But I'm sure the Press will be completely objective

... and continue their hard-hitting reporting of the Obama administration. Apparently, a number of major news organizations -- the New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, ABC News, NBC News, CNN, CBS News, to name a few -- were invited to socialize with White House staffers at last week's Fourth of July Hawaiian-themed luau bash (hey, you paid for it), on condition that everything was "off the record" and that they agree not to report on the event:

"You are being invited to attend this event as a guest. Blogging, Twittering or otherwise reporting on this event is not permitted. If you feel that you cannot agree to abide by these ground rules, please don't claim a ticket."

As the Gawker article notes,

There is a cosmic irony at work here: The party was "closed press." (Ha!) It was covered, under onerous restrictions, by a pool reporter—the Baltimore Sun's Paul West. West was ushered in by White House staffers for a mere 40 minutes, so he could record the president's remarks. He was kept in a pen so that he wouldn't run amok and interview someone. He shouted questions at Obama as he worked the rope line, which the president ignored. Then he was taken away. West wrote up his blindered account of the party and then e-mailed it to the White House press corps, many of whom were actually at the party, outside of the pen, hanging out with all the other guests. And then, because they had temporarily signed away the right to do their jobs in exchange for facetime with staffers, a few cold Stoudt's American Pale Ales, and some corn on the cob, their news organizations picked up that pool report and used it to tell their readers what happened at the party. This is how the press covers the White House.

At the very least, attending a "closed press" event such as this, and agreeing not to report on it while a member of the press assigned to cover the organization sponsoring the event, lends an appearance of impropriety. The impression to an outside observer is one of a cozy and incestuous relationship between the Press and the administration it's supposed to objectively and critically covering. Gee, and you wonder why the Press has a credibility problem.

Preparing for civil unrest

Claire Wolfe, writing at Backwoods Home Magazine, on preparing for civil unrest:

The most remarkable thing about civil unrest is that there hasn't been more of it.

Politicians are making a hash of this country—and much of the rest of the civilized world. We know it. They know it. They know we know it. But we don't feel we can do anything much to stop them.

That right there is the pre-condition for civil unrest—when people are frustrated and politicians are nervous.

Worse, that was how things stood before last fall's crash. Before pols on both left and right launched the biggest mass transfer of wealth in history—transferring our wealth (what we had left of it!) to their friends on Wall Street and in the banking industry. In other words, that's how things were before things got bad!

Now everybody's talking about the ongoing catastrophe (even if we are in a momentarily sunny mood). But almost nobody is talking about the logical—maybe even inevitable—consequences of cynical or desperate politicians abusing an already fed-up populace: civil unrest.

I mean people taking to the streets. Or mass resistance. Or crackdowns because the government fears we might do something to upset its apple cart. It's going to happen. Somewhere. At some time. It's going to.

One of the few VIPs to mention the matter openly was Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor and the ultimate insider's insider. He commented on the millions of unemployed or soon-to-be-unemployed and the "...public awareness of this extraordinary wealth that was transferred to a few individuals at levels without historical precedent in America." He told "Morning Joe" Scarborough, "Hell, there could be even riots." I'd say that's an understatement. ...

Read the rest here.

Bendy

Tonight's flexible girl video:



Hmmm, looks like a skillset that should come in handy if you ever have to kiss your ass goodbye. :)

Thirty four state Attorneys General support Second Amendment incorporation

From NRA-ILA:

Fairfax, Va. – Two-thirds of the nation’s attorneys general have filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of NRA v. Chicago and hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This bi-partisan group of 33 attorneys general, along with the Attorney General of California in a separate filing, agrees with the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense, disagreeing with the decision recently issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“The historical record clearly shows that the Second Amendment was intended to apply to every American in every state in the country,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “As the Supreme Court said clearly in last year’s landmark Heller decision, the Second Amendment protects an individual right that ‘belongs to all Americans’. Two-thirds of America’s state Attorneys General agree.” ...

Read the rest here.

The states supporting Second Amendment incorporation are:

TEXAS, GEORGIA, ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARKANSAS, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, FLORIDA, IDAHO, INDIANA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MAINE, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW MEXICO, NORTH CAROLINA, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, UTAH, VIRGINIA, WASHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, AND WYOMING

You can read the amicus brief here.

California filed its own, separate amicus brief, which you can read here.

Note that these are amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to hear the appeal. The Court has not yet decided whether or not to do so.

Domestic violence myths

From an article exposing some of the myths propagated by the media and advocates with a vested financial interest in the "domestic violence" industry:

... Above all, the ideologues will never admit that partner violence is more common among lesbians than heterosexual couples. Just consider the case of Jessica Kalish, the 56-year-old Florida woman who was stabbed 222 times last October with a Phillips screwdriver wielded by ex-girlfriend Carol Anne Burger. But no one dared call it "domestic violence."

Once you begin to play tricks with the truth, you need to invent ever grander prevarications. So sit back and get ready for a good chuckle, because there's not a shred of truth to any of these claims regularly put forth by the domestic abuse industry:

1. A marriage license is a hitting license. (Truth is, an intact marriage is the safest place for men and women alike.)

2. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women. (The leading causes of female injury are unintentional falls, motor vehicle accidents, and over-exertion. Domestic violence is not even on the list.)

3. The March of Dimes reports that battering is the leading cause of birth defects. (The March of Dimes has never done such a study.)

4. Women never make false allegations of domestic violence. (That's the biggest whopper of all.)

5. Super Bowl Sunday is the biggest day of the year for violence against women. (Will the abuse industry never tire of its demagoguery?)

These are just five of the 50 domestic violence myths documented in the RADAR report. As former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once deadpanned, "You're entitled to your own opinions; you're not entitled to your own facts." Hopefully the $4 billion partner abuse industry will begin to pay attention.

Article here. Read the RADAR report on domestic violence myths here.

Obviously, this is not to trivialize the real cases of domestic violence and spousal abuse that do occur, but understanding that media hype and false or misleading information is part and parcel of the portrayal of the problem. Such a misleading perspective can have deleterious effects on the legal rights of those accused of such behaviors. As I wrote almost a year ago with regard to the abuse of restraining orders in D.V. cases (see my post here),

The problem of domestic violence is real, and many women (and some men) undoubtedly live their lives in fear of their spouses or significant others. The ease with which the legal protections afforded by restraining orders can be abused by spouses or significant others, however, is also a real and growing problem. As the first article shows, the problem is exacerbated by judges who rubber-stamp restraining order applications, even in the face of evidence suggesting that the person seeking the order is doing so not out of real fear for her safety, but as a tool to punish the other party or gain tactical advantage in divorce or child custody proceedings. In such cases, the ones who typically suffer most are the children, who often become pawns in the divorce and/or custody battle, and who are deprived of their father's ability to see them.

From a gun rights perspective, the promulgation of falsehoods and the inherent bias against men have led to such flagrant infringements as the Lautenberg amendment, which bans gun possession for those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, in effect placing them on the same level as those convicted of violent felonies such as rapists, robbers and murderers.

