Left Coast Conservative

Women and Guns

2012-01-08T12:51:00.000-08:00

Kristen Houghton is a blogger whom, before this morning, I had never heard of, until I read this article. In it she juxtaposes her personal fear of guns against her rejection of many of the anti-gun talking points using a more rational view of the rick of being a woman in modern society. It all leads up to her decision to get firearms training for self-defense.

"I may not like it but society has very likely made women and guns a necessity. Even I see the reasoning behind knowing how to protect yourself with a firearm. If a gun is what I need then I'm going to make sure I train well and practice my shots. I also know that I have to keep it loaded. Having to take time to load a gun when danger presents itself is ludicrous."

Yes indeed, the times they're changin'.

Most of her blog pieces seem to end up on the Huffington Post. It will be interesting to see how the reader respond to this article if it appears there.

Climate Change Computer Models - Best Paragraph Ever

2011-12-29T07:58:00.000-08:00

Forbes has this article on climate change today. In it, Louis Woodhill writes:

But don’t the climate scientists’ computer models prove that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are causing climate change? No. First, no computer model can ever prove anything (see the definition of “science” given above). Second, we do not have the capability to model a system as complex as the earth.

It has been said repeatedly, and I agree, that one huge problem that the pro-global warming people have is the tendency to use computer model results as if they are data. They are NOT! Something resulting from a computer model does not dictate that that same thing will be observed in nature. And guess what? Predicted rises in global temperature have not occurred in the last 10 years.

Oops.

Will Rove Help Make Predictions Come True?

2011-12-29T07:28:00.001-08:00

Karl Rove makes some political predictions in this Wall Street Journal article. One prediction in particular stood out:

Scandals surrounding the now-bankrupt Solyndra, Fannie and Freddie, MF Global and administration insider deals still to emerge will metastasize, demolishing the president's image as a political outsider. By the election, the impression will harden that Mr. Obama is a modern Chicago-style patronage politician, using taxpayer dollars to reward political allies (like unions) and contributors (like Obama fund-raiser and Solyndra investor George Kaiser).

An evil thought occurred to me: is it possible that Rove already has information about additional scandals involving "Chicago-style patronage" that he has held back, waiting to use it to derail the Obama re-election campaign?

Maybe, just maybe.

CBS News Article About Women and Guns

2011-12-27T11:31:00.000-08:00

Article is here.

I commented on the article and reproduce it below:

----- Comment Start -----

"Most states require training and safety courses before using firearms, and there are programs popping up throughout the country teaching women to do just that."

This is untrue. Most states do not require any training or license to purchase and use a handgun or any firearm. In fact New York City and New York State is only one of a small number of states that require a license to own handguns: the vast majority of states have no such requirement.

Most states to require a license and training to carry a concealed weapon, but that is entirely a different matter than owning and using a gun at a gun range.This problem stems from most writers at the television networks being based in New York City naturally assuming that New York City laws are typical, when in reality they are atypically strict when compared to almost everywhere else in the United States.

---- Comment End ----

This alludes to another thing I hear all the time, even in California: the phrase "licensed gun owner". I hear it in conversations, and I read it in articles like this one. To most non-gun owners it seems to be held as a truth that one must be licensed to own a gun.

I blame television shows for this. How many times have we seen characters in procedural police dramas say lines like: "We recovered an unlicensed gun at the crime scene." Many TV writers are ignorant of gun laws in general, and many are based in New York City where one must obtain a license to possess a handgun in ones home, so they assume that such laws apply everywhere. There we hear TV show characters talk of licensed firearms and licensed gun owners in shows set in places like Las Vegas, Los Angeles, or Atlanta even though those places do not require a license to possess a handgun.

This leads new gun owners to be ignorant about the law, assuming that one must get a license to own a gun. I have actually had people ask me how to get a handgun license in California, and I tell them that it is pretty much impossible in Santa Clara County, only to learn that they want to BUY a handgun, not carry a concealed handgun.

Even though firearms are becoming ever more popular, I really don't see this changing.

Obama to Defy Spending Prohibitions

2011-12-25T10:28:00.000-08:00

Hat tip to David Hardy at Arms And The Law.

President Obama in a signing statement has alluded to his intention to ignore budgetary prohibitions against spending for certain research projects that seek to justify increased gun control.

But David Hardy points out that spending money in ways not authorized by Congress is unconstitutional and illegal.

I wonder, if President Obama proceeds to spend money to fund the prohibited programs, breaking the law, who would enforce the law? the "Justice" Department? It is to laugh!

What if California Went Shall Issue?

2011-12-23T09:17:00.000-08:00

Ever wonder what would happen in California if the state started issuing LTC permits on a shall-issue basis? Iowa may have provided a glimpse of the future during 2011.

“The majority of people I’ve talked to said they’d just always wanted one,” said Pals, the Cerro Gordo County sheriff. “And now they can in Iowa and they are following through with it. The training that’s required is a lot easier now.”

There is undoubtedly a huge backlog of gun owners in California that would apply for a permit if the process was not discretionary. If only 2% of Californians got a permit California would expect to increase from approximately 32,000 permits held today to somewhere around 600,000 permits.

Given the state of current court cases, there is a possibility that such a scenario may eventually come to pass in the next few years. To help it along, donate to the Calguns Foundation.

Music to My Ears

2011-12-22T12:03:00.000-08:00

The Second Front has arrived, with hearings promised for the rest of the Obama presidency, however long that may be.

“If Obama won’t fire Holder, we will,” Priebus added. “We’ll fire the whole team in just 11 months.”

We Are Winning - Personal Edition

2011-12-15T04:01:00.001-08:00

My sister has never been a gun person. She did not get a gun as achild, like I did (a RemingtonFieldmaster 572 that I still have and still shoot, and will NEVERsell) and to my knowledge has never shot a gun. But she has onseveral occasions heard me discuss my introduction to handgunshooting and training, and my views about pro-gun rights issues. Ifound out earlier this year that she had been listening more closelythan I thought.

My parents have moved out of California and purchased land inOklahoma for their retirement. After this, my sister and I begansemi-annual pilgrimages to visit, often together to save on expenses.During one visit my Dad mentioned a few handguns he had inheritedfrom his half brother. Would I be interested in taking a look? Sure!So he brought out a box and there were a couple of .22 revolvers, aRuger P89, a Taurus .38 snubbie, and a strange and shrunken 1911 in.380 from Llama, which may be a LlamaV. My sister was there and she watched as my Dad and I talkedabout the guns and I even showed my Mom how to load, unload, andhandle the .38 revolver. It turned out that she kept that one in hernight stand for protection when my Dad was away. On a subsequentvisit I actually took her out back to shoot the gun at least once soshe would know what to expect. I mentioned that she should get aholster for it, and she looked at me as if I was crazy.

The 90 minute drive to Tulsa gave us a lot of time to talk, and onthe last trip out we had a surprising conversation about guns. Mybrother-in-law had inherited several handguns from his father, andwas interested in shooting them, but did not really know much aboutguns, safe gun handing, ammunition selection, and related topics. My sister thought that if they were going to have guns in the house,and if her husband was going to shoot them, it would be a good ideato get some training. Then came the real shocker: she herself wasinterested in learning to shoot! My pacifistic, not quite anti-gun,liberal sister wanted to learn to shoot.

I asked her why she wanted to shoot, and she said that she wantedto feel safe with guns in the house, and she realized that if she wasconfronted by an intruder when she was alone at home she would needto protect herself for the period of time before the police couldarrive, and a gun could be a life saver in that event.

Although I had talked before about my own gun hobby and how Istarted, we talked a little more about it, the group that taught theNRA BasicPistol Class I attended, BayArea Professionals for Firearms Safety and Education, BayProfsfor short, and my subsequent shooting activities and training. Tosay the least, this was an interesting conversation with my sister,especially when she decided to get her husband the gift of two seatsin the next BayProfs Basic Pistol class, one for each of them. Shesaid it would be a “couple bonding” activity for both of them.

A few weeks went by, and while at work I got a call from mysister: she wanted my advice on a gun-related gift for her husband. She wanted to get him some kind case or container to carry his gunsto from the range. While looking at items online, she was unsure thequality and suitability of various products and wanted moreinformation. I suggested we go to a local gun store where we couldask about the products, and get some hands-on evaluation. After alittle more discussion it turned out that the the BayArea Gun Vault in Mountain View was most convenient for her. Ialso preferred this store because they recently expanded, taking overthe space next to them, and because it is well lighted, tidy, andordinary looking with a helpful staff. I did not want to take her toa more hardcore gunnie man-cave like the GunExchange or SportsmansSupply. Bay Area Gun Vault is also the closest gun store to herhouse, so she is more likely to make it her “home base” store.

I met her there on a recent afternoon, and upon walking in andseeing all the rifles in the racks, her eyes got big and the saidsomething like “Oh, my! This is a little scary.” I distractedher by suggesting we get some help, and went over to the counter. One of the clerks, who was armed, started showing, my sister thevarious gun cases they had in stock, and also suggested she look at arange bags that could be locked, explaining that any locked containerwould satisfy California law. All the while he was keeping up aconversation, asking about her shooting experience, asking about theBayProfs classes (approving enthusiastically about getting training)and also mentioning about other things she may need like cleaningkits and supplies, eye and ear protection, etc. My sister eventuallyselected a Boytrange bag, thinking that it would be more versatile, andimpressed with the lifetime warranty.

This was when things got weird.

I took her over to the handgun display case and pointed out mypistol, a KimberCustom II, which the counterman immediate took out and handedover to me. I explained to my sister about indexing the triggerfinger along the frame, and a little about why I bought the gun,while she handled it, getting a feel for the weight and balance. This may have been the first time my sister ever held a handgun. Butit did not stop there. Even though we were not buying a gun thatday, the counterman got into a conversation with my sister and askedabout what she liked about the 1911, and then suggested she try out aGlock. She did not like the finger rounds on the grip, so out came aSmith & Wesson M&P, which she liked better. I liked it too. And after that came a Sig P226, and then a couple of Smith &Wesson revolvers. After a short time my sister was getting prettycomfortable with all the guns around, and even appeared to beenjoying herself.

We left after about an hour in the store and went to Peet'sto get a coffee and catch up with family stuff. My sister thoughtthe entire experience was enlightening and interesting, and she isdefinitely looking forward to the class. I was amazed, and a littleproud of her for going outside her comfort zone. While in Peet's Imentioned that womengetting into shooting and guns seems to be part of a culturaltrend. She offered two explanations: first, more woman are livingalone because of divorce or other life circumstances, and second,women in the baby boom generation are older and more clear sightedabout security, not as naive that younger women about thepossibility of becoming a victim, and more confident in their abilityto do something about it. In addition, my sister thinks that gunsafety should begin with knowledge and respect of firearms, not fearand ignorance.

I really admire my sister.

We parted then as it was getting on in the evening, but not beforeI told her that if she wanted to visit a gun range to try out my gunbefore the class in February to give me a call. I would be very gladto arrange a trip.

Joan Peterson Writes the Stupidest Thing I Have Ever Read on Her Blog

2011-12-14T12:43:00.000-08:00

In this post on her blog Common Gunsense Joan Peterson has really outdone herself by writing the stupidest thing I have ever read on her blog, which is quite an accomplishment because there are so many candidates for the title. Concerning a man in Hollywood, California, who was killed after he walked down a street shooting at random passing automobiles:

"That's the problem when guns are so available. An otherwise normal and law abiding person who has a bad day can take it out on innocent people too easily."

I see. Gun owners are not to be trusted because they might "snap" and commence a murderous spree? Amazing how this excuse keeps being thrown out by the anti-gun bigots.

Here's my prediction: further investigation will reveal that the shooter had previously unknown and severe psychological problems for which had had not been successfully treated. Investigation will further show that the gun he used was purchased legally in California but that the background check system, 10 day waiting period, and the DOJ Hangun Roster, all failed to keep a gun out of that mans hands.

I was sorely tempted to post the above on Joans blog, but I refrained. I have long decided that posting comments on her blog is a waste of time because she is not interested in "debating" anyone but those who already agree with her.

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." -- George Bernard Shaw

Joan Peterson Is Even More Stupid Than Usual Today

2011-12-05T09:01:00.001-08:00

As can be seen in this post on her blog.

Other posts I have seen about the gun replica on a purse have rightly excoriated the stupidity of the TSA. But for Joan, even a picture of a gun in public is alarming. Please everyone, stop posting comments on her blog. If we all ignore her, perhaps she will stop.

44,000 and Counting

2011-11-25T08:09:00.001-08:00

The Anti-gun people must be looking at the news from Wisconsin and pulling out their hair in large clumps in frustration. According to this story, 44,443 applications for concealed weapon permits have been received, 13,085 approved, and 12, 708 licenses issued to Wisconsin residents.

When was the last time that the Brady Campaign got even 1000 people interested in anything that they are doing?

If most of the 44,443 applications are approved, then the population of license holders is approaching 0.8% of the population. Given the demand in other states, we can reasonably expect about 2%, or 113,000 people to hold CCW licenses in Wisconsin.

Does one need any better proof that pro-gun views are predominate in the United States?

HR 822 - Bill Passes House 272 to 154

2011-11-16T15:33:00.001-08:00

HR 822, a bill that would mandate nation wide reciprocity of concealed carry permits, passed the House today in a bi-partisan vote. It now advances to the Senate, where odds of passage are much less certain. Also note that the margin of passage today in the House is not large enough to override a veto in the event this bill gets to the Presidents desk.

There is still a long way to go, and an uncertain chance of a good outcome.

HR 822 - Passed Committee

2011-10-26T13:10:00.000-07:00

As reported by The Hill, and elsewhere, HR 822 successfully passed out of the House Judiciary committee and is clear to proceed to the House floor. The sole Republican member voting against the bill was Rep. Dan Lundgren. He voted against the bill because of states rights issues, and he had wished to amend the bill:

“I wanted to offer an amendment that the person be a resident of the state in order for the reciprocity imposed by federal law — in other words, a resident of the state that granted the permit,” Lungren said, noting that his concerns were not adequately addressed in committee.

So, Rep. Lundgren favors a policy that would disarm people holding non-resident permits, as well as the vast majority of California citizens who are unable to obtain a license to carry given the restrictive issue policies of most sheriffs offices in this state.

Or perhaps he is just worried about a lot of "fly-over" states residents carrying in California? Either way, Dan Lundgren is not a friend of gun rights in this state. Perhaps the citizens of House District 3 need to remind him for whom he works.

As Read on Common Gunsense

2011-10-25T13:06:00.000-07:00

Blogger gregorycamp had this to say in response to this post on Common Gunsense:

This is your website, so you have the right to do with it as you choose. That being said, I'd like to see you be honest about your actual purpose here. What you want is to make pronouncements and have your audience sing along in a chorus of agreement. So be it. Just don't expect those of us on the other side to be fooled.

Or to continue to waste our time "debating" Joan Peterson. I have stopped commenting on her posts because I know she and I will never agree. The differences in world views and values are too profound for total agreement.

