle a situation like this is for the Governor to call a special session of the General Assembly to address this issue and ask the the General Assembly to modify the law.

2. His EO may appear to be a reasonable restriction because no one wants a violent, insane person to have a gun or any other weapon for that matter.

However, what judge in HIS right mind would allow a person who the judge KNOWS to be a danger to himself or to others to be sent home and allowed to do outpatient treatment?!? The judge should commit himself to inpatient treatment for doing such a thing! That's like sending serial murderer Jeffrey Dahmer back home but requiring him to attend weekly counseling sessions!

If a person is adjudicated dangerous to himself or others, he should be confined, NOT sent home!

So you might ask, why would there be ANY patients who were both dangerous AND ordered to do outpatient treatments?

Because the judge might believe that the person isn't really 'dangerous,' but the judge feels that the person does desperately need mental help and that the person wouldn't seek such help on his own. So the judge declares the person to be 'dangerous' so that the person can be forced to take the outpatient treatment.

Should a person who is not believed to be dangerous by a judge be banned from having guns for the rest of his life?

3. The Governor's edict is retroactive! Thus, if you were treated as an outpatient under a court order thirty years ago and have been fine ever since, you can now no longer BUY, OWN, or POSSESS any firearms. If you do you can be charged with a federal FELONY!

4. The Governor has falsely promised that gun rights could be restored. NOT true. There is no way to get your name off the federal list once Virginia has added you to it, even if you are now perfectly normal. You will be prohibited by federal law from buying or possessing a firearm for the rest of your life. And you may not even realize you are a 'prohibited' person, so when you attempt to purchase a firearm, you may be shocked when you are arrested for lying on the 4473, which is a FELONY.

5. Once you are on the federal mental defect list, you could lose more than your gun rights. Your security clearance could be at risk. Your job too.

6. According to the Washington Post, Attorney General McDonnell said, "We are still in a state of mourning, but now is the time for action." What he's really saying is that he's got to do something, anything, to make it look like the government is doing something. Just another "feel good" measure - and one embraced by Governor Kaine!

And talk about rushing to do something - Kaine JUST APPOINTED a commission to look at the mental health problem and make suggestions, but Kaine didn't even wait for the commission to meet! He just charged forward on his political hobbyhorse!

* As opposed to a parallel killer like Hitler or Hussein.

Opinions are like assholes. And speaking of assholes, Dan Simpson of the Toledo Blade has a plan for disarming America.

Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged. . .

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for "carrying."

Via Geek.

In an op-ed penned for the Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard, Matthew Dennis argues that there is no First Amendment freedom of expression. He also argues that there is no Fourth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, or Tenth Amendment protections. Of course he doesn't explicitly say that we don't have protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Instead he argues that "the people" in the Second Amendment really means "the government". And that any attempt to argue otherwise disparages history and the Constitution.

...however such [gun rights] questions are resolved, we should not slaughter early American history - or assault constitutional principles - in the process. Gun advocates will need to make their case on its contemporary merits, because in fact the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, gives them no ammunition. An individual "right" to own firearms simply does not exist. [...]

To clarify, we need a refresher course in early American history, etymology, and perhaps grammar 101. The Second Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1791 along with nine others, is a charter member of the Bill of Rights. It reads, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Why the ungainly opening clause? In the awkwardness of the sentence, there is purpose. It begins with the premise that explains the meaning and reason for the necessity of a "well-regulated militia" to ensure national security. It refers to "the State," not to individuals, and it expects security to be achieved not through individual action, but rather through militias that are "well-regulated," composed and subject to regulation by the state. [...]

Having established its reason for being, the Second Amendment stipulates "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Why not say "persons" or "a person," as in other amendments, or why not be specific by specifying "a citizen"?

Why does the First Amendment specifically enumerate "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". Clearly this refers to the right of federal, state, and local governments to assemble. And why protect freedom of "the press", an inanimate object used to print newspapers?

Dennis clearly flunked History as well as Grammar 101. What's more he apparently can't even read. If he could, he'd see that FIVE of the ten Constitutional Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights mention protecting the rights of "the people". (Including the Top Two)

Of course the Second Amendment applies to individuals. All the Amendments apply to individuals. That's the whole concept of a "Bill of Rights". Furthermore the Founding Fathers were more worried about standing armies than they were armed citizens.

Dennis adds:

The framers and initial amenders of the Constitution never discussed or ever imagined that they were enabling individual gun ownership.

Oh no?

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American." -- Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

...just to name a few. But what do I know. I clearly don't have the grasp on history that Mr. Dennis has.

Despite a 30-year complete and total ban on handguns, D.C. leads the nation in handgun crime. So when a three judge panel from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down D.C.'s gun ban as unConstitutional, it was inevitable that the blood in the streets editorials would soon follow. But even I found it hard to believe that the Georgetown Voice could actually say this with a straight face:

Last Friday, in a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Court of Appeals took a step in the wrong direction, overturning the District’s 30 year-old handgun ban. In opposing the ban, the court undermined the District’s legislative authority and the safety of the District’s residents. Mayor Fenty has rightly pledged to appeal the decision, an effort which must continue so that D.C. can keep benefiting from the security of the gun ban.

And of course the liberal editorialists at the Washington Post are just beside themselves. Courtland Milloy doesn't trust himself or anyone with a handgun, and D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier says we need to ban guns for the children.

The total gun ban which has made Washington D.C. safe for the past 30 years has been overturned by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Apparently a couple of the justices finally bothered to read the Second Amendment to figure out what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means.

The court ruled that "the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."

The decision offers some leniency for restrictions on gun ownership, noting that "this is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership was swift to condemn the ruling, calling it "judicial activism" and thwarting the "will of the people".

"By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports," [Paul] Helmke said.

Of course slavery and racial segregation were also "the will of the people".

If you open carry in a Staunton Virginia restaurant, don't go to the bafroom.

"Three guys came into the restaurant, and two of them had guns in their belts. And, I mean, they didn't look like undercover police. But then again, what does undercover police look like? But ... uh ... it just looks kind of odd. They kept getting up and going to the restroom and coming back and forth. They went to the restroom at least twice each. And I'm just a little concerned about it."

The 9-1-1 call was logged at 6:31 p.m. the evening of July 15.

The caller was a patron at Casa di Scotto's in downtown Staunton.

So here's three guys on their way home from the shooting range who stop and get a bite to eat. Obeying Virginia law, they open carry in the restaurant (because it's illegal to conceal their firearm).

Staunton's finest call the manager who says there isn't a problem, then show up any way just to hassle the guys. Listen to the 9-1-1 call yourself and see if it doesn't sound like they're just hoping there's a problem.

John Peddie submits a letter to the Indy Star titled, "Second Amendment should be repealed". This one's not even worth rebutting.

In response to Chris Henderson's on-line letter July 13: Everyone should be worried about lifetime gun permits, not just those on the left. There is no rational basis for such a permit, except to perpetuate the gun-centric culture poisoning this country. In fact, there is no rational basis for owning a gun at all, but the gun people like to hide behind the Second Amendment and try to convince people that it means we should all have guns.


The Second Amendment to the Constitution is outmoded and irrelevant and should be repealed, before more ludicrous things like lifetime gun permits become legal. This country gets more and more ridiculous by the day, from reality television to lifetime gun permits to an education system swirling at the bottom of the porcelain bowl. But by all means, let's keep our uneducated, couch potato citizenry armed for life. I feel safer already.

Virginia gets lifetime carry permits on July 1, 2007.