Note from a worried cop

Via Pat Dollard's site, some thoughts from Scott Wagner, a law enforcement officer in Ohio with 29 years on the job:

The fear on the street is palpable. Ever since the election of Barack Obama as President of these United States in November 2008, coupled with the election of a democrat party majority in both the U.S. House and Senate, concern for the United States and personal safety has ignited like a fire in dry grass.

Sales of guns – black guns, rifles, shotguns and handguns (particularly 9mm) everywhere, have gone through the roof. AR15s have literally flown off of dealer shelves, and only now in the spring of 2009, have I seen the display samples of ARs begin to reappear on the wall of my favorite shooting emporium after the initial post election rush.
...
What is odd about this new fear is that it is not coming from the average citizen gun owner out there, but it is coming from what to me is an almost shocking source: street cops.

Street cops and SWAT cops that I know from various agencies – rural, suburban and metro – in my area are scared. Cops that before November 2008 never gave much thought (that I knew of anyway) to politics or more importantly to gun rights. For the most part, these are the guys that didn’t generally have any interest in shooting or gun ownership beyond keeping track of where their duty gun is, and a few of them didn’t even do that so well.

The guys I am talking about now are some of the same guys who used to not even carry off duty on a regular basis- but not anymore. They don’t scare easily, defenders of the Constitution of this State and the United States (as our oath of office reads), have been buying ARs, survival gear, and all the ammo they can lay their hands on. All of them (or I should say “us”) have been discussing and have been acquiring guns to provide a layered perimeter defense.

What are we suddenly so afraid of? Well in our discussions it seems to boil down to four areas.
...
... I foresee much civil disobedience coming down the road. Americans are citizens, and not subjects like the British, Canadians or Australians. They just don’t always obey the law blindly and not one officer or citizen that I spoke to said anything like “I hope I get to keep this gun for awhile before they are banned; They are fun to shoot, so I would hate to give it up.” It isn’t going to happen, so the cop on the street and the soldier on the base needs to think now what he will do if the orders come down. I think you all get what I am saying here. [emphasis added]

Which leads me to the third fear, that there is a revolution coming, yes, a revolution on the scale of the original American Revolution. You can hear this topic discussed on many of the talk radio shows by even the big name hosts. The possibility of an armed revolution against the U.S. government being discussed, albeit very gingerly and fleetingly and as something to be avoided, which it is. I never heard this mentioned in the 90s. One of my quietest, low profile officer friends brought it up the other day.

He said that at some point in the near future, he felt there is going to be an armed revolt if things keep going the way they are. Something has got to give. I was shocked. Yes, I had heard this from some of my more radical cop friends in the past, but to hear it from a guy like this was unprecedented. ...

Read it all here. You are unlikely to read / see any of these types of sentiments expressed or discussed by anyone in the "professional" media, especially those mainstream outlets located in the large urban centers.

Yet the massive nationwide surge in first time gun buyers, the continuing shortages of ammo, and the record numbers of people seeking concealed carry permits show that this unease is growing among ordinary citizens, even if the elites and their media lackeys are either oblivious to it, or choose to deliberately suppress such news.

I think the growing sense among ourselves and our neighbors, i.e., ordinary folk, is that storm clouds are on the horizon and closing fast, despite the rosy forecasts for sunshine and lollipops printed in the papers or on TV. Our common sense tells us that very hard economic times, and perhaps worse, physical violence, may be headed our way, and it's getting harder for even the normally uninformed to suspend disbelief at the propaganda from our political and media classes.

We live in interesting times. Prepare accordingly.

She got lonely

Tonight's The Last Boy Scout movie parody:

Ammo shortages and the ladies luncheon

From an article in the Kennebec, Maine Journal and Morning Sentinel:

When the conversation at the ladies' luncheon suddenly swung from cats and grandchildren to the ammo shortage, I finally verified I was not imagining things.

We're living in strange times. Perilous times. Definitely uncertain times.

The Internet is full of kooks and near-kooks preparing for "the end of the world as we know it," or TEOTWAWKI. Some have a precise date set for the apocalypse. Hmm. I think I'm going to keep on working on keeping my soul clean and taking my chances on that one.

Others predict the economic collapse of the United States. This is TEOTWAWKI in a more figurative sense. It is a vision of hungry residents of exurban McMansions walking 15 miles to town (because gas is no more) to pick from what's left on the shelves of Hannaford or Shaw's, but probably not both because there won't be enough processed food to support multiple grocery chains.

We'll all be sporting those bumper stickers that proclaim "My Other Supermarket is My Garden" on our bicycles.
...
But I sit up straighter when chatter on the Internet reaches critical mass and especially when it overflows into the sacred milieu of the ladies' luncheon. At this point, unarmed as I am, I don't really care about ammo shortages per se. I'm concerned that others do -- and enough to talk about it.

I've had the distinct feeling lately that we are poised precariously between two realities.

Our lives go on much as they have before. Our cars still run, our washing machines chug away, our children still manage to find summer jobs at McDonald's. Every so often the federal financial gurus tell us things are getting better. The Dow goes up for a day before it goes down again. Our jobs are safe. For now.

But then we hear the state government of California is writing IOUs. Tent cities are springing up in Florida. Major auto companies, once a mainstay of our economy, would go under if not for government help.

We seem to accept it all without a blink of an eye. So far we have left revolution to the Iranians. But we are talking about TEOTWAWKI among ourselves. Ordinarily peace-loving citizens are arming themselves. The murmur is growing louder. ...

Article here.

Michigan AG files amicus brief in support of NRA appeal against Chicago gun ban

From Michigan:

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox today threw his support behind the National Rifle Association's challenge of a City of Chicago ordinance banning possession of most handguns by filing a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Cox's amicus brief -- a document filed in court by someone not directly related to a case -- supports the request by the NRA to the Supreme Court for an appeal of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in June favoring the City of Chicago.

At least 33 other states support the NRA's request for the court to hear an appeal in National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago.

"The right to keep and bear arms is fundamental," said Cox, a Republican candidate for governor, in a press release. "The Supreme Court recognized this in the Heller case, and I am confident they will protect this right yet again. No government should impinge on the basic right to defend yourself." ...

Article here.

CCW permits surge in Kentucky. Indiana

From the Courier Journal:

The number of people seeking gun permits has soared in Kentucky and Indiana this year, apparently sparked by fears that President Barack Obama's administration has an anti-firearms agenda.

In Jefferson County, for example, the number of applications processed in February and March were triple those the same months last year and nearly doubled through May, to 1,484.

Statewide figures show a similar trend. Kentucky State Police say they issued 16,114 licenses last year to carry concealed deadly weapons. The number issued through June 29 this year was already 15,531.

Indiana issued 42,403 new handgun permits in the first four months of this year, up from 29,029 in the same period last year, prompting the state police, which processes the applications, to hire five temporary workers to handle the crush, according to Lt. Jerry Berkey, commander of the Indiana State Police Firearms Section.