About the only things that Joan Peterson and I agree on, after some reflection on my part, is that all firearms transfers should involve a background check, and that a better job must be done to include mental health records in background checks. I also think that training should be required for a license to carry a concealed weapon, and that training must include a qualification course of fire. Drug or alcohol use while armed should be prohibited, just as it is when operating automobiles.

As is the case now, one is always responsible for the use of the weapon in public, so everyone who carries a weapon must know when, and when not to use it. However, a person who uses a weapon in an act of lawful self defense should be immune from civil lawsuits.

Other then that, if you are not a prohibited person, you're good to go. No waiting periods to pick up a gun. No purchase limits: 1 handgun per month. No weapon-type bans: police officers and citizens get to carry the same weapons. No registration of weapons, no ammo restrictions, no micro-stamping, no rosters of supposedly safe weapons, unless the police are subject to the very same limits.

I would also limit the definition of sensitive places, and I would not allow private property owners to prohibit weapon carry if they offer sales of services or products to the public. If schools are deemed to be sensitive, then that should apply to the school property itself, not to zones surrounding the property.

Does President Obama Have Dog?

2011-10-22T19:08:00.000-07:00

Because he sure isn't getting any love from liberals.

This story mentions a bit about the attitudes of the Occupy Wall Street protesters:

"When Douglas Schoen, a Democratic pollster, sent an agent to Zuccotti Park, where the protests began, to make inquiries, he got back surprising data. Just 198 occupiers were polled, so this was hardly a scientific sampling, but an experienced pollster nevertheless is careful about whom he talks to. Just 48 percent said they will vote for Mr. Obama next year. Only about 15 percent are unemployed, and they clearly aren’t the downtrodden “99 percent” they claim they are. However, “We’re the 85 percent” wouldn’t make much of a message on a T-shirt."

President Obama is in real trouble if these people are not solidly behind his re-election.

Long Gun Open Carry Event Today

2011-10-22T08:54:00.000-07:00

The event will be held at the Bayfair Mall, in San Leandro, from 12 noon to 1 PM today. Any and all California legal long guns are allowed. SFGate has an article about the event here:

"The point is to be provocative enough to spur action by the courts or legislators to repeal the new law and restore the right to pack unloaded pistols in the open."

I am sure that they will be provocative, but what they provoke is likely to be a new law banning open carry of long guns. Any new law could very well be poorly crafted and a huge burden on lawful gun owners, but it seems the open carry advocates are not going to stand down.

Oh, well.

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

Here is a comment I posted on the SFGate site:

"The people holding the event are not gun nuts, they are rights nuts.

Let me explain.

These people believe, as I do, that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the individual to be armed for self defense, both in the home, and in public. So far, the Supreme Court has validated the "in the home" part of that view, but has not yet affirmed the "in public" part.

Meanwhile, about 40 states in the United States allow law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons in public legally, after satisfying objective criteria. However California is not one of these states. While California does have a concealed weapon law, licenses to carry are very rarely issued in urban counties where the need to be armed is greatest. In Santa Clara county, only 55 licenses to carry are currently issued to civilians.

The Open Carry movement uses open carry events to protest the current state of the California laws governing law carry of arms in public - laws that almost totally prevent a citizen from carrying weapons openly or concealed, laws which therefore deny thhe exercise of 2nd Amendment rights.

The Open Carry advocates do not want to carry weapons in a way that alarms the public, but the public has not afforded the citizen any other way to carry, and the public prevents effective self-defense by tolerating restrictive laws. Many comments to this article have mentioned that unloaded guns are useless for self defense, and have wondered why these Open Carry advocates do not conceal their weapons. The reason is that Open Carry advocates believe in following the law, and not open carry of unloaded long guns is all that is allowed.

This event is a protest, intended to illustrate the stupidity of the current California laws concerning bearing arms in public. One solution to this situation would be to reform California laws by adopting a shall-issue license to carry system. Other states do it without many problems, California could as well. Once this state was a social trend setter, but now it has fallen behind the rest of the nation.

Time for us to catch up."

New Page - Roster of Handguns Uncertified for Sale

2011-10-14T17:19:00.000-07:00

I have created a new page for Left Coast: a roster of new handguns that are not certified for sale in California, usually because they are pistols that lack a magazine disconnect. This page, available here, will be updated as I get time and learn about new handgun models. Your submissions will also be welcome and added to the page.

Long Gun Open Carry Event

2011-10-14T17:09:00.000-07:00

Well, this did not take long.

The Responsible Citizens of California are planning an event that will be irresponsible from a political point of view, that is an open carry event in Pacific Beach where participants will be carrying unloaded rifles and shotguns.

I predict a sequel to AB 144 in the next legislative session, restricting the open carry of long guns as well. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it is a right, and all that, but come on! You're not accomplishing anything constructive by holding these events, except scaring the Hell out of people, and handing our adversaries political capitol.

Calguns Publishes List of Active LTC by County

2011-10-11T13:09:00.000-07:00

In a feat of stupendous effort, Calguns Foundation has published a report detailing the number and type of active licenses to carry by county in the state of California. The report, in PDF format, is available for download here. I will also add the download URL to my Get The Facts section on this blog.

Salient Statistics:

Total Active Civilian LTC: 32666
Total Possible Civilian LTC: 37465
Total Possible LTC Santa Clara Co.:92

That is correct, 92 LTC in Santa Clara Co., an issue rate of 0.068 LTC per 1000 eligible persons.

What do the OWS People Believe?

2011-10-10T22:28:00.000-07:00

I have long thought that the best way to find out what people in a group believe is to read comments on their blogs. I was curious about the Occupy Wall Street people, and checked out their web site.

The discussions were wide ranging, and so far as I read, thoughtful debates on issues. One comment:

"What happened to the Green Revolution? I have been waiting for Iran to take it back up."

inspired me to reply:

"The Green Revolution got stamped out because the protesters were unarmed. In the face of ruthless men, citizens must secure their rights with guns. Thankfully we live in a nation of laws so that people can "peaceably assemble" to petition "for redress of grievances". The Iranian people, unfortunately do not, and so they were brutally suppressed because they had no arms."

I can't wait to see what the reply might be.

Issa Accueses Holder of Lying About Fast & Furious

2011-10-10T17:42:00.000-07:00

The House of Representatives investigation into Fast & Furious has perhaps moved into a new phase. In this letter, published on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform website, and originally published by David Codrea, Chairman Issa accuses Eric Holder of lying in his testimony before Congress. One damning paragraph among many:

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this intransigence is that the Department of Justice has been lying to Congress ever since the inquiry into Fast and Furious began. On February 4, 2011, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote that "ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transport into Mexico." This letter, vetted by both the senior ranks of ATF as well as the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, is a flat-out lie.

This letter lays out Rep. Issa's justification for continued investigation, and throws down the gauntlet to Holder, and by extension, the Obama Administration, to come clean about this scandal. I encourage everyone to read this letter: it summarizes the extent of the corruption involved in the cover-up.

I am beginning to believe that Eric Holder will be forced to resign in order to deflect he damage from the Obama Administration. If he resigns, however, will he resist testifying about any wider extent of the scandal, or will Holder "roll over" on others?

Another question: Why in Hell did the DOJ do this, Fast & Furious, that is, in the first place?

Sounds Like Obama Has Given Up.

2011-10-10T15:45:00.000-07:00

In this article, Micheal Goodwin of the New York Post writes:

The gist is this: President Obama has become a lone wolf, a stranger to his own government. He talks mostly, and sometimes only, to friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett and to David Axelrod, his political strategist.

and:

The president’s workdays are said to end early, often at 4 p.m. He usually has dinner in the family residence with his wife and daughters, then retreats to a private office. One person said he takes a stack of briefing books. Others aren’t sure what he does.

The first paragraph, if true, is really bad for a President. He would be seeking out, and finding, only the point of view of people that certainly agree with him in most matters. Obama is avoiding intellectual challenges, and with such a small group, the odds of falling into groupthink are very great.

The second paragraph seems to portray a man who has given up, who is simply going through the motions until his tenure is completed. If so, then he does himself, and the American people, a great disservice.

Wall Street Occupiers - Their Ignorance Explicated.

2011-10-10T15:34:00.000-07:00

I have not posted about the Wall Street Occupiers because I have been unsure about their aims, or if they have any potential for lasting influence. But they have seemed to be from the start to be remarkably ignorant of how the real world works for people who presumably have college educations. The following quote says it better than I ever could:

Reader Harold Theurer sees another angle. Noting the passing of Steve Jobs, he wonders how many protesters carrying Apple products understand how those gadgets came to exist.

“What started out as two men in a garage with ideas and passion would have been nothing more than two guys in a garage with ideas and passion had it not been for an IPO on Dec. 12, 1980, when Apple went public at $22 per share,” he writes.

“Big Bad Wall Street raised $101 million for Mr. Jobs to expand his ideas, create jobs and change the landscape of technology. The next time any of the Wall Street occupiers makes an iTune purchase, it can be traced back to some Big Bad Banker’s belief in Mr. Jobs and his company.”

Class dismissed.

Owned!

Long Gun Open Carry - Comming to A Starbucks Near You!

2011-10-10T09:55:00.000-07:00

Well, Governor Brown did it. Starting January 1, 2012, it will be illegal to carry an unloaded handgun in public in California. But as noted here, and many other places, this bill says nothing about log guns. I think we will see more protest activities in the future, but this time people will be carrying their long guns, especially so-called assault weapons.

This may not be a wise policy.

When confronted with firearms in public, our legislature reacts by outlawing the practice of carrying guns, even unloaded guns, where the easily frightened sheeple of California can see them. Given that most people in California think that AK-47 and AR-15 rifles are illegal to possess because of the assault weapon ban, the sight of bullet button-equipped rifle might be just a little alarming, I would expect the legislature to act to prohibit public carry of unloaded rifles as well.

They may also re-visit the CA assault weapon law in order to outlaw Off-List Lowers and the use of bullet buttons. It would be interesting to see if such efforts would survive the inevitable court challenges.

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

Update 10/11/2011:

Here is one reaction from an UOC advocate, Yih-Chau Chang, press secretary of Responsible Citizens of California:

Chang added that many such advocates, including himself, carry exposed, unloaded handguns on a daily basis and will likely choose to openly carry unloaded long guns in lieu of handguns once the law takes effect in January.

I wonder what the reaction of the Legislature will be once people start carrying rifles in public.

California Gun Bills - Results Are In

2011-10-10T08:10:00.000-07:00

Governor Brown has signed or vetoed the various firearms bills sent to him by the Legislature. This post on Calguns has the scorecard:

AB809 Long Gun Registration: Signed. Starting January 1, 2014, all long gun transfers will have to be performed using a FFL and DROS. In effect, California now requires long gun registration.
SB819 Redirection of DROS Fees: Signed. Starting immediately, DROS fees are to be redirected into the DOJ budget for regulatory and enforcement activities.
AB144 Unloaded Open Carry Ban: Signed. As of January 1, 2012, open carry of an unloaded handgun will be a misdemeanor.
SB610 LTC Reform: Signed. Starting immediately, all agencies processing applications for a License To Carry a concealed weapon must follow uniform procedures as outlined in this bill. This is a VERY GOOD result.
AB427 Handgun Ammunition: Vetoed. Thank God! At least we don't have to fight the AB 962 fight again this year!

These results are not as good as I hoped, but not as bad as I feared. The worst of the bills that have passed is long gun registration, of course, and I am sorry about AB 144. SB819 is not really a surprise since the state is broke, and Brown will be trying to sweep any amount to money he can into operating budgets. But two very big pieces of legislation are now law: LTC application process must be uniform, and we don't have to re-fight the ammunition fight from last year.

Violent Crime in U.K. - Proof That Gun Control Does Not Equal Crime Control

2011-10-06T06:00:00.000-07:00

This 2009 article from the Daily Telegraph indicates that, far from the violence free utopia that gun control advocate would have us believe would result, violent crime has increased in recent years until the U.K. is the most violent country in Europe:

"The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa."

Clearly, largely eliminating firearms ownership has not helped prevent violent crime. It is logical to assume that such policies would be equally fruitless in the United States. The experiment in the U.K. shows that presence, or absence, of an object in society does not have an effect on complex social trends like violent crime. Violent crime cannot be controlled by controlling guns, only by controlling criminals.

Presidential Campaign 2012 - Racism Rhetoric

2011-10-05T06:00:00.000-07:00

As 2011 winds down we are entering the 2012 political season, and we must brace ourselves for a dominant theme of the political race: racism.

This will be the main theme of the progressive allies of President Obama, especially of economic indicators and job approval ratings continue to slide. We can see a preview of this from Janeane Garofalo:

Garofalo told Keith Olbermann, "Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican Party." Asked if she meant the entire Republican party, she added. "Conservative movement and tea party movement (are) one in the same."

To Garofalo, and other believers of identity politics, Obama's and Cain's blackness is the determinant of voter appeal or repulsion, not their ideals, political positions, or characters. Therefore, conservatives supporting Cain must be doing so from latent white-guilt, not because of Cain's 9-9-9 economic plan. Likewise, conservatives opposing Obama's re-election must be doing so because of overt racism, not because of his drunken-sailor budgets or intrusive medical care regulations.

To be sure, Obama will not play the race card. He will hold himself and his campaign at a higher level and run on his record. But the shakier that record looks, the more we can expect Progressive foot-soldiers like Garofolo to turn to racism to shore up the campaign dike. Expect it, dismiss it, and move on. 2012 is too important to allow Progressive Know-Nothings like Garolafo to dictate peoples votes.

Guns in Schools: Always a Bad Thing?

2011-10-04T06:00:00.000-07:00

Common sense says that guns and schools go together like a match and gasoline: they know nothing good can come from the combination. Joan Peterson thinks, and has said many times on her blog, that the idea of ordinary armed people stopping a school shooting incident is fantasy:

Who are these people that we would entrust to "protect" our children? How will they be vetted? At least we know that police officers are trained for this stuff and are vetted and hired to do the job of protecting us. That is their primary job when they are on duty. It is not a part-time, as needed, and when they are available.

But it is not fantasy. It has happened in the past, and it could happen in the future. How many times have teachers or students, legally armed, intervened in school shootings with beneficial effects? At least four times in the 20th century:

Utah allows carry permit holders to carry their concealed weapons on K-12 school property, but when was the last time an active shooter incident happened at a Utah school? There are many more reports of unarmed teachers, staff, and students stopping active shooters. To me it only makes common sense to allow teachers with carry permits to carry their concealed weapons while on duty. We trust these people with our children already, so why not give them the ability to repel an attack?

Concealed Carry Laws - No Increase in Crime

2011-10-03T06:00:00.000-07:00

While there is no way anti-rights people will admit this, the fact of the matter is that liberalized concealed carry laws have NOT increased violent crime. Mike Stuckey, writing in this 2010 MSNBC article, agrees:

"Statistics from the national Centers for Disease Control do indicate that the murder and mayhem predicted by many opponents of concealed-carry laws have not come to pass. But even that point, while celebrated by gun-rights activists and conceded by some concealed-carry opponents, is disputed by others.

Both sides do agree on one thing: More Americans than ever are carrying hidden guns."

Oh, gosh! More guns in public does not mean more crime. Joan, what ever will you say to that!

Does The Violence Policy Center Still Support a Handgun Ban?

2011-10-02T06:00:00.000-07:00

While perusing the website of the Violence Policy Center, I came upon their March, 2000 study Unsafe In Any Hands: Why America Needs To Ban Handguns. This study concludes:

"A clear-cut plan to ban handguns should be developed and implemented soon. Considering the many thousands who are killed or maimed by the handgun each year, how much more motivation do we need?"

If, as Joan Peterson claims:

"Things have changed since that time. You won't find Josh Sugarman saying that today. The Brady Campaign is not saying it. The Supreme Court has assured you all that you have your guns for self defense and hunting. People change. Times change. Things change."

Then why is this study still on the violence Policy Center website? Is that just an oversight, or is a handgun ban still a policy goal of the VPC? This article seems to indicate that the VPC still supports a handgun ban:

“Their efforts at reaching out to minorities and women have failed,” said Rand, whose group advocates banning all handguns and some rifles but believes sporting rifles and shotguns should remain legal. “The industry constantly has to look for a way to make a guy who already owns 15 guns buy a new one.”

Joan Peterson does have a point. Much has changed since 2000. Support for increased gun control has declined 22% since 2000, and the Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment to protect the individual right, making this statement in the study hollow:

"An objection continually raised to gun control is that the Second Amendment to the Constitution somehow forbids it. This is pure myth. No gun control law has ever been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on Second Amendment grounds."

What has not changed is the philosophical approach of the VPC, The Brady Campaign, and Joan Peterson: to control gun crime it is necessary to control guns. I believe this to be wrong headed, even hilariously idiotic. To control gun crime it is necessary to control criminals.

License To Carry Statistics

2011-10-01T07:29:00.000-07:00

This site is new to me, and I found it useful in this post, so I am adding to the Get The Facts section of the blog. I really wish they had it in a table format, however.

In general, I have found that the hardest thing about blogging about gun-rights issues is finding statistical information about various aspects of firearms ownership and usage. I have found some interesting things that give some data, and I will be blogging on those soon.

Violence Policy Center Admits Most Gun Control Laws Don't Work

2011-09-30T16:22:00.000-07:00

I came across this page on the Violence Policy Center web site and was surpised to read the following:

"Whether at the local, state or federal level, the principal flaw that hasplagued legislative efforts has been an almost exclusive focus on over-the-countersales standards and a mistaken belief that it's possible to separate "good" handguns (those in our hands for self-defense) from "bad" handguns (those in the handsof criminals). Yet as noted earlier, most gun deaths are not crime related. And asthe NRA correctly notes, criminals will be the last to obey any gun-control law.

The limitations of such an approach are illustrated by the recently enactedBrady bill. Waiting periods create a cooling-off period between the time a customerbuys a gun and the time it may be possessed. In theory, this delay helps stopcrimes of passion, and although anecdotal evidence suggests this happensoccasionally, most suicides and shootings between friends and family occur withweapons already available.

In theory, background checks increase the chance of identifying those in proscribed categories who attempt to purchase firearms through legal channels. Such laws define the proscribed group as those with a prior felony conviction ordeemed mentally unfit, yet such individuals rarely even attempt to buy gunspersonally from retail outlets.

A second conceptual flaw is the implicit assumption that anyone without afelony record is by definition "law-abiding." Under such systems individuals witharrest records and convictions for serious crimes are able to acquire guns legallybecause they have never been convicted of a felony. Patrick Purdy, the Stocktonschoolyard killer, had a nine-year criminal history replete with weapons violationsbut could legally purchase a handgun under California law.

Recently, in the wake of the Brady bill's passage, attention has focused onthe licensing of handgun owners. Licensing does offer some benefits: Theinformation is useful in tracing weapons; identification of those in proscribedcategories attempting to purchase firearms through legal channels is increased; andthe application process itself may discourage sales to casual buyers. Thelimitations of licensing are that such systems are expensive to administer; it wouldhave little effect on most gun violence, such as suicide or shootings betweenpeople who know each other; and anyone in a proscribed category desiring a guncould easily find one in the alternative, nonretail marketplace.

And although the most common argument heard in favor of licensing is "Welicense cars, why not license handguns?" public-health experts note that thelicensing of cars had little effect on the death rate associated with autos. It wasnot until changes were made to the product itself--such as seat belts, air bags andimproved structural design--that the number of deaths began to decline."

Wow. Let me summarize this:

No such thing as a "good" or a "bad" handgun. Assigning moral values to objects is a mistake.
Waiting periods do not perform their intended task.
Prohibited persons rarely make gun purchases from retail dealers, so background checks are useless.
People with arrest records and violent misdemeanors should be prohibited from purchasing.
Licensing schemes will not have a large effect on firearms violence.
Only changes to the dangerous product itself can have an effect on the resultant violence.

Points 1, 2, 3, and 5 seem to show that VPC as of 1998, the copyright date of this document, have given up on the staples of gun control: licensing, and other purchase limitations. Points 4, and 6 seem to telegraph what has happened since that time: more and more misdemeanor violent convictions result in prohibited status of individuals, and we have seen increasing ploys to dictate changes in gun manufacture, such as owner authorized handgun technology, micro-stamping, and ammunition serialization.

We also see the same old trend in the gun control side: the idea that controlling an object will have an effect on the actions of people: gun violence. They do not seem to understand that if guns disappeared, gun violence would simply be converted into "knife violence", or "fist violence" or "bludgeon violence".

We have more guns, handgun and long guns, in this country than ever, but violent crime has been dropping every year. If VPC's logic was correct, we should be seeing an epidemic of gun violence, but despite the preaching of Joan Peterson, this is not happening.

What is VPC trying to eliminate now? Public carry of firearms by law abiding citizens. They have clumsily telegraphed their intentions, but we need to stay vigilant. I think that the gun-rights community is on the offensive, and the sheer numbers of us will be telling in any election. If I take the VPC claim that the 160 persons are actually valid carry permit holders convicted of gun crimes, then that means 6,140,646 carry permit holders have not committed any crimes.

That kind of makes the Violence Policy Center look pretty pathetic, doesn't it?

Joan Peterson Gets One Right

2011-09-29T12:07:00.000-07:00

I have to admit, that when she's right, she's right:

"It's simple, or maybe not so simple. Things are not always as simple as the NRA and its minions would have us believe. What the gun guys really want is to quash the intent of May Issue states and open up the possibility of residents in those states suing for equal protection by saying “If they get to, why not us?” See the Indiana case mentioned in my previous post. This bill is part of a legal strategy to overturn all permitting processes in the states. The fact that some states have no permitting requirements at all provides them with an excuse to sue under the "equal protection" clause in the constitution - a favorite strategy of the NRA. That way, they get what they really want through the courts. Unfortunately for them, they don't win many of these challenges. So May Issue states would be California, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland and Hawaii. The permit holders in other states would just love to carry their guns into these states but they can't now. Thus we have H.R. 822. H.R. 822 will also allow concealed carry permit holders to carry in any state with a licensing system. In other words, all states except Illinois."

Yes, that is pretty much the strategy, but she does go on to mislead things a bit:

"So one could assume that all the dangerous people in Florida who can get permits there can carry wherever they want. "

"all those dangerous people" are still required to go through a background check, submit fingerprints, and a photograph, attend a training course, and the Florida permit is accepted in 30 states, so it must be a pretty good system, at least as good as in the 30 states that extend reciprocity.

The real problem with may-issue states is that issuing authorities, at least in urban California, interpret this to mean "no-issue", except to privileged people. In this way Illinois is actually more fair than California: they are at least when they deny a right they deny it to everyone. H.R. 822 is indeed a political tactic, because the goal of the gun-rights movement is to ensure that law-abiding citizens who wish to carry arms in public for self-defense have the ability to do so.

H.R. 822 is perhaps premature, since the courts have not yet confirmed carry as a right covered by the 2nd Amendment, but once that right is affirmed, H.R. 822 will be ripe for implementation. H.R. 822 really scares Joan and people like her. They are losing, and they know it. Their ability to limit gun-rights is slipping away day by day, and passage of H.R. 822 would be a significant defeat for them. And once it is demonstrated that carry license holders do not cause problems in the states they visit, the Joan Peterson's will lose that much more or their dwindling credibility.

This is Why People Like Joan Peterson Are Not the Majority

2011-09-28T13:38:00.000-07:00

Joan Peterson, and people like her, claim that the majority of Americans want reasonable gun laws, and that the NRA is the sole obstacle to that aim. Of course, laws establishing shall-issue carry permit systems are not reasonable. Nor is the desire of many people to carry arms for self defense. People "strutting" around in public frightens Joan and people like her, so they want to stop it.

Pesky NRA!

The NRA is powerful because millions of people think that the laws advocated by the NRA, and the Second Amendment Foundation, the Calguns Foundation, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, among others, are the truly reasonable ones.

Well, here is something else that I am sure will frighten Joan Peterson: Chicks with Guns, by Lindsay McCrum, which is discussed in this MSNBC article. From the article:

“I learned two main lessons while working on this book,” said McCrum, who divides her time between New York City and California when she isn’t traveling for work. “One is that on the subject of guns, nobody is neutral. And the other is that when you get outside of the blue-state cities, everybody has a gun.”

The 4 million dues-paying members of the NRA are only the tip of the iceberg. The rest of it is the millions of non-member gun owners, many of them like the women portrayed in Chicks with Guns, who are none the less supporters of all of these unreasonable gun laws. This large silent majority is the reason why Joan Peterson and her ilk are losing the gun control debate politically.

Explosive Gunwalker Development

2011-09-25T15:06:00.000-07:00

As reported at the Sipsey Street Irregulars, U.S. government funds were by ATF agents used to purchase firearms which were then "walked" to cartel smugglers.

If this does not open up the scandal, I don't know what would. This is a clear violation of ITAR regulations, unless the ATF received clearance from the U.S. State Department. So now the question to as might be "Did the ATF request or receive export authorization from the State Department?"

Joan Peterson's Positions

2011-09-25T08:21:00.000-07:00

I have been reading JoanPeterson's blog CommonGunsense for a few months, and like many pro-rights people I havewondered where she stands on particular issues. Othershave tried to explain what Joan believes, as well. This issometimes hard to discern from her rather preachy articles, but herreplies to comments are often very illuminating. I have tomention that she is quite articulate in her beliefs, and despite thecomments of people on her blog, has been consistent anduncompromising. In the following paragraphs I paraphrase herpositions as I have come to understand them from reading her blog,and then include my comments. Let us begin:

Joan Peterson supports a ban on standard capacity magazines, and wants to limit magazine capacity.
Joan Peterson supports restriction of firearms ownership rights of felons and mentally ill.
Joan Peterson supports a ban on certain types of assault weapon, particularly the AK-47, the weapon in question in this URL.
She seems to support a ban on new purchases, with non-transferable ownership right for owners of newly banned weapons upon a new law going into effect.

These positions aresupported by thispost:

"Moreimportantly here is that we should be restricing high capacitymagazines and we should also restrict access to guns for people likethis in any and all ways we can. We should also reconsider a ban oncertain types of assault weapons. It would take a while to get themoff the streets, but eventually, we may be able to have some sanityin our country regarding guns."

I fully support pointnumber 2, and it is the law today that felons and mentally illindividuals cannot buy firearms. But with so many firearms incirculation, and private party sales not requiring background checks,prohibited people can still legitimately purchase firearms.

Joan Peterson believes that more guns necessarily result in more guns deaths.
Joan Peterson believes that guns should be properly and safely secured against theft and accidental use.
Joan Peterson does not believe that a gun ban is legally possible.
Joan Peterson believes that gun confiscation was never an option.

These positions aresupported by thispost, emphasis added:

"Ibelieve that more guns = more gun deaths. That is my personalbelief and that of a lot of folks who work to prevent gun violence.We want guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. Wewant those of you who have them to make sure they are safe andstrored so they are not stolen which is where most of the crime gunscome from. Our belief does not translate into what is a possible orprobable action. Banning guns is off the table after the 2 SupremeCourt rulings. Confiscating guns was never on the table. Life iswhat it is. There are a lot of guns out there- too many in myestimation. I know I can't do much about that except to raiseawareness and get you guys to admit that there a few simple andcommon sense things we can do together to stem the tide of gunviolence. You guys know perfectly well what I propose and you keepasking as if I have never answered the question. I call thatharassment. It won't work. Ask me something you don't know the answerto and maybe you will get an answer. But please do not keep askingwhat I propose and please do not keep saying I want your guns. Thatis folly on your part. It is a useless line of argument anddiscussion."

And by thispost, emphasis added:

"Keepobserving as I know you will. Youwill not see me suggesting a national plan to disarm citizens.Again- take it easy out there. Your life will be a lot lessstressful. "

I do not believe thatpoint 1 is true, but I would be hard pressed to find definitivestatistics to prove it. No responsible gun owner could possibledisagree with point 2, in my opinion, if for no other reason thanguns are valuable property. Point 3 assures us that JoanPeterson understands the legal reality in the post-HellerUnited States, no matter what her personal feelings on the matterare, but I'd bet she thinks that a renewed Assault Weapon Ban wouldbe constitutional. I think there is a solid argument to thecontrary, but that issue will only be taken up if such a law ispassed. On point 4, however, that might have been true for the peopleJoan Peterson knows in the anti-rights community, butit is not true of all:

Feinsteinsaid on CBS-TV's 60Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votesin the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking upevery one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em allin, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren'there."[22]

So Joan Peterson isincorrect claiming that gun confiscation was never an objective ofthe anti-gun political community. They simply lost thatargument years ago.

Joan Peterson wants to limit guns that allowed to be used in self defense, and believes that she and her allied organizations are best suited to determine those limits.
Joan Peterson does not understand "gun culture", and is frightened by people who live within the gun culture.

These points are supported by thispost, emphasis added:

"I was,and still am, in favor of banning certain types of assault weaponssimilar to those banned in the previous AWB. When you guys talk aboutbanning guns, you appear to be saying that we would ban ALL guns. I'msure you know that is not true. My desire to have zero gun deaths isan aspirational goal. One must have goals. My goal is not to ban allof your guns. Someguns, to me and those with whom I work, are guns that should not beavailable to the average citizen. They were not meant to be used forhunting or self defense.Those are the ones we think should not be in the market place. Butgiven that that is unlikely to happen, if you MUST have those gunsbecause you perceive them to be necessary for whatever reason thatwould be, having fewer rounds to shoot from them is only sensible.You just plaindo not need to shoot off a lot of rounds for self defense. Onthe face of it, it makes no sense to most people. Many who are gunowners are hunters who only own hunting guns and they are notinterested in the least in the type of military style weapons some ofyou collect or claim to need. These folks would never consider largecapacity magazines. It is a minority of you who feel this way. Gunowners are a diverse group. Many of them happen to agree with me andthat has been shown in most polling over many years so it is not aone time response. So,I do want to ban magazines of greater than 10 or 11 rounds. That istrue. I support the McCarthy bill. Youknew that, though. I have never said I would try to ban guns otherthan those that I have mentioned above. It will never happen plainand simply. Even if I did believe that, it would just never happen,so why try? I don't like all of the guns out there and don't findthem to be necessary personally except for hunting and some for selfdefense. I'm just not into guns like you guys are. Welive in 2 distinct cultures. We are trying to understand this but itsure is difficult, right? I see the enthusiasm at gun shows. I seeall the people who like to look at and buy guns there. That is just aculture so foreign to me that it makes me uncomfortable.Truly, I do not know anyone who feels as you guys do and I know a lotof people from many walks of life. I know a lot of gun owners, by theway, and I have written their views. They represent the views of themajority of gun owners."