"What I hear a lot of people saying is they're afraid they're going to lose their gun rights," said Cindy Avis, who processes gun permit applications for the Harrison County, Ind., Sheriff's Department. She said her agency processed 547 applications through June 22, closing fast on the 683 processed in all of 2008. ...

Article here. Not a surprise, given the surge in gun purchases since last November.

Uncle Jay explains the news

Uncle Jay recaps 2009:

Tennessee restaurant owner sues to stop restaurant carry law

From the Volunteer State:

A restaurateur and others who serve alcohol asked the Tennessee Attorney General to join them in opposing a proposed law that will expressly allow loaded guns in bars. The Legislature overrode Gov. Phil Bredesen's veto and the law is slated to take effect on July 14.

It will make Tennessee the first state to expressly allow people to carry a loaded, concealed gun into a bar, according to the complaint in Davidson County Court.

Randy Rayburn, a restaurant owner, claims that with more than 220,000 gun permit-holders in Tennessee, the "guns in bar law" will create a public nuisance, threaten the health, safety and welfare of the public and endanger the lives of bar and restaurant employees.

The plaintiffs claim the bill was passed through trickery, as proponents called it the "restaurant carry" law or "restaurant bill," all the while knowing that Tennessee liquor laws do not differentiate between bars and restaurants.

Even if a restaurant or bar posts a "no firearms" sign, under the new law, violators will allegedly face no more than $500 in fines for ignoring it.

Supporters of the law claim that 38 states have similar laws that allow permit holders to bring their weapons into businesses that serve alcohol, but the petitioners say that's not true.

The plaintiffs say 14 of those states prohibit loaded guns in bars and the other 24 states do not have laws that expressly permit or prohibit guns in bars. ...

Article here. As far as I can tell, the gist of the plaintiffs' argument appears to be that they disagree with the law. It's hard to discern what their legal argument is, and given that the legislature overrode a veto to get the law enacted, there is obviously wide political support among lawmakers for the bill. Arguing that lawmakers were "deceived" as to the status of bars vs. restaurants under the state law (that the legislature itself wrote) governing such establishments is unlikely to elicit much judicial interest in overturning a law with such wide political support, absent some clear constitutional infirmity.

President Bush, Saddam Hussein, and a Glock 18

From the New York Times, on the story of Saddam Hussein's Glock 18, a weapon that may end up on display in President Bush's Presidential Library:

Many American presidents have kept prized possessions within reach during their White House years. Franklin D. Roosevelt cherished a 19th century ship model of the U.S.S. Constitution. One of Dwight D. Eisenhower’s favorite gifts was an engraved Steuben glass bowl from his cabinet. And sitting on John F. Kennedy’s desk in the Oval Office was a paperweight made from a coconut shell he had carved with a distress message after his PT-109 was sunk during World War II.

The objects have been bequeathed to the American public, accessible through a visit to each man’s presidential library and museum. And so when the library for George W. Bush opens in 2013 on the campus of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, visitors will most likely get to see one of his most treasured items: Saddam Hussein’s pistol.

(Former President George W. Bush has long prized the gun seized when Saddam Hussein was captured hiding in a hole in the ground in Iraq in 2003. Photo: New York Times)

The gun, a 9 millimeter Glock 18C, was found in the spider hole where the Iraqi leader was captured in December 2003 by Delta Force soldiers, four of whom later presented the pistol to Mr. Bush. Among the thousands of gifts Mr. Bush received as president, the gun became a favorite, a reminder of the pinnacle moment of the Iraq war, according to friends and long-time associates.

Before Mr. Bush left the White House in January, he made arrangements for the gun to be shipped to a national archives warehouse just 18 miles north of his new home in Dallas. His foundation said a final decision had not been made on including the gun in the presidential library. But his associates and visitors to the White House said Mr. Bush had told them of his intention to display it there.

For nearly five years, Mr. Bush kept the mounted, glass-encased pistol in the Oval Office or a study, showing it with pride, especially to military officials, they said. He also let visitors in on a secret: when the pistol was recovered, it was unloaded. ...

Read the rest here. For those unfamiliar with the Glock 18, it's a select fire weapon, capable of semi-automatic or fully automatic fire. The selector lever can be seen at the back of the slide in the photo above (click on photo to enlarge).

More carnage in the "gun free" Windy City

From Chicago, a place where guns are banned for those who obey the law:

The weekend that started violently has ended the same way.

Another four people were slain overnight, Chicago police said this morning.

Before that, seven people had been killed and more than 20 wounded on city streets from Saturday into Sunday -- including an unidentified woman who was found strangled on the 3300 block of West Congress Parkway.

From the start of the holiday weekend midnight Friday until the early hours of this morning there were 63 shootings and one stabbing, according to police sources. ...

Article here. Gee, 63 shootings in a single holiday weekend in a "gun free" city. How's that gun ban working out for ya, Chicago?

Big banks don't want California IOUs

From the I-wouldn't-want-them-either file:

A group of the biggest U.S. banks said they would stop accepting California's IOUs on Friday, adding pressure on the state to close its $26.3 billion annual budget gap.

The development is the latest twist in California's struggle to deal with the effects of the recession. After state leaders failed to agree on budget solutions last week, California began issuing IOUs -- or "individual registered warrants" -- to hundreds of thousands of creditors. State Controller John Chiang said that without IOUs, California would run out of cash by July's end.

But now, if California continues to issue the IOUs, creditors will be forced to hold on to them until they mature on Oct. 2, or find other banks to honor them. When the IOUs mature, holders will be paid back directly by the state at an annual 3.75% interest rate. Some banks might also work with creditors to come up with an interim solution, such as extending them a line of credit, said Beth Mills, a California Bankers Association spokeswoman. ...

Article here. That, and a Moody's downgrade to BBB. The noose tightens.

And now, for a little full auto funshine

Via GunRights4UsAll, comes this little gem to start your day:

Battle Hymn of the Baby Boomers

Tonight's Battle Hymn, Baby Boomer edition:

Skill, bow and arrow edition

How about breaking some clays ... with a bow and arrow:

Flying with firearms

From LewRockwell.com, on the nitty-gritty of flying on commercial passenger aircraft with firearms:

... In 2007, I began attempting to fly to various destinations while in possession of firearms. I have faired rather better than Mr. Gilmore in terms of my encounters with government functionaries and am pleased to say that while many of our freedoms have suffered unconscionable assaults in recent history, the right to keep and bear arms has proven rather resilient… even when exercised in an environment that most people incorrectly consider to be the pinnacle of a "gun free" zone.

The plain fact is, in the United States of America we have the right not only to possess firearms but also the right to travel with them to any destination we see fit. The Firearm Owner’s Protection Act of 1986 contains the Safe Passage provision, which explicitly elucidates that citizens have the right to journey state to state with firearms as long as they are locked and unloaded. This freedom of travel is unquestionable… even in instances where a party may cross borders and pass through jurisdictions with varied rules and regulations. As many of us who live along or near the Eastern seaboard know, we can drive through a state like New York with firearms even if they are not legal in the state of New York… the jumble of incongruous and sometimes draconian local laws is not a concern for the people who are merely passing by.