I think Joan Peterson's desire to limit the defensivecapabilities of firearms allowed to citizens stems from her fear ofthe "gun guys". It is natural to fear what one doesnot understand, as it is to mistrust those whom you fear. Butexcuse me, I will not acquiesce to limits on my self defense weaponchoices based on Joan Peterson's fears, and the actions of felons whocan't be trusted outside of prison, let alone in possession offirearms.

I will agree that in society that some kind of compromise must bemade. Here is my suggestion: Non-law enforcement citizensshould be allowed to possess and carry in public any weapon a lawenforcement officer is allowed to carry, and law enforcement officersshould be limited to weapons that citizens are allowed to possess.

Police are not the military, and I am disturbed by theapparent militarization of police agencies and the increasing use oftactical squads to serve no-knock warrants in circumstances that donot seem to justify such force. Police are not a special classof individuals in society: they are citizens with special duties andresponsibilities, but the citizen is, or should be, sovereign.

Joan Peterson thinks that public schools should have no role in teaching about firearm safety.

This point is supported by thispost, emphasis added:

"Youguys have talked about this before. It's just not going to happen. Asyou know, our schools are having lots of budget cuts and teachershave a heck of time getting in the required subject matter as it is.To think a teacher would now teach gun safety is a non starter.I think you all should abandon that idea since it just isn't going tohappen. Not to mention that people like me would show up at SchoolBoard meetings and lobby heavily against it. And I would get alot of people to that meeting. Since I used to be on the SchoolBoard, I know how those things work."

But schools are used toteach about safety all the time, especially driving safety, but Iguess automobiles are non-threatening enough to not scare folks. Granted, her point about teacher work loads and budget cuts arespot-on, but I think it is telling that she could muster a LOT ofopposition from parents opposing firearms safety training becausemost parents are ignorant, and therefore fearful, about guns.

However, this is anissue that is being discussed in some school districts in the U.S. Virginiahas passed legislation that requires the state board of educationto design course materials to teach firearm safety in elementaryschools. Arizona has designeda high school course that actually requires students to fire oneshot safely at a target. This law was signed by then-GovernorJanet Napolitano, currently the the Secretary of the Department ofHomeland Security in the Obama Administration. Ironic.

Joan Peterson is most definitely against carrying guns in public for self defense.
Joan Peterson opposes shall-issue carry permit laws.

This postsupports the previous point, emphasis added:

“This is theproblem with many of our state's permit to carry laws. There was areason that permits used to be "may issue". Sheriffs andlocal Police Chiefs understood that there were some people in theircommunities who would put themselves or others at risks if they wereallowed to get a permit to carry or purchase. They screenedapplicants more carefully and had the good judgement to deny somefolks permits. Nowmost states have "shall issue" permit laws making it moredifficult to deny permits. ”

Andthispost:

"Yes,indeed, to err is human. We try as a society to make sure thoseerrors don't result in death. We can't stop them all but we sureshould try. But when more deadly weapons are owned and carried bygun owners, making an error can result in tragedy. That is why thereshouldn't be so many guns in so many public places where errors canhappen. "

This is practically thetheme of Joan's blog, every article, and every comment she writes. She knows that she cannot do anything about guns in private homes,but she does not believe that guns in public have any social utility.

I will grant herone point, however. She posts many examples of people actingstupidly with firearms, with deadly results. To me, this is agood argument for training, perhaps government mandated training, butthat is a thorny constitutional issue still to be worked out. And Ican cite just as many casesof firearmsused successfully in self defense as Joan can cite of firearmsstupidly mishandled.

But that is not reallyher argument. She is adamant that her goal is to reduce gundeaths, and obviously eliminating guns from some aspect of society,guns deaths would be eliminated. No guns, no gun deaths. So any citationof the manystudiesthat have been publishedenumeratingthe social utility offirearmsfallsof deaf ears.

And she overlooks, oragrees with, the abuse “may-issue” permit laws perpetrated by lawenforcement agencies that deny all people carry permits, except thosethat are somehow “special”, like well connected celebrities,businessmen, and “friends of the sheriff” who have recently madelarge campaign contributions. These practices, rampant in urbanCalifornia, make a mockery of “screened applicants” and “goodjudgement”. Hence the nationwide wave of shall-issue carry permitlaws, taking the power of discretion away from the authorities whoabused the trust or the citizens.

Joan Peterson makes no distinction between acts of violence and the object used to commit the act.
Joan Peterson is not really interested in thoughtful discussion of 2^nd Amendment rights.

This point is supported thispost, emphasis added:

"Good foryou, Paul. Knives and guns do actually kill people- the wounds from aknife and the injuries from the bullets coming from the gun kill. Iknow because 3 bullets killed my sister. It's a matter ofsemantics but it makes absolutely no difference to the outcomewhether or not a gun or the person with the gun killed someone.To me it didn't matter. I just knew that a gun took my sister'slife."

This is Joan's ultimate motivation. All of her positions stemfrom the murder of her sister, and this also explains her absolutelyuncompromising stand on her beliefs. It should be no surprise thatshe ultimately wrotethis:

“Aftercareful thought and reflection about the direction my blog has takensince I asked questions and got answers from the "gun guys",I have changed the purpose of my blog. As stated in my last post, Ihave found that most of the comments were just not getting the twosides of this volatile issue to a place where a thoughtful discussioncould take place. Though the title of my blog indicates that Iwould like to have a discussion, I am not sure that is possible “

which displays her fundamental ignorance and intolerance. JoanPeterson is not really interested in “thoughtful discussion” whenthat discussion does not agree with her views. She cannot get overher sisters death, will not compromise her view that the availabilityof guns in public should be curtailed, and can be no more swayed bythe counter arguments of those who post on her blog then we can be byher articles. The disagreement is one of fundamental world views,and cannot be bridged.

Joan Peterson sometimes writes really stupid stuff.

This point is supported by thispost, emphasis added:

"The"bust" pictures? Hand grenades and RPGs are sold at gunshows all over the country. They could be sold by private sellerswho may or may not require background checks. "

which sounds as if she is claiming that military grade weapons areroutinely sold a gun shows, but then she adds this:

"It lookslike some hand grenades are for sale on-line:http://www.shopping.com/hand%20grenades/products~NS-1~linkin_id-8013490~cid-59079801511"

Her readers jump all over that, of course, causing her tobackpedal a bit:

"Thanksfor all of your comments about grenades, most of which are notpublished here. I am aware that the grenades sold on-line orsometimes at gun shows, which they have been, are the casings withoutthe explosives needed to make them a dangerous weapon. "hegrenade casings or shells when they are configured into an inertformat are not illegal to possess or to be sold. They become anillegal dangerous weapon when they are reconfigured to make themactive or when a suspect purports as a form of intimidation that thedevice will explode or purports for sell that the device can explodeor fragment." from: http://www.azdps.gov/Media/News/View/?p=135.So the problem with having these type of "grenades"available is that they could be made into devices that can explodeand cause serious damage. One wonders why the casings are even forsale anywhere. "

So, they are not real grenades after all, but that really does notmatter. Joan does not like them, they make her scared, so theyshould be banned. Gosh, maybe she will go after lengths of pipenext?

While I continue toread Common Gunsense, Ido so less often, and I have stopped posting comments to herarticles. I feel that I thoroughly understand her positions and Ibelieve that she is not really interested in what the pro-rightscommunity has to say. She is only interested in preaching to us,while those that still post comments are trying to convince her thatshe is utterly wrong. A pointless exercise for the reasons I listabove. The “debate” on Common Gunsense is at an impasse, and hasbeen for a long time, so reading the site has become quite tiresome.

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

Updated: 9/26/2011

Comment from this post:

"I believe there is a difference between someone carrying a loaded gun on their hip in a public place and a group of unarmed people rallying."

In other words Joan Peterson does not believe that the 2nd Amendment protects a civil right to be armed in public. As a strict matter of constitutional law, she is right at this time, but I am optimistic that the Supreme Court will find in favor or carry some time on the next couple of years.

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

Updates: 9/27/2011

Comment from this post:

"You guys don't care about anything except your selfish desire to carry your toys with you wherever you go. It's the law. The public doesn't even know what's in that law and would find it disconcerting to see you walking around with your holstered gun as you love to do. Just like the public at the zoo in Indiana. And when the legislators who voted in favor of the bill realized what it meant, they started to change their minds. But keep carrying your guns, Bryan. I'm sure everyone will think it's just wonderful to see a guy with a loaded holstered gun strutting around in their communities. It's a great sight- so friendly and peaceful."

This post says it all: the desire to be armed for self defense is "selfish", and we are demeaned as childish for wanting our "toys" where ever we go. And of course the public must have been somehow hoodwinked into voting in favor of permissive carry laws because there is just no common sense in the idea of carrying firearms in public. And what Joan is really objecting to about the Indiana incident is the new state law preempting local gun ordinances. The individual in question was not breaking any law, but just making zoo patrons, and Joan, uncomfortable. To Joan, we are not citizens exercising rights, we are "strutting" around, purposely creating a disturbance.

Media Still Wrong About Fast & Furious

2011-09-24T06:00:00.000-07:00

This Newsday story still gets it wrong about Operation Fast & Furious:

Fast and Furious was designed to track guns that "straw buyers" purchased in Phoenix area shops in 2009. The goal was to trace the guns and make cases against traffickers supplying firepower to deadly drug cartels in Mexico. But agents quickly lost track of the weapons and many turned up at crime scenes, including the December shootout in Arizona where border agent Terry died.

Wrong. Fast & Furious was designed to boost the number of weapons confiscated in Mexico that were traceable to U.S. retail firearms dealers, which would then be used as a pretext to adopt stricter gun control laws, especially the reintroduction of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.

Fast & Furious was not a "bungled investigation", but rather a covert political operation designed to subvert the 2nd Amendment.

Armed Self Defense

2011-09-23T09:23:00.000-07:00

Taking inspiration from the NRA Armed Citizen column, and The Armed Citizen web site, which is unfortunately no longer updated, I have started a page of links to news articles describing incidents where armed citizens have successfully defended themselves with firearms in public places. This page can be accessed here.

This is an attempt to show that despite the insistent denials of some people, ordinary poeple use firearms to defend themselves every day.

I invite all of my readers, and I know that there must be more than the five followers, to report incidents like these so I can include them on my page.

Ralph Nader Forming a Cicular Firing Squad

2011-09-23T06:00:00.001-07:00

As reported in this article, Ralph Nader is beginning to search for a primary challenger to President Obama. While I happen to agree that the President is facing an uphill battle to re-election, nothing would guarantee a Democratic defeat, no matter who the Republican nominee might be, so much as a slit amongst Democrats.

If one does not want a President Bachmann, and I don't, then Democrats must stand united. Even if they are defeated, Democrats could do our country a great service by running a hard campaign that forces the Republicans to moderate their choice of candidate.

Of course, if the economy, especially unemployment gets worse, Obama is toast no matter who runs against him.

Give The Black President A Pass

2011-09-23T06:00:00.000-07:00

Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver said Sunday:

"If [former President] Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House. There is a less-volatile reaction in the CBC because nobody wants to do anything that would empower the people who hate the president."

So, because Obama is black, he gets a pass on policies that have been nothing short than disastrous to blacks in America. Maxine Waters should divert some of the anger she feels toward the Tea Party to her own party leadership.

The more I hear from black politicians, the more I am convinced that they are a bunch of stooges who are relentlessly exploited by the Democratic Party, which has become a party of Wall Street and Ivy League elites, much like the Republican Party, who have no interest in solving the problems that blacks face in this country. Democrats like having blacks, other minorities, and the poor helpless and dependent on Democratic politicians.

I believe that the CBC would do well to realize that blacks are on their own, and act to bolster their fellows themselves. The government handouts and hands-up are not coming anytime soon.

Brady Campaign Quote on AB 144

2011-09-22T06:00:00.000-07:00

The following quote appeared in this article that ran in the Los Angeles Times:

Gun control advocates hope that California will now pave the way for the rest of the country to outlaw the practice.

"Openly carrying a gun with [an ammunition] magazine in your back pocket into Starbucks and other establishments creates a culture of fear and intimidation,'' said Brian Malte, director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "It is irresponsible and dangerous.''

"People in other states look to see what California does,'' he said. If Brown signs the bill, "other states will follow suit.''

People in other states look at what California does, and them they laugh their asses off.

The Brady Campaign comment is really a combination of disinformation and hopeful speculation. Open carry of loaded weapons is legal in all but 9 states, and is unlikely to change soon, as many states allow concealed carry with a license. California, in effect, has already banned open carry because carry of loaded weapons has been illegal in incorporated areas for about thirty years.

But AB 144 is not trivial legislation. It is in fact very important that this bill be defeated. The goal of the gun-rights community is to normalize the carry of weapons in public by law-abiding citizens, a goal that I completely support. AB 144 is an attempt to further marginalize that practice, so defeating it is important.

The Brady Campaign, LCAV, GVPC, and other anti-rights groups realize this, and they realize that carry is the current battleground. They also realize that carry is the last line: if they loose this, then gun control as a political issue will be dead. That is why AB 144 is so important to Anthony Portantino and other anit-gun activists. This is their last stand.

Fast & Furious Coverup

2011-09-21T06:21:00.000-07:00

Today, in Human Events, John Hayward wonders why the media is not even asking questions about the Fast & Furious investigation:

As Heritage Foundation communications director Rory Cooper noted via Twitter this morning: “Media hasn’t asked White House about Fast and Furious since JULY 5. Not in one briefing. I have questions, do you?” That was 77 days ago. The L.A. Times and CBS News are virtually alone in providing comprehensive mainstream-media coverage of the “Gun Walker” outrage. At what point does the remarkable media ignorance of this historic scandal become impossible to regard as anything less than willing co-operation in the cover-up?

It seems obvious to me that in an era when news of a presidential candidate's affair and illegitimate child was broken by the National Enquirer, that at least some of the media is in the tank for liberals.

H.R. 822 - Where Do I Stand?

2011-09-21T06:00:00.000-07:00

H.R. 822 was recently debated in a House subcommittee, and this begs the question of where do I stand on this issue?

While nobody who regularly reads Left Coast Conservative will be surprised to learn that I support this bill and hope for it to become law, I want to express why it is good law.

The entire issue of carrying weapons in public is ripe for the next level of regulation. Regulation? I can hear you all cry "How can my rights be regulated?". Many may not like it, but the fact is that the courts have long held that the exercise of rights are subject to time, place, and, manner restrictions. Hence, carry licenses are not unconstitutional, not are the objective requirements to obtain one, as long as the issuance is fairly administered.

49 states have some form of carry licensing, or allow carry without a license. With more and more citizens licensed to carry weapons, carry in states other than the state of residence becomes an issue. Many states have reciprocity agreements with other states, allowing licensed citizens to carry in other states, subject to the laws of that state. Unfortunately, state laws concerning carry are not uniform, so there is a burden on the citizen to be aware of the differences in the laws between the state of residence, and state where they are carrying at any time.

H.R. 822 provides the first step to uniformity in national carry laws, requiring reciprocity between all states that issue licenses. If adopted, and shown to be without problems, future enhancements might address uniform objective minimum requirements for carry licenses, or places where carry is prohibited, or procedures for businesses to prohibit carry on their premises. I firmly believe, that uniformity of the law can only benefit the law abiding citizen, and for this reason I support this bill.

Citizens and politicians in carry-hostile states like California may react in horror at the thought of visitors carrying weapons on our streets. I would suggest to these people that they are behind the times. Carry is the front-line issue in the gun right community, and there are many smart people working through the court system to make carry in public a recognized fundamental right. And there is a good chance that they will succeed. If successful, then the California system of may-issue licensing will be abolished, forcing our state legislature to confront the issue. Why not use the passage of H.R 822 to get in front of the issue, and provide California citizens the same privileges enjoyed by citizens of other states?

I am sure that such optimism about our dysfunctional legislature is completely misplaced as we wait for Governor Brown to either sign of veto AB 144, a bill that would ban public carry of unloaded firearms.

Nationwide carry is going to be a reality one day. We need to start a national debate about uniform laws dealing with carry in public, allowing all citizens to understand the legal requirements that they must abide. The sooner we start, the better off all citizens will be.

Baltimore Mayoral Candidate Proposes Bullet Tax: Stupid is As Stupid Does

2011-09-20T09:27:00.000-07:00

As reported in this story, Baltimore, MD mayoral candidate Otis Rolley proposed a $1 per round "bullet tax", that he claims would have the following effects:

"While the courts have consistently ruled against significant gun control legislation, there is still a way to decrease crime: substantially increase the cost of its commission," Rolley's plan states."

As if there is not already a criminal black market trafficking in highly dangerous and illegal commodity already in Baltimore. Fortunately for lawful gun owners in Baltimore, the Democratic incumbent won the primary election.

Testimony of David Kopel - H.R. 822

2011-09-20T06:00:00.000-07:00

David Kopel, contributor to the Volokh Conspiracy, testified before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security in favor of H.R. 822. His written statement can be read here, and has been added to my Get the Fact section.

Chicago Tribune Delivers a Slap to President Obama

2011-09-19T11:20:00.000-07:00

When your hometown newspaper urges you to not run for re-election, it is a pretty hard slap in the face. Is President Obama even losing "favorite son" status in Chicago? Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman calls for the President to step aside in favor of of Hillary Clinton:

Besides avoiding this indignity, Obama might do his party a big favor. In hard times, voters have a powerful urge to punish incumbents. He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket.

The ideal candidate would be a figure of stature and ability who can't be blamed for the economy. That person should not be a member of Congress, since it has an even lower approval rating than the president's.

It would also help to be conspicuously associated with prosperity. Given Obama's reputation for being too quick to compromise, a reputation for toughness would be an asset.

As it happens, there is someone at hand who fits this description: Hillary Clinton. Her husband presided over a boom, she's been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she's never been accused of being a pushover.

It won't happen, of course. Obama is too much of a narcissist to do something selfless for his Party or the nation.

Testimony of Joyce Lee Malcom in Favor of H.R.822

2011-09-18T06:00:00.000-07:00

This document contains the testimony of Joye Lee Malcolm, Professor at George Mason University school of law comparing the approaches to self defense of the United States and the United Kingdom.

This brief testimony compares two approaches to crime prevention and public safety, the American approach of permitting armed citizens to carry weapons for protection and the British approach of disarming subjects of guns and all other means of defense with the promise the state will protect them.

I have never read a better short summation of the reasons justifying laws allowing citizens to be armed in public than this.

This is a must read document.

600 bills, $12,000,000 and a part-time Legislature

2011-09-17T06:00:00.000-07:00

Inthis article, which I was reading because it mentioned AB 144,the Open Carry ban, one finds this little factoid:

“Many aren't worth the papertheir glowing news releases were printed on — and certainly notworth the $20,000 legislative cost, on average, that each bill ate upin processing. “

So, let's do the math, shall we? 600bills means that our frivolous legislature has wasted most of the$12,000,000 that has been spent on the pile of steaming BS that itsent to the Governor's desk.

This seems to be a pretty powerful justification for switching to a part-time legislature. It seems to work for a lot of other states.

When will we, the citizens, learnthat we get the government we deserve?

Urge Governor Brown to Veto AB 144, AB 809, and SB 427

2011-09-16T13:41:00.000-07:00

AB 144, AB 809, and SB 427 have all been passed by the state legislature and have gone to Governor Brown's office for his signature or veto. Please contact Governor Brown to urge that he veto these bills. Governor Brown's office may be contacted by:

Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 445-2841
Fax: (916) 558-3160

Here is the text of my fax:

Governor Brown,

As a citizen of this great state, and alawful firearm owner, I am asking you to veto the following billsthat will come before you for signature:

AB 144 - This is a piece of legislationin search of a problem. Carrying of unloaded firearms in publiccannot possible be a threat to the public at large because thefirearms are, by law, required to be unloaded, and subject toinspection by police officers. Banning a poor substitute for a realdefensive carry mode is simply bad law. A good law to adopt would bea shall-issue style CCW program similar to those adopted by otherstates in recent decades. Requiring citizens who wish to carry inpublic to do so concealed would allow citizens to protect themselvesand prevent alarming the general public.

AB 809 - Long gun registration will bean expensive program to adopt at a time when the state is in fiscalcrisis. In addition, experiences in Canada and New York state, andother places that have registration laws, have shown that firearmsregistration systems do not help police solve crimes. Laws should beeffective in accomplishing the goals used to justify them. AB 809would not be effective.

SB 427 - This is another attempt toregulate handgun ammunition, an attempt that was mooted by the courtswhen AB 962 was overturned at a very low level in Federal Court. SB427 is similarly bad law, certainly to attract a lawsuit, almostcertainly to be overturned or stayed by a permanent injunction. Onceagain, laws should be effective in their stated purposes, and SB 427is not, and thus worthy of a veto.

For the forgoing reasons, I urge you toveto AB 144, AB 809, and SB 427.

Nancy Pelosi: Limitless Mendacity

2011-08-04T13:03:00.000-07:00

USA Today has a new article written by Nancy Pelosi: "Pelosi: Unlike GOP, Democrats will focus on jobs". Pelosi writes:

The American people have made it clear: Our nation's top priority is job creation. No recovery can take place until we address kitchen table concerns of America's families: having a steady paycheck, being able to make ends meet, and helping our small businesses and entrepreneurs attract customers, grow, and hire.

Well, I could agree that the GOP has been pretty ineffectual when it comes to legislation that might favor job creation, but Pelosi was the Speaker of the House at a time when both houses of Congress, and the Presidency, was controlled by Democrats.

What did we get?

Stimulus that did not stimulate anything but the national debt, Obamacare which made business extremely cautious about hiring, and increased regulations that impose additional costs on business, and higher unemployment than the Democrats in power thought possible.

This article seems to be nothing more than a first attempt at damage control leading into the 2012 election year. And if the comments are at all typical, then the Democrats are in trouble. This one is especially telling:

Hey Nancy, talk to Rick Perry in Texas about jobs. He gets it.

Yes, let's all talk to Rick Perry in November, 2012.

"Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws

2011-08-04T12:46:00.000-07:00

I have added a new link to my "Get The Facts" section which leads to the article "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws". While an older article, published in 1994, it is worth re-reading to get an understanding of the scholarship performed and political issues that overcome in other states that have gone shall-issue as preparation for what we might face in California if certain court cases result in outcomes favorable for carry rights.

California, New York, and Illinois are the last great bastions of restrictive gun laws, but the trends are favorable. About the only thing that can thwart liberalized gun laws in these states would be the apathy of the citizen, or a few more Supreme Court appointments by President Obama,

We should all work to prevent both.

Global Warming Models Take Another Hit

2011-08-02T05:00:00.000-07:00

Anthropogenic Global Warming, otherwise known as the The Scam To Take Control of The Economy, takes another hit as this story reports data that blows another hole the the climate models used to predict the dire outcomes that await human kind.

My persistent objection to the global warming doom-criers is that they treat model predictions as if they were data! This is the exact opposite of the scientific method. All of these models are hypotheses of the climate system. Models should be used to make predictions of future trends, and then observations should be made to determine if these predictions are verified. If predictions are verified, then the hypotheses are deemed to be correct.

What is happening is that observations are being made that contradict the models, thus undermining the predictions made using the models. Our understanding of the climate is simply not great enough to make drastic changes in public policy.

Patrick Moore - A Realistic Environmentalist

2011-08-01T05:00:00.000-07:00

I stumbled over this video of Patrick Moore's remarks at the Environmental Policy Conference hosted by the Washington Policy Center.

While the audio cuts out at around the 34 minute mark, probably to spur DVD sales of Moore's presentation, what is included is nothing less than a breath of fresh air to this skeptic who has long regarded the modern environmental movement to be nothing more that a bunch of scientific illiterates trying the jam the cause du jour down the public throat.

He has a book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout, that is not in the San Jose Public library, but which I intend to obtain and read as soon as possible.

Shall-Issue CCW in California

2011-07-31T09:05:00.000-07:00

Do you ever wonder what would happen in California if this state adopted a shall-issue CCW permit system? Then all you have to do is read this article about the 10-year anniversary of Michigan's shall-issue permit law, how "blood in the streets" was predicted, and how the dire predictions failed to materialize.

Just as they have failed to materialize in every other state that has gone shall issue.

Some people believe that guns in a public setting are too dangerous to tolerate, but CCW permit holders are overwhelmingly law-abiding and safe. And guns have utility for self defense. As a Californian, I would sure like to have the choice to be armed as I go about my daily business.

But this state does not allow me to do that.

Norway, Active Shooters, and Common Gunsense

2011-07-30T16:27:00.000-07:00

Joan Peterson, in this post on her blog Common Gunsense covered the recent mass shooting incident in Norway. Her position in her post is very understandable given that Ms. Peterson has relatives in Norway, is consistent in her view that guns in public create more harm than good, and given the horrific tragedy perpetrated by Anders Behring Breivik.

In her blog, Ms. Peterson writes:

"Some of the chatter coming from the gun rights extremists pointed to lack of security on the island. If only, oh if only, someone on that island would have had a gun, things would have been different"

To which I replied:

Many, if not most police departments now agree that active shooters must be confronted with force as quickly as possible in order to end the attacks. We self-defense proponents think that an armed civilian could have provided that force. This chart of active shooter incidents bear out that some active shooters have indeed been stopped by armed civilians:

http://excalibersecurityservices.com/documents/100323_incident_analysis_spreadsheet.pdf

The presence of an armed civilian, or a off-duty police officer might not have prevented the tragedy in Norway, but could the presence of an armed civilian made it any worse?

I would like to explicate a bit on the data contained in the incident analysis located at the link above, and explore further how resistance to active shooter incidents can help resolve them and minimize loss of life.

First let me emphasize that I do not know if the incident analysis is comprehensive, but I am going to treat it as a representative sample of the incidents in the last thirty years and seek to answer this question: "Can victims of an active shooter attack resist effectively to stop the attack?"

Upon examination of the 50 listed incidents, one thing immediately falls out of the data: people finding themselves in such an attack are on their own: 64% of the attacks were ended when the shooter chose to stop. Victims of these attacks must use their own resources, or depend on luck, to survive in most cases.

In 18 cases people attempted to intervene to stop an attack, sometimes police, sometimes civilians, both armed and unarmed. These attempts were successful 83% of the time. One very surprising thing is that even unarmed civilians were successful 80% of the time. While that appears to be as effective as the armed police success rate, I believe that the armed police rate is artificially low: the one failure by the police to stop an attack occurred at Columbine High School, where police did not follow the modern active shooter protocols.

But, to get to the heart of the matter, do firearms make a difference in the results? Armed counterattacks were successful 87% of the time, on average. In addition, armed civilians were successful in their counterattacks 100% of the time. Armed police were successful only 80% of the time, but their rate would be 100% if not for the fact that older procedures were used at Columbine High School. This data shows that am armed civilian has a 20% better chance of stopping an attack than an unarmed civilian, and that the armed civilian is just as effective as the police.

Clearly, resisting an attack can have a major beneficial outcome, no matter who resists. So I have to modify my stance expressed on Common Gunsense. History shows that any kind of resistance by victims can be very successful, but armed resistance stops these attacks almost uniformly. Only two armed counterattacks, by the police I might add, failed to stop these attacks: the one at Columbine where police chose to contain the scene instead of engaging the shooters, and the one in Fayetteville, NC, where police shot and wounded the shooter, who then went on to kill more victims before police stopped him. Civilians have a 100% success rate stopping these attacks.

So yes, Ms. Peterson, I am now very confident in claiming that an armed person, either a police officer or a civilian, would have stopped the attack on Utoya and saved many lives.

If Today Is to Be the Day…So Be It.

2011-06-18T09:14:00.000-07:00

“If Today Is to Be the Day…So Be It”.

If you seek to do battle with me this day, you will receive the best that I am capable of giving.
It may not be enough, but it will be everything that I have to give and it will be impressive for I have constantly prepared myself for this day.
I have trained, drilled and rehearsed my actions so that I might have the best chance of defeating you.
I have kept myself in peak physical condition, schooled myself in the martial skills and have become proficient in the applications of combat tactics.
You may defeat me, but I’m willing to die if necessary. I do not fear death for I have been close enough to it on enough occasions that it no longer concerns me.
But, I do fear the loss of my honor and would rather die fighting than to have it said that I was without courage.
So I will fight you, no matter how insurmountable it may seem, to the death if need be, in order that it may never be said of me that I was not a warrior.

-- Brian Terry

Rest In Peace.

Second Amendment - Not Outdated!

2011-05-30T13:19:00.000-07:00

I read this letter in the San Jose Mercury News:

Second Amendment is clearly outdated

I read the article on "A treasure chest of stolen weapons" (Page B1, May 27). Every day, without fail, someone gets fatally shot or severely injured from a shooting. The Second Amendment is about as outdated as anything that has to do with the pre-Revolutionary and Civil Wars in this country. Since we no longer need a militia (given the new Department of Homeland Security, which the president just renewed), can anyone in good conscience -- especially the police -- explain why we should not have stricter controls over who owns and uses weapons, and the type of weapons allowed? Surely there will be responses (again) that cars kill more people than guns. Does that justify the lax administration of deadly weapons, especially automatic, semi-automatic and Saturday night specials? Haven't we had enough of this?

Gus Holweger
San Jose

Outdated, huh? Tell that to people who really needed to be armed, and, thanks to the Second Amendment, had guns to protect themselves:

After the storm, the neighborhood association had to act as law enforcement and emergency response unit as city services collapsed and the police force was unable to protect them.