Air travel is accorded the same treatment under Federal Law, with the national carriers being treated more or less like interstate highways. No matter where the on-ramps and off-ramps are located, as long as gun owners have their steel locked and unloaded, nothing is off-limits. There are some tips and pointers, however, of which one should be aware in order to make the process and painless and straightforward as possible.

Federal Standards

The Federal Government, primarily in the form of the Transportation Security Administration, sets forth a series of guidelines and policies concerning how passengers my fly with firearms. For the most part, these standards are rather loose. The government leaves it up to the airlines to specify any additional considerations that they see fit. That can sometimes be an issue (that is a topic which we will cover shortly) and while I’m never a champion of government interference with private entities, I wouldn’t be averse to one single "armed passenger’s rights" standard imposed across all airlines. As common carriers, they are subject to some regulation. Keeping all parties in line with the bare minimum of rules as specified by the TSA would be a fine thing, in this author’s opinion.

According to federal policy, passengers may travel with firearms as long as they are unloaded and packed in a fully hard-sided case that is locked and cannot be accessed by anyone except the passenger who is checking said bag. Federal law also allows for eleven pounds of ammunition. The TSA policies do not say much about how your ordinance is to be packed, save for a prohibition of any "exposure" of the rounds. Ammunition is a key sticking point with many of the airlines, however, and we will cover this shortly. ...

Article here. Worth a read, especially if you've never flown with firearms before.

Star Trek bloopers

Tonight's blooper reel:

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun owners:

Howard Nemerov on the world according to Brady (with graphs):

Carl Moody, Economics Professor at William and Mary, and co-author with Dave Kopel and me on a published paper, was kind enough to analyze the data from an earlier article. His response:

When I did the regressions, I found that Economic freedom, Overall freedom, and Personal freedom were all negatively correlated with Brady score, significant at the .01 level (highly significant). Violent crime and LEO rates were positively correlated with Brady at the .001 level (very highly significant).

Sorting by Brady quartiles, the three graphs above still show very strong, negative correlations. (Both have R-values over .90; read here for a brief description of R-values.) As Brady scores increase, personal and economic freedoms decrease. [emphasis added]

[Washington] Careless slobs jeopardize shooting on public land for everyone:

The lowlands corridor along Interstate 90 some 38 miles east of Seattle which runs through the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest is being closed to recreational shooting starting this weekend and continuing for at least 12 months, while the Forest Service determines whether the closure should become permanent.

The problem: Slob shooters. The bane of all responsible gun owners, these people are responsible for other such closures on public lands all over the map. For years, they have brought their garbage onto public property, shot it to pieces, and left it as an eyesore. On rare occasions, they accidentally shoot one another while ricocheting bullets off of boulders against which they have propped a target.

Their litter in the North Bend-Snoqualmie Ranger District – where this closure is taking effect – has included aerosol cans, televisions, computer monitors, appliances and even stolen cars. In the shooting community, these individuals are not simply black sheep, they are social lepers. Responsible shooters don’t want them around, as they are typically responsible for the low image some people have of all gun owners.

[Ohio] Armed residents clean up streets:

STEUBENVILLE - To participate in a cleanup on the streets of the Labelle neighborhood, about a dozen residents brought not only rubber gloves and plastic garbage bags.

They also brought handguns, which they kept in holsters worn around their waists - some in plain view and some not - in a move they said was aimed at promoting awareness of laws allowing Ohioans the right to carry firearms in public.

Wayne Johnson, a resident of Belleview Boulevard - one of the streets where the group worked - said under state law, anyone may carry any gun they have the right to legally own. ...

[Louisiana] ACLU sues New Orleans on behalf of man whose gun was confiscated by city:

A New Orleans man is suing the city and its district attorney for refusing to give back a gun that police seized when he was arrested on drug and firearms charges that were later dropped.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana filed the federal lawsuit Thursday on behalf of Errol Houston Jr., who was arrested last year following a traffic stop. The lawsuit says the district attorney's office declined to prosecute Houston but has refused to return his .40-caliber firearm.

Houston's lawsuit claims District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro has instituted a policy that firearms seized during arrests will not be returned to their owners. The ACLU says that policy violates Houston's constitutional rights.

"Mr. Houston has done nothing wrong. There are no criminal charges against him. His firearm, which he is and was entitled to carry, has been confiscated for no reason," ACLU of Louisiana executive director Marjorie R. Esman said in a statement. ...

Here's to you, Mr. Jefferson

Today's wistful musical:

Isn't a Cross a religious symbol?

Not according to St. Peter's Church of England School in formerly great Britain:

A school told a child to remove a Christian cross she was wearing even though it lets Sikh children wear bangles as part of their religion.

Lauren Grimshaw-Brown was told to take off a necklace with a cross on it because of health and safety fears.

But the eight-year-old's furious mother has accused the school of double standards because they allow children following other faiths to wear jewellery on religious grounds.

The mother-of-two says Lauren and brother Callan, five, have always worn crosses at St Peter's CE School in Chorley, Lancashire.

'We're a Christian family and my children wear the necklaces underneath their tops,' she said.

'On Thursday Lauren was told by a teacher to take it off because apparently they're not allowed to wear jewellery.

'I could understand it if it was a fashion accessory or a High School Musical necklace, but it's part of our faith.'

Mrs Grimshaw-Brown complained directly to the headteacher, Helen Wright, who referred the matter to the school's chairman of governors, Father Atherton. He upheld the ban. ...

Read the rest of this sordid story here. The school is apparently spinning this as some sort of "health and safety" rule, in that the necklace might "cause harm" during play, and suggest that a brooch with a cross (and a sharp pin) would be an acceptable alternative. Seriously, home schooling looks better and better all the time, doesn't it? Although I don't know if the BritGov even allows "non-professionals" to educate their own children. After all, how would the state teach the children to be good subjects?

Hell(er) ain't a bad place to be

From Reason Magazine, an interview with Alan Gura, the lawyer who sucessfully litigated last year's historic Heller case:

Last week was the first anniversary of the District of Columbia v. Heller, where the Supreme Court for the first time declared that the Second Amendment indeed protects an individual right to own guns in the home for self-defense. It was a great victory for individual rights, but by no means a final one.

The lawyer who successfully argued that case, Alan Gura, has remained a dedicated opponent of all sorts of gun regulations that still stand post-Heller. Senior Editor Brian Doherty talked to Gura by phone earlier this week about the various legal challenges Gura is fighting against state and local gun laws. (The Second Amendment Foundation is backing all of the challenges where Gura is serving as counsel.)

Read the article here. The piece has details on lots of Second Amendment-related litigation currently underway, from Washington, D.C. to Chicago to California.