Citizens organized armed patrols and checked on the elderly. They slept on their porches with loaded shotguns and bolted awake when intruders stumbled on the aluminum cans they had scattered on the sidewalk.

Gunshots rang out for days, sometimes terrifyingly close.

After any major disaster, a flood, a fire, or an earthquake, some people will use the ensuing disorder to help themselves to your money, property, or valuables. And sometimes the police are not going to be there to help you, or anyone else. In New Orleans, some police joined the looters.

Law and order can break down, and if it does, do you have the means to protect yourself? If so, then thank the Second Amendment.

Newt Gingrich to Run for President

2011-05-10T14:52:00.000-07:00

BFD

Weapons On Campus: Disasterous Only for Anti-Gun Bigots

2011-05-10T14:25:00.000-07:00

The Texas state senate has passed a bill to allow citizens with CHL licenses to carry on public college campuses. This article in the UK newspaper The Guardian has this particular bit of silliness:

Democratic senator Judith Zaffirini, who was a student at the University of Texas in 1966 when sniper Charles Whitman killed 12 people and wounded dozens of others, argued against the bill. She predicted mass chaos if police responded to a call and found several people with guns drawn.

Perhaps Ms. Zaffirini was not on campus that day, because not only was the Whitman massacre perhaps the first campus mass killing, it was also one in which armed citizens, some of them students, assisted police by taking Whitman under fire while officers made their way up to Whitmans position and shot him dead, ending the attack.

Around 20 minutes later, once Whitman began facing return fire from the authorities and armed civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as gun ports, allowing him to continue shooting largely protected from the gunfire below but also greatly limiting his range of targets.

And we have this interesting report:

In the course of that 90 minutes, many of Austin’s citizens, including many Vietnam veterans, risked their lives in returning fire against Whitman or rushing onto campus to pull out victims. Many years now, on the anniversary of the massacre, the UT community pays homage to the heroes of that day.

And finally, we have the remembrances of an eyewitness to the events of that day. And guess what? There were guns on campus:

None of the professor’s offices were occupied except for one whose door was open. As I walked down the hall toward that office the sound of a large caliber rifle thundered from that open doorway followed by two men talking. After all the bizarre events of the last few minutes it didn’t seem strange to me when I peeked around the office doorway to see one professor shooting a deer rifle at the top of tower while the other fed him ammunition. It never entered my mind to question why an English professor would have his deer rifle in his office complete with boxes of ammunition. This was Texas after all. Guns were commonplace. From the office windows, we could see the top of the tower clearly. Small puffs of smoke were coming from the rifle of the sniper on the observation deck. The large glass faced clock above the observation deck was shattered from others shooting back at him. The professor ran through several boxes of shells before running out of rounds. My ears were ringing.

So, "mass chaos" has already happened, it happened on the UT campus on August 1, 1966, and the police did what police always do: exercise good judgement. No citizen was shot, injured or arrested by the police, except for Whitman. Indeed, citizen gunfire is credited with suppressing Whitman and limiting his ability to kill more people. Citizens also used good judgement, not shooting indiscriminately but making sure they had identified the correct target.

Why is there so much hysterical opposition to on-campus concealed carry? Perhaps the anti-gun Left is afraid that if the last sacred gun-free zone is lost, then what has happened elsewhere will happen there as well: nothing. No increase in violence or suicides. No people "snapping" and starting a shooting rampage. No police accidentally shooting students because they encounter one who is armed. And then it will be proved, once again, as it has been proved in every state that has implemented a shall-issue concealed carry permit law, that their arguments are completely false and without merit.

It's Monday...

2011-05-09T12:30:00.000-07:00

... so Joan Peterson has another one of her anti-gun screeds out on her blog. Here is what I posted in response:

If a "majority" of Americans agree with your view that guns should not be carried in public, why has not one single shall-issue law or constitutional carry law been repealed by the vote of this "majority"?

Also a survey of 600 individuals in five states hardly proves that a majority of American favor your views.

I once asked, on Common Gunsense, what additional gun policies and regulations Joan Peterson advocated, to state them clearly. She chided me,, saying that I already knew from reading her blog. Well, I didn't, but it did inspire me to read some of her old posts, and I can easily gather that Joan Peterson is very much against people carrying guns in public, that the spread of laws liberalizing firearm carry is a threat to public safety. Her entire article is about the proposed concealed carry law in Wisconsin that has a good chance of passing this year with a State Legislature and Governor both controlled by the Republican Party.

Thinking about her thesis, that more should be done to prevent people getting guns who should not have them, I really cannot disagree. But the Devil is in the details of just what she might propose. In a future post, I may finally do what I have been thinking of doing to a while: describe what I think would be the ideal gun regulation scheme. And note that I DO NOT think that there should no regulation at all, but I do think that citizens should be allowed, if they choose, to carry firearms during their daily, lawful, business.

Osama Bin Laden Dead!

2011-05-02T09:20:00.000-07:00

My first thought was "Burn in Hell, motherfucker!".

On reflection, I have some other thoughts.

First, stories coming out describing how we found this Bin Laden indicate that information obtained from interrogations of GitMo inmates was a critical starting point, particularly those of Kahlid Sheik Mohammad. It seems that President G.W. Bush is entirely vindicated in establishing this prison.

Second, Bin Laden was not hiding in some cave in the Hindu Kush Mountains, but living in a custom-built mansion withing easy driving distance of Islamabad, the capitol of Pakistan! I would hate to be the President of Pakistan on the phone to President Obama, explaining how the Pakistani government cannot control its own intelligence agency, the ISI.

Third, how many days will pass until Arab street protesters burn President Obama in effigy?

Joan Peterson Puling on Common Gunsense

2011-05-01T12:47:00.000-07:00

You can read her latest puling about the NRA here. Much of what she finds scary I actually agree with: citizens should be able to possess arms that are comparable to those carried by soldiers. If you are uncomfortable with people having fully automatic rifles, then semi-automatic should be allowed, but so-called assault weapons and magazines of greater than 10 round limits should actually be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

In a post to her article I asked Mrs. Peterson what specific policies she would promote to attain her aim of keeping guns out of the hands of people she believes should not have them. I bet she never approves my comment for publication.

Hey, Mrs. Peterson, if you're not afraid of debate, why not post here. I don't moderate at all. Anything you write will be allowed to appear. What are you afraid of?

Obama's War: D+27

2011-04-10T16:17:00.000-07:00

God help me, but if I ever hear of an Arab army not firing their weapons into the air, I'll go buy a lottery ticket:

By 4 p.m., a long rebel column of pickup trucks passed through the city’s main street, firing their weapons in the air in celebration.

If the Libyan rebel forces ever stop, it will mean that they have graduated from being a bush-league mob with AK-47 rifles and pickup-mounted weapons, and something like a real army. Hell, I have yet to hear of a single report of a Libyan rebel digging a fighting position. That is why these guys run from mortar and artillery fire.

Maybe digging is beneath their dignity.

Common Gunsense vs Uncommon Gunsense

2011-04-10T10:12:00.000-07:00

I have been reading Joan Peterson's blog Common Gunsense for a while, but I would like to note that there is a balance to her blog, Uncommon Gunsense. Please give it a read.

Common Gunsense Blog - I Just Had To Answer

2011-04-10T09:42:00.000-07:00

I have been reading Joan Peterson's blog Common Gunsense. To say I disagree with everything that she writes would be pretty accurate, but i continue to read because i want to try to understand the view of the anti-gun advocate. She is pretty fair about approving comments from those she disagrees with, so I had to reply to this post. Here is the text of my reply:

Joan,

This is a tired argument: violent video games cause violent crime because they de-sensitize kids to killing. Bunk.

It is almost as tired as your position: reducing the presence of guns in society will reduce the amount of violent crime. Also bunk, as can be shown by the fact that there are more guns owned by more people in the U.S. than at any other time, but the violent crime rate has been falling steadily for years.

More guns DO NOT CAUSE MORE CRIME!

Oh, well. I know I will never convince you with a logical argument, because you approach the issue from an emotional viewpoint: you simply hate guns, and you want to eliminate them from society.

That, ultimately, is your common sense gun law, in my opinion. You will never succeed.

Sometimes I wonder why I continue reading her blog when so much of it irritates me how someone can be so wrong headed about the issue, but I think it is best to always oppose that with which you disagree lest those views appear more true than they are by lack of challenge.

UPDATE: 4/11/2011

Joan Peterson still has not approved by comment. I am wondering if i have been banned.

100th Anniversery of the 1911 Pistol

2011-03-29T00:01:00.000-07:00

On this day in 1911 John M. Browning's famous pistol was adopted for service by the United States Army, becoming the M1911 pistol, making this the 100^th anniversary of that event. It remained the standard issue sidearm until 1985, and is still in use by Marine Force Recon and the 1^st Special Forces Operational Detachment – Delta (Delta Force) to this day. After 100 years of continuous production and use by civilian and military users, and despite the fact that more types of modern automatic pistols are available, the 1911 pistol is more popular than ever. Why is this the case?

Not being an expert handgun shooter, I cannot give a definitive answer based on my own experience, but I do have my opinions. The 1911 pistol is one half of a fine weapon system, the other half being the .45 ACP cartridge, the pistol existing solely to deliver .45 bullets onto the target. If one believes that big bullets making big holes is an advantage in a defensive handgun, then the .45 ACP is for you, and what better gun to use than the 1911? A proper grip being critical to reliable functioning of an automatic pistol, the 1911 grip is narrower than many modern pistols, allowing people with smaller hands, like me, to securely hold the gun. Being a single action pistol, the trigger pull is short, light, and crisp, although this can vary from model to model. Finally, while polymer frame pistol may be popular, the all steel “Government” model 1911 has enough weight to help the shooter control the recoil produced by the .45 ACP cartridge.

Historically, there are only two “American” handguns, and the other one is a Colt as well. To people like me who see value in using a historically superior firearm, then the 1911 pistol becomes the only semi-automatic pistol to use. There are many others who agree, including the Los Angeles Police Department S.W.A.T. And S.I.S. Units, the F.B.I. Hostage Recue Team and regional S.W.A.T. Teams, and the general shooting public, whose enthusiasm for the 1911 pistol has inspired ever more manufacturers to offer models of every price range and description. Here is a non-authoritative list of 191 pistol manufacturers:

Armscor/Rock Island
Auto-Ordnance
Les Bear
Ed Brown
Charles Daly
Colt
Firestorm/MetroArms
Ithaca Gun Company
Kimber
Nighthawk Custom
Norinco
Para-Ordnance
Remington
Rock River Arms
Sig Sauer
Smith & Wesson
Springfield Armory
STI
Taurus
Dan Wesson
Wilson Combat

A Look at The Past: 1911 Pistol

2011-03-23T05:00:00.000-07:00

Excerpts from an article that originally appeared in Arms and The Man on April 6, 1911, extol the recently adopted M1911 pistol and the Greatest Pistol in The World. Many people still do, and I thought it would be good to point out past history as we run up to the 100th anniversary of the adoption of the M1911 pistol by the United States army.

Model 1911A Pistol - State of the Art in 1911, Still Competitive Today

2011-03-22T05:00:00.000-07:00

All images on this post are sourced from the World of Guns.

In the year 1911 the United States Army adopted John Browning's .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol as the Model M1911 pistol its standard side arm. It was to serve well in that capacity until 1984, nearly three quarters of a century. Still very popular almost one hundred years later, I wondered what the state of the art in semi-automatic pistols was in or about the year 1911. Was Browning's design ahead of its time, or was it evolutionary?

With this in mind, I went searching for information on pistols that existed in 1911, or in the years immediately preceding or following. A most helpful site was the World of Guns. I have listed below the pistols from that site which were in service in the year 1911 with my opinion of the worth of the pistol. All images used in this post are used with the permission of the copyright owner.

Mauser 1910 Pistol 6.35mm (.25 ACP).

This pistol is one of the more modern looking of this roundup, and unlike many European pistols it uses a box magazine instead of a stripper clip. The caliber, however is too small for defensive uses. It was not unusual at the turn of the 20^th century for automatic pistol designs to start with smaller calibers and work up to larger ones. Even John Browning started out with .25 ACP, but European designs finally settled on the 9mm Luger round, while the .45 ACP ruled the U.S. Arms market for the next 50 years.

Roth Steyer Model 1907/M.7 pistol 8mm Roth.

As in America, Europeans introduced many new cartridge designs along with new pistols. This pistol is a striker-fired design that used a stripper clip to load the weapon. European designers seemed to prefer the stripper clip with early designs, but I think they were inferior for defensive use as they are easily damaged and might increase the chances of dirt and debris to foul the action. This pistol bears the distinction of being the first automatic pistol to be adopted by any military service, the Austro-Hungarian cavalry. Note the lanyard ring at the butt of the grip, something shared with the Colt 1911 pistol.

Steyer Hahn M1912 Pistol 9mm X 23 Steyer.
An evolution of the above model, this pistol was also loaded via a stripper clip. This boxy looking pistol is a step along the road to the modern semiautomatic pistol, but consider that the 1911 pistol was adopted the year before, and one can see that this was not an innovative design. Browning designs had been using the slide for over ten years.

FN Browning Model 1910, .32 ACP and .380 ACP
Compare the above pistol to this one: John Browning's Model 1910 pistol from FN Herstal. Introduced two years before the Styer Hahn, this pistol uses a box magazine and is clearly a development of the Browning pistol design philosophy: simple design and multiple safeties: grip safety, magazine disconnect, and thumb safety. Unlike many other pistols in this post, this one was also produced for quite a long time, until around 1983. Millions of these are still in use today.

Webley Scott Model 1910 Pistol (.38 ACP)
I may have never seen an uglier pistol, but it is one with modern mechanisms: box magazine, recoil operated, internal hammer, and, in this one model, a grip safety. Only used in WW I, it was declared obsolete and relegated to civilian and police use.

Frommer M1912 Stop pistol, 7.65x17 Browning / .32 ACP or 9x17 Browning Short / .380 ACP
It may look ugly, but it seems that this pistol was a decent design. Recoil operated, feed with box magazines, this gun was quite reliable and was used until the end of WW II. It did have complicated maintenance procedures, however, and like many European pistols, used an under powered cartridge.

Bergman Bayard Model 1910 pistol, 9mm Largo
This pistol seems to be a throwback, considering that FN had been producing modern Browning designs for ten years by the time, but unlike the Mouser C-96, this pistol uses either box magazines, or stripper clips to recharge the magazine. Only a limited success, it was used only by Denmark. I think all pistols of this basic design must be very unbalanced with the weight of the ammunition forward of the trigger guard.

Mauser C-96 pistol, 7.63x25mm Mauser (.30 Mauser); also 9x19mm Luger/Parabellum and 9x25mm Mauser (rare).
This pistol is included because I was in service in 1911, but it is definitely an obsolete design. The internal magazine was loaded by stripper clips, and the forward position of the magazine must have made this pistol unbalanced. While it was one of the first practical automatic pistols, it was only used by the German Army in WW I when P-08 Luger pistols could not be obtained.