What song is this?

Tonight's musical conundrum: can you identify a song, sung backwards?

Try to guess what song this is (the guy sings it backwards, then the video is played in reverse so you can hear what it sounds like forwards):



Neat.

The Three Percent Solution

From Charlie Cutshaw, writing at Gun Digest:

How many of you are “Three-Percenters?” If you are reading this, you probably should be. OK, what’s a Three-Percenter? The term goes all the way back to the American Revolution. During the war for our independence, only approximately a third of the colonists supported the independence cause. Another third didn’t care one way or the other and the last third wanted to remain under British rule. Out of those that supported independence and revolution, only some three percent were actively engaged on the battlefield with the full active support of only about 10 percent of those who were pro-independence. Twenty percent of the pro-independence faction did nothing to actively support the cause. This is the root of today’s Three Percenter term.

Those of us who currently proclaim ourselves to be Three Percenters make no claim that we actually represent three percent of the population, although we might – nobody knows for certain how many of us there are, but we stand for the Second Amendment, and our support goes far beyond mere words. Three Percenters today are American gun owners who have taken a stand. We WILL NOT disarm. We WILL NOT obey further anti-gun legislation, regardless of its source. We WILL NOT stand for further circumscription of our God-given rights and we WILL defend ourselves if we are attacked. Since our guns are the most effective means of defending ourselves, we WILL NOT surrender them. We are committed to restoring the Republic as envisioned by the Founders and are wiling to fight and to die in defense of ourselves and the Constitution.

I know that these are strong words, but in the words of Thomas Paine, “These are the times that try men’s souls.” As I wrote a few months ago, what I am currently witnessing is unprecedented in my lifetime, which has spanned more than 65 years. I noted then that Barack Obama was the most anti-gun president in the history of our Republic, but since then, things have gotten worse – much worse. Obama clearly wishes nothing so much as the destruction of our Republic. Don’t believe me? Read on. Incidentally, we DO NOT live in a “democracy” as so many in the “lamestream media” would have us believe. A “democracy” is two wolves and a lamb sitting down and taking a vote on what’s for dinner. The United States is a Constitutional Republic! ...

Read the rest here. The more we gun owners can make the would-be tyrants masquerading as politicians or "public servants" realize that a hard and resolute core of citizens, including combat veterans, active duty military, and current and former law enforcement will not, under any circumstances, surrender our most basic, constitutionally-protected and fundamental human rights, and will stop any attempts to do so with force if necessary, the less likely such force will be necessary. Tyrants may not place much value on the lives of ordinary Americans, but they certainly value their own.

Quickie pregnancy

Tonight's pregnancy in a minute (and 15 seconds) video:

Oath Keepers: Orders We Will Not Obey

From Oath Keepers, a timely message to all who have sworn to uphold the Constitution of these United States:

"The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army" - Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island





Go read the full text and explanation of Orders We Will NOT Obey here.

Independence Day

Wishing you all a safe and happy Independence Day.

As we celebrate our freedom, take a moment to reflect on our founding document:

The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Making History

Peggy Noonan has a great piece up at the WSJ, recapping some of the history of Independence Day, from David McCullough's book "John Adams":

Monday, July 1, was heavy and hot, and a full-scale summer storm passed through the city late in the morning. John Dickinson of Pennsylvania rose to speak. He knew he was endangering the respect in which he was broadly held, his "popularity," but he once again counseled caution: Slow down, separation from Britain is "premature," to declare independence now would be "to brave the storm in a skiff made of paper." When he sat down, "all was silent except for the rain that had begun spattering against the windows."

Then John Adams rose. He wished he had the power of the ancient orators of Greece and Rome, he said; surely they had never faced a question of greater human import.

He made, again, the case for independence. Now is the time, the facts are inescapable, the people are for it, we are not so much declaring as acknowledging reality. "Looking into the future [he] saw a new nation, a new time, all much in the spirit of lines he had written in a recent letter to a friend: '. . . We are in the very midst of revolution, the most complete, unexpected, and remarkable of any in the history of the world.' " Outside the wind picked up and the storm struck hard with thunder and lightning. Storms had in the past unnerved Adams, but he spoke steadily, logically and compellingly for two hours.

After nine hours of debate, the voting commenced. The yeses were in the majority, but there were more noes than expected. Someone moved a final vote be taken the next morning. Adams and the rest hastily agreed.

That night word reached Philadelphia that the British fleet, a hundred ships, had been sighted off New York.

The next day, July 2, the final voting began. It went quickly. This was a pivotal moment in the political history of man. A creative, imaginative, historically conscious person in the middle of a thing so huge and full of consequence will try to notice things, to keep them forever in his eyes and pass them on. Here is a thing John Adams would never forget:

At 9 in the morning, just as the doors to the Congress were to be closed, "Caesar Rodney, mud spattered, 'booted and spurred,' made his dramatic entrance. The tall, thin Rodney—the 'oddest-looking man in the world,' Adams once described him—had been made to appear stranger still, and more to be pitied, by a skin cancer on one side of his face that he kept hidden behind a scarf of green silk. But, as Adams had also recognized, Rodney was a man of spirit, of 'fire.' Almost unimaginably, he had ridden eighty miles through the night, changing horses several times, to be there in time to cast his vote."

All of these quotes are from David McCullough's "John Adams." More on Mr. McCullough in a moment.

The vote was completed: 12 for independence, New York abstaining, no one opposing. "The break was made, in words at least: on July 2, 1776, in Philadelphia, the American colonies declared independence. If not all 13 clocks had struck as one, twelve had, and with the others silent the effect was the same."

On July 3, Congress argued over the wording and exact content of the formal Declaration. An indictment of the slave trade was dropped. In all, Thomas Jefferson saw roughly 25% of what he'd written wind up on the floor.

On July 4, discussion ended, debate was closed, a vote on the final draft of the Declaration of Independence was called, and the results were as on July 2. Congress ordered the document be printed. They'd sign it in a month. For now, John Hancock and one other, Charles Thompson, fixed their signatures. ...

Read the rest here.

How not to land your light plane

Tonight's flying lesson, landing edition:

Kansas to recognize non-resident permits from seven states

From NRA-ILA, for those with non-resident permits:

Kansas Attorney General Steve Six (D) today announced that the State of Kansas will now recognize non-resident Right-to-Carry permits issued by any of the 22 states already recognized.

"NRA has maintained for years that language in the Kansas statute indicates that non-resident Right-to-Carry permits should be recognized," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "This decision is a victory for gun owners as it Right-to-Carry laws and provides permit holders additional freedoms in Kansas to protect themselves and their families."

At NRA's urging, Six re-evaluated the language and determined that the statute indeed supports non-resident permit recognition. The training, safety and proficiency standards and process required by applicable states are equal to or greater than the standards imposed by Kansas, therefore, it is possible to extend recognition. States affected by this allowance include: Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, South Carolina and Texas. [emphasis added] ...

Article here. As always, travelers would be wise to verify the recognition / reciprocity status of their permit(s) on the official Kansas government website prior to traveling to Kansas.

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun owners:

Fed's blame U.S. gun owners for Mexican violence:

"This report is really affirming the information received by the professional gun grabbers at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In fact, it uses numbers provided by the ATF without questioning where those numbers came from to begin with," says Lt. Stephen Rodgers, a police commander who favors the Second Amendment.

"My fear is that the Obama Administration will create a phony 'crisis' in order to justify violating the rights of citizens to own and bear arms, a constitutional right that sticks in the craw of the liberal-left power structure in this country," adds Rodgers.

The GAO claims that evidence indicates a large proportion of the firearms fueling Mexican drug violence originated in the United States, including a growing number of increasingly lethal weapons. While admitting it is impossible to know how many firearms are illegally trafficked into Mexico in a given year, over 20,000, or around 90 percent, of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced over the past 5 years originated in the United States, according to data from DOJ's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

However, observers believe that the "90 percent" figure is based on information provided by a foreign government that relies on the US for millions and millions of dollars in aid each year in fighting the so-called war on drugs.

“There’s just one problem with the 90 percent ‘statistic’ and it’s a big one: It’s just not true. In fact, it’s not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the US, ” said Snyder, who also serves as an advisor to the National Association of Chiefs of Police and the American Federation of Police.

"A large part of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the US," he added. ...

Meanwhile, Congressmen push White House for new "assault weapons" ban:

WASHINGTON – Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives asked President Barack Obama on Friday for an improved strategy against the arms traffic to Mexico, beginning with the reinstatement of a ban on U.S. imports of assault weapons [emphasis added]

In a letter sent Friday, the chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), and other lawmakers asked that efforts be made to step up the fight against the arms trade that fuels drug-cartel violence blamed for more than 10,000 deaths in Mexico over the past 2 1/2 years. ...

[Florida] Free class promotes safe gun handling and use:

With her daughter, Jessica Hurford, 30, Myers enrolled in one of Von Bender's free "Concealed Carry Training" classes through the Armed Citizen League. The women learned how to choose a handgun, how to safely store and clean a firearm and how to buy ammunition.

"My daughter and I went together because we're both single and we live alone," Myers said. "Right now, especially after 9/11, there are so many single women out there, and we need to know how to protect ourselves.
...
A former drill instructor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Von Bender has been a National Rifle Association-certified teacher for nearly a decade. He started offering his training classes seven months ago, holding sessions twice a day, five times a week, at no charge. He also runs the Suncoast Gun Club, a gun education program for children.

"I have ladies 50 and older that are coming in that have never held a gun before, and they're doing this because they're scared," Von Bender said. "It's sad that that's the world we live in. But this is a way for people to feel a little safer. I try to help them as much as I can." ...

[Kentucky] Pastor opens church to open carry event:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- A southwest Jefferson County church opened its doors to guns as the pastor makes a point about the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

At the New Bethel Church, Reverend Ken Pagano said the church is celebrating the independence and freedom provided by the constitution by raising awareness about being a safe and responsible gun owner.

Pagano said he felt he had a duty to teach that to his community and congregation. He decided to do so by allowing everyone to carry guns into the church.

"As a church, we're here for the community and also want to address community minded issues," Pagano said.

On Saturday, he open the sanctuary of the church to an "Open Carry Celebration." ...

[California] Ammo registration, "smart" gun bills frustrate gun store owners:

Two new pieces of legislation related to guns are making their way through Sacramento — and making gun store owners in the Mid-Valley frustrated at what they call political myopia.

The bills, AB 962 by Assemblyman Kevin de Leon, D-East Los Angeles, and SB 697, by Senator Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, are aimed at reducing gun violence and improving gun safety.

But gun store owners like Lee Smith said the bills are pointless at best, and full of unintended consequences at worst.

"It does nothing other than create more paperwork and make a crime out of exchanging ammo between two people," said Smith, managing partner of Shooting Gallery in Yuba City, of AB 962. "They're do-nothing bills that restrict what's now a constitutional right."

AB 962 would compel those who sell ammunition to be licensed the same as gun dealers, and mandate a face-to-face transaction when someone buys ammunition.
...
DeSaulnier's bill, SB 697, would mandate safety measures be included in every gun sold in California. That technology would be used to tell how many unfired cartridges remain in a gun, to avoid accidental shootings when thought to be empty.

Guns would also have to have biometric technology to prevent them from being fired if someone other than the registered owner tried to do so.

Gun store owner and former Sutter County Sheriff Roy Whiteaker said such technology would add so much to the cost of a gun, it could kill gun manufacturers' willingness to put product into California. ...

[Ohio] Church rallies for gun rights:

A rally was held Monday, June 29 in west Toledo in support of the right to bear arms.

Sponsors say they are worried about the Obama administration's view on gun control, even though there's been no new restrictions.

The rally pointed to numerous biblical references claiming Jesus Christ would support second amendment rights. "We're just informing our folks you got to be able to protect yourself and what does the Bible have to say about it. We know our constitution. But this is the final authority here above our Constitution is the word of God," said Reverend Andrew Edwards with the Northwest Baptist Church. ...

[Tennessee] Cities look to ban guns in parks:

Local governments and advocates for firearms owners are gearing up for a summer face-off over how far to take a new state law that lets people with carry permits bring handguns into parks.

City councils across Tennessee, including Nashville and Hendersonville, are moving to reaffirm their bans on handguns in parks following passage of a new state law. But people opposed to handgun restrictions are mobilizing to block their efforts.

"I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to close all of them," John Harris, executive director of the Tennessee Firearms Association, said of Metro's plans to keep parks closed to handguns. "I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to close any of them."

A state law signed earlier this month by Gov. Phil Bredesen has touched off the debate.

The law is meant to let handgun permit holders carry their weapons into every park in the state, wiping out local policies governing handguns.

But in a compromise to smooth the law's passage, legislators included a provision that gives local governments the power to ban guns in some or all of their parks by passing a new ordinance. ...

[Missouri] Residents seek record numbers of CCW permits:

Jackie Poynter surveys the row of handguns on the metal table and picks out a silver .22-caliber Smith & Wesson.

With protective ear muffs on, the 31-year-old Independence woman waits for the firearms instructor to give the signal before squeezing off a series of shots.

“We’ve got a marksman right here,” she exclaims. “Lord help anyone breaking into my house.”

Across the Kansas City area, record numbers of people like Poynter are applying for permits to carry concealed weapons. The surge reflects the fears of rising crime in a down economy and concerns that the election of President Barack Obama might bring new limits on gun rights.

Clay County has seen the biggest increase.

From Jan. 1 through the end of May, 801 Clay County residents applied for permits to carry a concealed weapon — compared with 863 in all of 2008.

Sheriff Bob Boydston said that in January the line of applicants stretched across the office. Each week, the line got longer.

Eventually, Boydston had to pull deputies from other duties to handle the demand. The county has gone from accepting applications two days a week to five. ...