Luger 'Parabellum' 7.65mm Luger/Para, 9x19mm Luger/Para
Here we have the only pistol in the round up that can give the M1911 a run for the money. Chambered in the credible 9mm X 19 Parabellum cartridge, the Luger is a thoroughly modern firearm. Lugers used a locked breech, recoil operated mechanism, and are striker fired and loaded using box magazines. First adopted in 1900, these served at least until the end of WW II. While ergonomic and accurate, they were subject to fouling and expensive to produce.

Campo Giro pistol, 1913
This gun is the predecessor to the Astra Model 400, but it does not save this gun from being one of the ugliest guns of this roundup. Given that it was introduced after the FM Model 1910, the Colt M1911, and the German P-08 Luger, it does seem to be an inferior pistol. While it used a box magazine, it was still a blowback operated pistol, which limits the maximum caliber for which the gun can be chambered. While accurate, it was difficult to disassemble.

Colt 1911, .45 ACP

Saving the best for last, compare this pistol to all other preceding it, and then realize that this pistol was designed in 1906, and that essentially the same pistol is still in use by civilians, police departments, and military organizations (including some U.S. Units), and one can see that this was an outstanding pistol that set the state of the art in the year 1911, as well as setting a standard that few pistols can beat even in the 21^st century.

First, let me admit that I am not unbiased. I love this pistol, and I am inclined to think that it is the best close quarters combat pistol ever designed. It is chambered for the hard hitting .45 ACP cartridge, following the American philosophy that bigger holes in a target are better. Why is this pistol still in use today, while most of the others in this article are not? It is because the Colt 1911 combined John Browning's pistol design innovations that he had been developing for the previous ten years in a single pistol that was to prove revolutionary. The important innovations are:

The slide. John Browning was the first pistol designer to use a slide that completely enclosed the barrel, that contained the cartridge case extractor and recoil spring, and that locked the barrel securely.
Tilting barrel. John Browning was the first to tilt the breech of the barrel down, in this case using the pivoting link mechanism.

Every modern semi-automatic pistol, including Glock, evolved from this basic design. Everything else, like double column magazines, striker firing mechanisms, polymer frames, decocking levers, are all evolutionary refinements that do not alter the basic format of the slide/tilting barrel combination.

The Colt 1911 pistol was so advanced in it's day that it has defined what a semi-automatic pistol should look like, which is why it still looks modern in the 21^st Century.

UPDATE: 3/24/2011

Edited the size of the photographs to more better fit within the text column.

Well, This Didn't Take long

2011-03-20T16:23:00.000-07:00

The Arab League did a quick about face today, condemning the air attacks designed to implement the no-fly zone they approved of just 48 hours ago:

Moussa said the Arab League’s approval of a no-fly zone on March 12 was based on a desire to prevent Moammar Gaddafi’s air force from attacking civilians and was not designed to endorse the intense bombing and missile attacks — including on Tripoli, the capital, and on Libyan ground forces — whose images have filled Arab television screens for two days.

What the Hell did the Arab League think was going to happen. Defense Secretary Robert Gates indicated from the start that bombings and missile attacks to suppress Libyan air defense would be a first step in any no-fly zone effort. Arab League support was instrumental in moving opinion in both the White House and in the United Nations. So what happened?

Perhaps the Arab League punked Obama into bombing another Arab nation?

Obama's War

2011-03-20T05:00:00.000-07:00

Here we stand at the cusp of United States third concurrent war in the Middle East. This one is different, though: this one is Obama's War.

Yes, the Weather-Vane-in-Chief has decided to authorize the use of United States air forces to help enforce a U.N.-sanctioned no fly zone to support Libyan rebels, who have been getting their asses kicked by Gaddafi forces for the last two weeks. It sounds good, "no-fly zone", but make no mistake about it, it is a war. How big of a war nobody knows.

It also may be ineffective. If all this effort does is prevent Gaddafi's aircraft from flying, then it may not help the rebels that much. Gaddafi has an overwhelming advantage in conventional heavy weapons, and an adequate logistics organization to keep his army in the field. Any effort to help the rebels MUST target these assets, not just Gaddafi's aircraft. That means that the U.S. and our allies will become the tactical strike arm of the Libyan rebels.

Do we want to do that? Reports indicate that it has already begun. But destroying four tanks does not do as much good as destroying four supply trucks carrying fuel and ammunition for the tanks. We will be posing an existential threat to Gaddafi at that point, so he will resist to the best of his ability. He will also play the "colonialism" card, bemoaning how the United States is trying to dominate North Africa, like we have dominated the Persian Gulf. How long until al-Jazeera shows crowds of protesters burning President Obama in effigy?

If I was Gaddafi, this no-fly zone would tempt me to speed up my attacks on the rebels. If he can destroy them quick enough, then U.N. actions won't matter. Take Benghazi and then as fast as possible Tobruk, and the rebels will have nothing left but a big sand pile near the Egyptian border. Reports indicate that this is just what Gaddafi is attempting.

Just wait for all the downsides to this to start appearing. We have gotten into another war, this one with only the slightest of notions about what we want to accomplish, and very little clear ideas about who we are helping, all in the name of avoiding a humanitarian catastrophe.

I guess the Africans living in the Darfur, or in Ivory Coast just don't count to that much.

Oral Arguments in Richards v. Prieto Today

2011-03-10T05:00:00.000-08:00

Oral arguments will be heard in the case Richards v. Prieto today at 2 PM, Courtroom 7 of the Eastern District Federal Court in Sacramento. This case concerns "carry" of firearms in public, and weather "carry" is a right protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Libyan Rebels - No Decisive Capabilities

2011-03-09T10:57:00.000-08:00

As I read the reports from major news sources about the Libyan fighting, I am struck by a disparity: Gaddafi's forces are cited as having tactical strike aircraft, helicopters, and heavy artillery. Libyan rebels seem to have no aircraft, no helicopters, no heavy artillery. They also seem to have no organized supply, medical evacuation, and personnel replacement system.

The rebels seem to be a semi-organized mob with small arms, while the Gaddafi forces seem to be more heavily equipped and more professionally trained.

This apparent disparity in force and capabilities convinces me that even if a no-fly zone is established, the Libyan rebels are going to loose if they keep this thing a military contest and don't marshal political and diplomatic influence to get Gaddafi to leave the country voluntarily. Even if the U.N. or the U.S. enforces a no-fly zone over the country, that will not prevent Gaddafi artillery from smashing rebel positions, not will it prevent the Libyan army from bring superior firepower to bear on ill-trained and equipped rebel forces which, without re-supply, will run out of ammunition, food, medicine, weapons, and fighters as some point.

The rebels must win via diplomacy, or they will lose.

UPDATE:

This article on Real Clear World underscores the military situation in Libya and the possible futility of a no-fly zone:

The more important question is what exactly a no-fly zone would achieve. Certainly, it would ground Gadhafi’s air force, but it would not come close to ending the fighting nor erode Gadhafi’s other substantial advantages. His forces appear to be better organized and trained than his opponents, who are politically divided and far less organized. Not long ago, Gadhafi largely was written off, but he has more than held his own — and he has held his own through the employment of ground combat forces. What remains of his air force has been used for limited harassment, so the imposition of a no-fly zone would not change the military situation on the ground. Even with a no-fly zone, Gadhafi would still be difficult for the rebels to defeat, and Gadhafi might still defeat the rebels.

I believe that President Obama would do well to heed this message.

UPDATE: 3/10/2011

Here is one effect of sanctions against Libya:

On Monday, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said an arms embargo included in the U.N. resolution meant that "it's a violation for any country to provide arms to anyone in Libya," including the rebels.

But without a source of weapons and ammunition, either from within or from outside the country, the Libyan rebels are going to lose, and lose in a very bloody manner. President Obama's Libya policy, if not changed, is going to result in the destruction of the Libyan rebels, and the preservation of Gaddafi's regime.

Impressions on Libya Fighting

2011-03-08T05:00:00.000-08:00

Muammar Gaddafi is beginning to use his air power to some effect. Will it help hm defeat the rebels? That depends. Air power is decisive in land combat provided he can use it at certain times and places to isolate sections of the battlefield, allowing his ground forces to attain an overwhelming advantage and so defeat the rebels in detail. Air power can also be used to protect his lines of supply while degrading those of the rebels.

If he instead uses air power independently of his ground forces, the rebels may yet prevail. The rebels need either their own planes, or the capability to deny air power to Gaddafi. The longer Gaddafi holds out, the poorer the rebels chances become.

University of Arizona - Old Fashioned Bigots?

2011-03-04T05:00:00.000-08:00

Here is a new policy being floated by the Regents of the University of Arizona:

“We affirm that no student should be obligated to be in the presence of a Negro faculty or staff member, and no faculty or staff member should be obligated to be in the presence of an Negro student on the university campuses of Arizona. In the event that SB 1467 is enacted into law, we request action by the Arizona Board of Regents to segregate the campuses into Negro and Negro-free communities. When such segregation cannot be enforced, protective action should include the provision of police protection, the substitution of electronic communication for personal interaction, and the cancellation of classes as a last resort.”

WTF!! Can this really be coming out of a state university, a bastion of diversity and tolerance? Actually, I just punked you, my dear readers. It is a policy in response to SB 1467, a bill authorizing concealed weapon permit holders to carry on University campuses in Arizona. I simply replaced the word "armed" with the word "Negro" to emphasize the discriminatory nature of the policy. Here is the correct wording:

“Gun Safety Charter: We affirm that no student should be obligated to be in the presence of an armed faculty or staff member, and no faculty or staff member should be obligated to be in the presence of an armed student on the university campuses of Arizona. In the event that SB 1467 is enacted into law, we request action by the Arizona Board of Regents to segregate the campuses into armed and weapons-free communities. When such segregation cannot be enforced, protective action should include the provision of police protection, the substitution of electronic communication for personal interaction, and the cancelation of classes as a last resort.”

But I guess that segregation and discrimination are laudable sometimes, but not at other times. I guess it take a university professor to figure out when.

A Pretty Even-Handed article on Gun Control

2011-02-27T05:00:00.000-08:00

And it was written by a student no less! Appearing in City on the Hill Press, Locked and Loaded offers a very even handed exposition of the gun control issue. I particularly liked this quote:

“I’m not anti-gun control,” said SCPD deputy police chief Clark. “Gun control does have its merits — it does stop some people from getting a hold of one. But we haven’t seen gun control stop gun violence.”

So what can stop gun violence?

“The question is deeper than that,” Clark said.

Clark said the solution “isn’t around gun control but community.”

Exactly. If I could get one message out to all those knee-jerk gun control advocates, and really get them to believe it, this would be the one. The article goes on to describe community programs in Santa Cruz country that are attempting to quell gun violence without layering more gun control laws over those that have failed in the past.

If ObamaCare is so damn good...

2011-02-26T05:00:00.000-08:00

...why have 917 organizations, mostly labor unions and health insurance plans, opted out of the system with waivers? Democrats said that Americans would come to love ObamaCare, but these 917 Democratic-connected organizations are exempt. Where is the fairness in that?

Brits Obsess About U.S. Gun Laws

2011-02-25T05:00:00.000-08:00

Over the years I have read many articles in The Guardian about or horrible fascination with guns in this country. I confess that I don't understand why the British should be so concerned about an internal issue of U.S. law and politics. Our guns laws are our private affair, as their gun laws are theirs.

You sure as Hell don't see American commenting on the almost total gun ban that the U.K. has established, and how whacked out it seems to us.

After reading this posting, I have decided to not pay any more attention to U.K. opinion on U.S. gun laws. I just don't give a shit that the Brits are so freaked out by out horrible, horrible gun laws.

Fuck 'em.

Some Common Sense on Gun Control

2011-02-24T05:00:00.000-08:00

Common sense on gun control? Impossible? Not in this article by Gary Becker:

So overall I do not believe that making the legal ownership of guns more difficult is likely to do much good, and could be harmful. I do see more promise in punishing illegal gun possession, and especially punishing severely persons who use guns to commit crimes.

I don't know of any responsible gun owner that would not agree to punish gun use in crimes severely, instead of placing more obstacles in front of legitimate gun owners. Studies have shown that no gun control scheme has reduced violent crime.

AB 144 - Unconstitutional Upon Passage?

2011-02-23T05:00:00.000-08:00

A good article on AB 144 from the California Independent Voter Network. A pretty even-handed article I would say. But what really got my attention was in the comments, one in particular from Charles Nichols, the well-known LA History Examiner:

By the way, we have already had two Federal court cases in the 9th Circuit upholding the right to openly carry a firearm in public. The first was US v Vongxay, which dealt with it indirectly, and Peruta v San Diego where the Chief Federal judge invited a challenge to California's unique requirement that firearms be unloaded until a person is in danger (plus a few other exceptions). She said she could not rule on the constitutionality of that law because neither party in the case challenged it. However, the right to openly carry a firearm, and have matching ammunition with you, was affirmed.

Which means we are just one lawsuit away from Loaded Open Carry being legal in California.

AB 144. the State ban on Open Carry is unconstitutional the moment it is passed. All it will take is a Federal injunction to stop its enforcement. I guess Portantino never took Law 101. The US Supreme Court sets the minimum level of rights when it concerns a Federal question, like the Bill of Rights.

Does anyone know if this is true? Is AB 144 unconstitutional on its face? Is loaded open carry really that close to legality?

National CCW Reciprocity Bill - H.R. 822

2011-02-22T15:41:00.000-08:00

Another attempt a national reciprocity for CCW licenses has emerged in the House. Thanks to No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money, you can read the bill text here.

What does this mean for California? You can read this discussion thread on Calguns to find out.

I think that this is potentially huge, if it passes and can get signed. Can you imagine how Mayor Bloomberg or Mayor Daley would react to tourists from Texas and Arizona being able to carry concealed in those cities? It may also put pressure on California legislators to convert California to a shall issue CCW system when it becomes evident that people are carrying in this state in large numbers.

And the wrongful arrest lawsuits that will enrich so many lawyers!

I cannot imagine President Obama would sign such a bill, and I am not sure that a 2/3 vote exists in the Senate to over ride a veto. The House is much easier.

Stay tuned to this one. It is going to be big.

An Excellent Example of Enforcing the Laws Already on The Books

2011-02-22T05:00:00.000-08:00

This story, reported by my local ABC station, KGO Channel 7, relates how the San Francisco Police Department is using the Armed Prohibited Persons list to attempt to disarm gun owners that conveicted of felonies or judged to be mentally ill.

No responsible gun owner believes that felons or the mentally ill should have the ability to purchase a firearm, and the Armed Prohibited Persons list is a good mechanism to get these guns out of the hands or potentially dangerous people. So why is it that 37 police departments and 3 county sheriffs offices do not subscribe to APPS?

My guess would be lack of resources during this time of growing budget deficits.

Abthony Portantino on AB 144

2011-02-21T05:00:00.001-08:00

Anthony Portantino, (D - La Cañada Flintridge) commenting in the Pasadena Weekly about AB 144, his bill to ban the open carry of firearms:

“It does not take anyone’s rights away for owning a weapon,” he said. “But what it does say is the needless display of automatic firearms on Main Street California does not really have a point other than making a political statement. And should we have weapons be a part of a political discussion?”