[Ohio] Concealed carry permits on the rise:

... More and more Ohioans are carrying concealed weapons, with an enormous increase this year alone. Most officials attribute that increase to the fear that Barack Obama's administration in the White House will take away guns, coupled with the struggling economy and an increase in crime.

Through March, Ohio reported 159,000 residents with concealed carry licenses, which represents about 1 percent of the population. Of that number, 16,323 were new licenses issued in the first three months of the year, a number that continues to climb at a high rate.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives estimates 25 percent of the U.S. population owns a gun of some type, and half the households in the country have at least one gun inside.

Many local counties report doubling or tripling the number of applicants for the first six months of the year compared to all of 2008. In Auglaize County, 92 licenses were issued last year, compared to 295 so far this year. Allen County issued 323 licenses last year, compared to 449 so far this year. ...

[Arizona] Lawmakers pass restaurant carry bill:

PHOENIX — The Arizona Senate has approved a bill to allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry a gun into a business that serves alcohol.

The 19-8 vote completes Legislative action on the bill and sends it to Gov. Jan Brewer.

The measure has pitted powerful groups representing gun and bar owners against each other.

It would require bar and restaurant owners who want to ban weapons to post a sign next to their liquor license. Drinking while carrying a weapon would be illegal. ...

[Tennessee] Beale Street merchants to ban guns:

Beale Street developer John Elkington calls it the “summer of discontent.”

It was the summer three years ago when the entertainment district cracked down on minors being on the street late at night and began screening the adults at different checkpoints along the street. Elkington remembers 650 knives being seized that first summer.

Later this month, Beale Street will break out the hand-held metal detectors at the entrance points and use other security measures to keep guns out of the three-block area day and night.

The new measures are a reaction to the Tennessee Legislature’s passage of a law permitting those who legally own handguns to carry them concealed in places that serve alcohol as long as they aren’t drinking. ...

NICS now requires place of birth:

Beginning June 29, 2009, the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) section is requiring that place of birth be provided for all FBI-initiated transactions. This will be a valuable and efficient addition to the NICS process for the following reasons:

Currently, place of birth is a mandatory field on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473 and is therefore readily available for inclusion in the NICS check. There are no additional information disclosures for the potential purchaser or data collection requirements for Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs).

Being a name-based search, having additional data points such as the place of birth helps to increase the accuracy and efficiency of firearm eligibility determinations. Place of birth is either a mandatory or optional field for entry of records into all three of the databases that the NICS searches against: the Interstate Identification Index (III), the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and the NICS Index. ...

Colt recalls some pistols

For owners of Colt pistols:

Colt's Manufacturing Company LLC has determined that the Slide Lock Safety and the Recoil Spring Guide Pad in certain Colt model pistols were not manufactured to Colt specifications and must be replaced. All of these Colt models were sold after March 2007 and the range of serial numbers affected by this product recall is as follows:

1911 WWI Replica (O1911) From: 4597WMK To: 5414WMK

1918 WWI Replica (O1918) From: 1001WWI To: 3431WWI

New Agent (O7810D) From: GT01001 To: GT04505

Combat Elite (O8011XSE) From: CG10000E To: CG11293E

Defender (O7000D) From: DR33036 To: DR35948

Talo Night Defender (O7000NDF) From: NDF0001 To: NDF0400

Read the full recall notice here.

When they outlaw stickers ...

... will only outlaws will have stickers? More anti-gun hysteria, this time from the Richmond, VA Coliseum, whose management evidently took offense at some pro-gun stickers:

The Virginia Citizens Defense League is used to fighting for the right to carry guns.

But now it's having to defend the right to wear stickers about carrying guns.

The group says officials at the Richmond Coliseum recently attempted to stop members from handing out blaze-orange "Guns Save Lives" stickers before an appearance by radio and television talk-show host Glenn Beck.

"It's bad enough they're trying to trample the Second Amendment. Then you come and attack the First," President Philip Van Cleave said, referring to the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of the right to bear arms and to free speech.

Dolly Vogt, who manages the Coliseum as a regional general manager for SMG, did not respond to three messages Friday. Van Cleave described the incident and his group's concerns to the City Council on Monday. A city spokesman had no comment but said officials are looking into the matter.

Van Cleave said the confrontation occurred June 6 as guests were arriving to see Beck, a defender of guns-rights and other personal liberties. Group members were handing out stickers when Coliseum officials told them to stop and advised that stickers were banned from the city-owned venue, he said.

"Our people stood their ground, [saying] this is public, this is freedom of speech," Van Cleave said.

Then, Coliseum officials turned their attention to people who were wearing the stickers as they entered the building. "They had to throw the stickers away," he said. "They couldn't hide it."

Van Cleave said most people followed the instructions. He said the incident was particularly disturbing because other stickers were being worn into the show without any apparent objection. [emphasis added]

"I think that kind of speaks for itself," he said. "It was about our sticker." ...

Article here.

On the Honduran coup

Here's an op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor by a lawyer who served as a former presidential advisor and Minister in Honduras, on the so-called 'coup' in his country:

Tegucigalpa, Honduras - Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d'état.

That is nonsense.

In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.
...
These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the "Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly." In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an "opinion poll" about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says "immediately" – as in "instant," as in "no trial required," as in "no impeachment needed."

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America's authoritarian tradition. The Constitution's provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo. ...

Read the whole thing here. It's too bad President Obama has chosen to support the ousted would-be tyrant who tried to circumvent his country's Constitution, rather than supporting the people and the rule of law in Honduras. When the United States has the same political position on an issue like this as strong-man dictators like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez or Cuba's Castro, you know somethings wrong.

The Texas Economic Model

Today's must see video, Pajama Media's Glenn Reynolds interviews Texas Governor Rick Perry - see it here (about 15 minutes long).

Texas has a part-time legislature that meets once every two years for a total of 140 days. The Lone Star State has balanced budget, a $9 billion rainy day fund, and last year created more jobs than all the other 49 states combined. Oh, and no state income tax.

The Texas Economic Model, as explained by Gov. Perry:

• Keep your taxes low
• Have a legal system that doesn't allow over-suing
• Keep your regulatory system fair and predictable
• Keep and cultivate a skilled workforce

and once you do those things, get out of the way and let the private sector do what the private sector does best -- create jobs and wealth.

Pick up line logic

Tonight's interesting pick-up line:

If i were to proposition you for sex, would your response be the same as your answer to this question?

Think about it ....

I'm sure he/she won't be screwed up ... much

From Sweden, comes this story:

A couple of Swedish parents have stirred up debate in the country by refusing to reveal whether their two-and-a-half-year-old child is a boy or a girl.

Pop’s parents [see footnote], both 24, made a decision when their baby was born to keep Pop’s sex a secret. Aside from a select few – those who have changed the child’s diaper – nobody knows Pop’s gender; if anyone enquires, Pop’s parents simply say they don’t disclose this information.

In an interview with newspaper Svenska Dagbladet in March, the parents were quoted saying their decision was rooted in the feminist philosophy that gender is a social construction. [emphasis added]

“We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” Pop’s mother said. “It's cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”

The child's parents said so long as they keep Pop’s gender a secret, he or she will be able to avoid preconceived notions of how people should be treated if male or female.

Pop's wardrobe includes everything from dresses to trousers and Pop's hairstyle changes on a regular basis. And Pop usually decides how Pop is going to dress on a given morning. [emphasis added]

Although Pop knows that there are physical differences between a boy and a girl, Pop's parents never use personal pronouns when referring to the child – they just say Pop.

"I believe that the self-confidence and personality that Pop has shaped will remain for a lifetime," said Pop's mother.
...
“I don’t think that trying to keep a child’s sex a secret will fool anyone, nor do I think it’s wise or ethical,” says Pinker. “As with any family secret, when we try to keep an elemental truth from children, it usually blows up in the parent’s face, via psychosomatic illness or rebellious behaviour.” ...

Article here. Methinks that poor kid is probably gonna be really screwed up.

On hypocrisy

From Victor Davis Hanson, on the subject of hypocrisy, and the differing treatment of liberals and conservatives by the media:

... But perhaps the most glaring example is the strange case of former Senator and Vice President Al Gore. He was canonized with various awards including, but not limited to the Nobel Prize, on the basis that his disinterested global campaign to raise concern about global warming had given us all an eleventh hour reprieve from ruining the planet.

Remember the Gore themes: we are destroying the planet by gratuitous use of fossil fuels. Each of us must know his own “carbon footprint,” and adjust accordingly. But then we learned, in addition to the movies and books, Gore had created a carbon-exchange company, a modern version of medieval penance, in which for a fee Gore’s people would evaluate one’s environmental sins, and suggest how one could get right with the gods of the environment.

And on and on it went until in just a few years Gore’s net worth went from $2 million to nearly $100 million. But the additional rub was that Gore lived in an energy-gobbling big house, flew in carbon-polluting private jets, and seemed to benefit financially from the very policies he was lobbying governments to embrace. None of these facts had any effect on the media, the Nobel Prize committees, or his general public stature. Today he remains a liberal icon, not a hypocrite who seemed to live the carbon high-life he demonized so publicly.

Is there some generic, overarching explanation that accounts for the lopsided charge of hypocrisy?

I think we must go back to the nature of the liberal, egalitarian mind that professes the greater care for the welfare of the commons. In contrast, the conservative, the Republican, the libertarian, in dog-eat-dog fashion believes that life is sort of a tragic free-for-all, and to the victor goes the spoils, who then by his own sense of right must help the poorer and less well off. The latter are less sensitive, less caring, more goal orientated; the former are mellower, more sharing, and pit the power of ideas, morality, and fairness against the overwhelming power of money and influence.

Presto! The beleaguered, more moral liberal must be given greater leeway, even can employ sometimes questionable means, since his ends are the more exalted. Yes, Al Gore gets to fly private, and have a few extra rooms in his mansion, but he is in pain, sacrificing on the planet’s behalf, and needs a more ample footprint than the rest of us to save us from ourselves.

Who cares if George Bush’s Texas ranch house has a lighter footprint than Gore’s mansion, given that Bush thwarted Kyoto and Gore promoted it? Yes, Timothy Geithner skipped a few thousands in taxes, but who wouldn’t if you were trying to reformulate an entire tax code to level the playing field? Yes, Bill slipped up with Monica, but Monicas come and go — a woman’s right to chose, however, simply does not and cannot. Yes, Eliot Spitzer had a bothersome desire for young prostitutes, but he was a crusader against Wall Street greed. And yes, the previously mentioned John Edwards was campaigning to the left of Clinton and Obama, and thus his “problems” deserved some sort of reflection and gestation, given his voice on the behalf of the poor. ...

Read it here.

Blind date

Tonight's dating ad:

Global warming legislation: A warning from California

From a speech on the House floor by California Representative Tom McClintock, on the recently passed Waxman-Markey carbon tax bill:

... Three years ago, I stood on the floor of the California Senate and watched a similar celebration over a similar bill, Assembly Bill 32. And I have spent the last three years watching as that law has dangerously deepened California's recession. It uses a different mechanism than cap and trade, but the objective is the same: to force a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Until that bill took effect, California's unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. But then, in January of 2007, California's unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures. Today, California's unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate, and at its highest point since 1941.

What is it that happened in January 2007? AB 32 took effect and began shutting down entire segments of California's economy. Let me give you one example from my district.

The city of Truckee, Calif., was about to sign a long-term power contract to get its electricity from a new, EPA-approved coal-fired electricity plant in Utah. AB 32 and companion legislation caused them to abandon that contract. The replacement power they acquired literally doubled their electricity costs.

So when economists warn that we can expect electricity prices to double under the cap and trade bill, I can tell you from bitter experience that in my district, that's not a future prediction, that is a historical fact.

Gov. Schwarzenegger assured us that AB 32 would mean an explosion of new, green jobs — exactly the same promises we're hearing from cap and trade supporters. In California, exactly the opposite has happened. We have lost so many jobs the UC Santa Barbara economic forecast is now using the D-word — depression — to discuss California's job market. ...

Read the rest here.

Quote of the day

From Maxed Out Mama, on the House passage last week of the Waxman-Markey carbon tax bill:

At some point, the peasants will revolt. It is almost as if this bill was a conspiracy of California Democrats who feel the need to bankrupt the rest of this country so that California will have an equal chance at funding, or something like that.
...
Let's hope it can be stopped in the Senate. Even if it is, our nation has lost something here, and that something is the principal legislative body's grasp on reality. It is as if the House of Representatives suddenly passed a vote to reduce gravity by 10 percent in order to lessen the costs of obesity to putatively cut Medicare costs in the future. Truly amazing.

More here. Our descent into madness continues unabated. The surest way to destroy our economy, and thus our nation's future, is to dramatically raise the cost of energy, while our competitors on the world stage seek to lower theirs. To do so in the face of the worst recession since the Great Depression is lunacy writ large.

It's like you're running a marathon having shot yourself in the foot at the starting line. You're limping along in pain relying on your good foot, when, halfway through the marathon, you decide to shoot yourself in the good foot to "even things out", in the demented belief that you'll somehow run faster with both feet shot to bits. Here's a hint: If you couldn't run well on the one foot that was shot out, you likely still can't run well on that foot when you shoot the other foot out. Even if you're ahead of the field when you do it, you'll soon be overtaken, and you'll lose the race. Except in this case, losing the race means a life of poverty and privation for your people.

Perhaps, before destroying our nation by listening to the false prophets of the religion of Global Warmism, who apparently see our salvation in the self-inflicted destruction of our economy and its means of production, we should ponder the story of the Xhosa.

As President Reagan said in his first inaugural address back in 1981, when the country was still reeling from the Carter years,

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.