So, Mr. Portantino, when you disagree with an opponents political message, you feel that the proper response is to outlaw the message? The political conversation here is on the question the rights of citizens to be armed in their daily life, a right that is denied to Californians due to the arbitrary and capricious implementation of the CCW policies in this state. If AB 144 passes, then even Unloaded Open Carry will be denied to us.

And take note his use of "automatic firearms" intended to strike fear in people. Nobody is open carrying automatic firearms. They are semi-automatic firearms.

Martha Stewart's Daughter - Liberal Hypocrite

2011-02-20T07:49:00.000-08:00

I have never seen it displayed better than the following comment made by Alexis Stewart, Martha Stewart's daughter in this New York Times article:

“I don’t believe people should be allowed to have guns in America,” Ms. Stewart, daughter of Martha, said in an interview, explaining that she bought a .357 Magnum after 9/11 — but would be happy to give it up if handguns were banned. “Having a swimming pool is way more dangerous than having a gun,” she added.

But you have a gun anyway Ms. Stewart, why is that? Is it because your life is somehow more special, being Martha Stewart's daughter after all, so that you are an exception to your longed for gun prohibition? Or do you want to shore up your liberal cred with your no-doubt liberal, sophisticated friends that will read this article now that you have been outed as a gun owner?

Hypocrite, either way. If you "believe people should not be allowed to have guns in America" then you should give it up, even without a handgun ban. If you don't give it up, then your actions seem to imply that you believe that the gun is potentially useful for personal defense, but you want to deny others that possibility. At least have the stones to stand for what you believe in, either way, rather than use weasel words.

Alexis Stewart: liberal hypocrite.

Robert J. Samuelson on High Speed Rail

2011-02-20T05:00:00.000-08:00

Robert J. Samuelson warns us convincingly about the probable failure of high speed rail systems to operate at a profit:

Passenger rail service inspires wishful thinking. In 1970, when Congress created Amtrak to preserve intercity passenger trains, the idea was that the system would become profitable and self-sustaining after an initial infusion of federal money. This never happened. Amtrak has swallowed $35 billion in subsidies, and they're increasing by more than $1 billion annually.

Read the article and follow the links for supplemental information. After reading all of that, we need to ask the California High Speed Rail Authority some very pointed questions.

Citizen Ignorance

2011-02-19T05:00:00.000-08:00

The video has been making the rounds of the pro-gun sites, particularly Calguns. Watching the whole video, I am struck at the level of ignorance the people interviewed have about gun laws. Unlike gun guys like me, it seems that most people do not think much about the gun issue. Perhaps this is what makes anti-gun legislation and legislators so common in California: guns are not something that are part of peoples lives.

Until Californians feel like they have a personal stake in gun rights, no ballot box solution will work. This video double underscores this reality.

"Carry" Not A Core Right, Yet

2011-02-18T05:00:00.000-08:00

A recently introduced bill in the California State Assembly, AB 144, once again will attempt to outlaw open carry of unloaded firearms. But this bill is quite different from AB 1934 introduced last year. AB 1934 sought to eliminate holstered handguns as an exception to the concealed weapon law, making open carry of an unload holstered pistol the same as carrying a concealed weapon, requiring a California CCW permit. In retrospect this would have created problems for all kinds of occupations that are armed in public, like armored car guards.

AB 144, in contrast, makes the open carry of an unloaded handgun in a public place a crime, a misdemeanor punishable by one year in jail and a fine that cannot exceed $1000. To get around the problems that AB 1934 might have caused, AB 144 specifies a very long list of occupational exceptions, allowing a large number of people to open carry handguns. Only ordinary citizens and criminals are, theoretically, prohibited.

A reader of Left Coast Conservative, asked me if I knew about AB 144, and if I thought that its passage into law would help the Peruta v. County of San Diego prevail. Chris P wrote:

BTW, did you hear about the new attempt to ban open carry (California AB 144)? I think this is gonna get interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about the open carry movement yet, but it was my understanding that the San Diego lawsuit regarding concealed carry had a lot to do with the open carry law. Anyway, I thought the ruling was that since California law allowed unloaded/open carry, self defense was not "good cause" to concealed carry. You think this will be significant? I'd like to hear your take on it.

This is, I think the part of the decision that gives Chris P his hopes that AB 144 might actually advance carry rights in California:

Accordingly, Defendant argues that concealed carry pursuant to Penal Code section 12050 is not the sole outlet for carrying a handgun for self defense. Defendant highlights other California provisions that permit unloaded open carry and loaded open carry if the individual is in immediate grave danger.

In other words, the Defendant's administration of the CCW policy is not subject to strict scrutiny because persons can avail themselves of other means to carry weapons for self defense. This inspires me to re-read the decision granting summary judgment to the defendant. What I found was this passage, on page 11:

Neither party has cited, and the Court is not aware of, a case in which a court has employed strict scrutiny to regulations that do not touch on the “core” Second Amendment right: possession in the home.9 If it exists, the right to carry a loaded handgun in public cannot be subject to a more rigorous level of judicial scrutiny than the “core right” to possess firearms in the home for self-defense. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2717 (focusing on the home as the place “where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute”); McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting same). If anything, the opposite is true; unlike possession in the home, carrying a concealed firearm in public presents a “recognized threat to public order” and “poses an imminent threat to public safety.” People v. Yarbrough, 169 Cal. App. 4th 303, 313-14 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3105 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“firearms kept inside the home generally pose a lesser threat to public welfare as compared to firearms taken outside . . .”). At most, Defendant’s policy is subject to intermediate scrutiny.

So the first problem that Peruta has is that the judge does not recognize “carry” to be the core right protected by the 2^nd Amendment, so intermediate scrutiny is appropriate to judge the validity of the Defendant's policy. Once this is established the reasoning to grant the Defendant's motion is swift:

Accordingly, Defendant argues that concealed carry pursuant to Penal Code section 12050 is not the sole outlet for carrying a handgun for self defense. Defendant highlights other California provisions that permit unloaded open carry and loaded open carry if the individual is in immediate grave danger.

So, if AB144 is passed, the alternate means is no longer available, so that should open up the CCW policy for litigation, right? Perhaps not. Even though cases cited in Heller (State v. Chandler, Nunn v. State, Andrews v. State, State v. Reid), allowed concealed weapons bans because open carry was available, so the 2^nd Amendment right was not eliminated, passage and adoption of AB 144 will not eliminate the ability of citizens to carry weapons. CCW permits will still be available: apply and you may be issued a CCW permit.

Arbitrary and capricious administration of a CCW policy by a Sheriff will not be cited as unconstitutional until and unless “carry” is ruled to be a “core right” denoted by the 2^nd Amendment. Once “carry” is recognized as a core right, then AB 144 may be used to prevent arbitrary and capricious implementation of CCW policies in Califronia.

For more information about current litigation, please refer to the Calguns Foundation Litigation Past and Present page, your one-stop-shop for guns rights litigation information.

UPDATE 2/19/2011:

Maybe I am wrong about what effect passage of AB 144 might have on litigation to liberalize CCW policies. Take a look at this passage from the Pasadena Weekly:

Here in California, where a bill to prohibit gun owners from publicly carrying unloaded weapons in plain sight is set for debate in the state Assembly, gun rights advocates also doubt that ability. They say the bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, would instead force jurisdictions to issue concealed weapons permits to practically all comers, given recent court rulings affirming the people’s right to bear arms.
“I’m not sure they appreciate the legal can of worms they are opening here,” said Chuck Michel, spokesman for the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

If Chuck Michel thinks AB 144 might bust things open, I am inclined to take him at his word.

Doubt Cast on High Speed Rail Cost

2011-02-14T05:00:00.000-08:00

It is possible that the cost of the California High Speed Rail project will be even higher that has been estimated. Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design, a volunteer watchdog group, has released their own cost estimates for the project. They calculate that $65 billion is a more realistic figure than the $43 billion released by the California High Speed Rail Authority.

Once again doubt is cast on the sunny predictions of a government entity. Which is more likely to be correct?

Top Shot Is Back!

2011-02-13T05:00:00.000-08:00

Now for something fun: Top Shot is back this week!

And it seems that they have corrected a deficiency from last season: the lack of the Model 1911 pistol in the show. Their go to semi-automatic pistol was the Baretta 92FS, a good gun, but not the American gun!

Am I prejudiced? You bet I am! I love the 1911. If you love some other gun, set up your own blog and write about it there.

You know, Top Shot has also ignored Glock pistols so far. Maybe they're saving them for season three?

HighSpeed Rail - Probable money Loser

2011-02-11T05:00:00.000-08:00

It seems that it is not only Californians that are drinking the high speed rail Kool Aid, but also President Obama.

I see high speed rail passenger service to be nothing more than a desperate attempt for a 19th Century technology to remain relevant in the 21st Century. There is already a way to go from San Jose to Los Angeles in about an hour, and the California tax payers don't have to spend billions of dollars to create it: it is called an airline.

Southwest Airlines offers flights between San Jose and Los Angeles for as low as $74 one way for 1:15 flight time. California High Speed Rail projects the same trip will take 2:09 and cost as much as $42. So, save $32, but spend an hour more on the trip?

Seems like an okay trade off, but will the fares always be so competitive or cover the costs of the rail system? This is an open question, and looking at systems around the world only two high speed rail systems break even on operating costs:

“High-speed rail is good for society and it’s good for the environment, but it’s not a profitable business,” said Mr. Barrón of the International Union of Railways. He reckons that only two routes in the world — between Tokyo and Osaka, and between Paris and Lyon, France — have broken even.

The track record in this country for providing conventional rail service does not bode well for high speed rail. Amtrack, even on densely populated urbane corridors, survives only because of massive subsidies. What makes us think that California can do any better? Maybe the California High Speed Rail Authority should get a railroad executive from a private company to come in to manage this project.

Oh, yeah. There aren't any.

UPDATE: 2/12/2011 12:36 PM

The Wall Street Journal had this story in December, 2010 which described the first section to be built will be 65 miles long at a cost of $4.3 billion. Do the math: this is $66 million per mile. Who the fuck cares how much carbon this project saves at that price?

The main 520 mile line has an estimated cost of $42.6 billion, which works out to $81.9 million per mile of track, so I guess that economies of scale do not apply to railroads.

Our elected officials are on crack.

Green Jobs - Economic Boondoggle

2011-02-09T08:04:00.000-08:00

I have been skeptical of the reliance of many politicians on creation of "green jobs" to help save the economy. Reason has a new article out that adds weight to my suspicions:

Gulen is not alone in his concerns about overblown claims for green jobs. A 2009 report [PDF], by Hillard Huntington, executive director of the Energy Modeling Forum at Stanford University, also found that promoting green energy is not a jobs generator. Huntington calculated the number of jobs per million dollars invested in various types of electricity generation. A million dollars invested in solar power produces three to five jobs; wind 1.6 to 6.5 jobs; biomass 1.8 to 6.5 jobs; coal 3.7 jobs; and natural gas two jobs. It looks like renewables are often winners at job creation until Huntington points out that on average an investment of a million dollars produces about 10 jobs.

Another way to look at it is that in the worst cases, investing in solar power destroys seven jobs, wind eight jobs, biomass eight jobs, coal six jobs, and natural gas eight jobs, each compared to the 10 jobs generally created per million dollars of investment. All subsidies to the electric power sector divert money that would otherwise be invested in higher value wealth and job-creating activities.

This leads me to understand why energy in California costs so much in comparison with other states.

At Least One Leftie Gets It

2011-01-22T08:00:00.000-08:00

Dan Baum, in this article at the Huffington Post shows that at least one leftie gets it about gun control:

I'm not one for slinging statistics, because everybody can read into them what he wants to see. One, though, seems pretty hard to ignore: The rates of murder and other violent crime have dropped by about half in the past 20 years -- one piece of unalloyed good news out of the past two decades. During those same 20 years, gun ownership has gone way up, and gun laws have become far looser.

Gun guys are convinced there's a causal relationship -- they say that criminals become timid in the face of an armed citizenry. I think the crime drop has more to do with changing demographics and smarter policing. Either way, it is obvious that more guns and looser gun laws did not cause crime to rise. We on the left, who have an impulse toward ever tighter gun laws, need to look squarely at that. If what we want to do is reduce violent crime, perhaps we should continue what we're doing. While it may be true that nothing can be done to keep guns out of the wrong hands, it is plainly false that nothing can be done to reduce violence. Lots is being done, and quite successfully. It just doesn't involve restricting guns.

I myself have written about this as well, but it is just terrific to see a liberal Democrat admit that gun control does not work. While more guns may not result in less crime, the last 20 years has shown that more guns does not necessarily lead to more crime. Now the left will have to come up with something more creative than a simple knee-jerk reaction.

Local Groups Drive Gun Rights Litigation - Not The NRA

2011-01-21T08:00:00.000-08:00

The left wing press always gets this wrong: the NRA is the source of all evil pro-gun developments in the United States. The reality is that the NRA, while an extremely effective lobbying and legislative organization, its record for litigation is thin, at best. Most of the recent landmark litigation concerning gun rights (District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago) are the result of the efforts of grass-roots organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation, the Calguns Foundation, and the Illinois State Rifle Association. These organization, and those like them in other states, have been doing the heavy lifting over the last ten years ot so to further gun rights in the United States.

In the past on this blog I have attempted to follow the various cases that are in progress, but in the aftermath of Heller, so many cases were filed that it overwhelmed my capacity to monitor the progress and post it to Left Coast Conservative. Fortunately, this is no longer necessary. The Calguns Foundation has a wonderful web page that not only lists the current status of pending litigation, but also established case law and Supreme Court decisions, and even has a primer describing how the federal courts work. Everyone who has an interest in the current status of gun rights litigation should consult this page often because it is updated regularly.

Once again, the grass-roots organizations are carrying the heavy load to further gun rights by educating gun owners. While I do not want to belittle the efforts of the NRA, they is not the whole story. And when one realizes the extent of different groups that promote gun rights, I cannot help but be optimistic.

American Rifleman Cover Features Banned Guns

2011-01-20T17:32:00.000-08:00

The February 2011 issue of American Rifleman arrived in my mailbox today, and I was immediately struck by a coincidence: the cover features two handguns that will never be sole in California: Springfield Armory's XB(M) Compact, and Remington's R1 1911. One new pistol built to a 100 year old design, and one new pistol built to a 21^st century design, but both are “unsafe” according to the state of California.

What make these guns unsafe: the lack of a magazine disconnect feature, required for new pistol models to meet California “safety” requirements since 2007. Note: for all you non-gun people out there, a magazine disconnect is a mechanical device which prevents a pistol from firing if the magazine is removed from the gun. All serious defensive handgun shooters believe them to be an unsafe “Mommy” feature because magazine disconnects often prevent magazines from falling free during reloads, and render a person defenseless if they cannot insert a magazine fast enough during a reload. No police department that I know of would use a pistol that has a magazine disconnect.

What makes all of this utterly galling is that my pistol, a Kimber Custom II, is functionally identical to the Remington R1 pistol, but is sold in California because it is “grandfathered” in before the new requirements of 2007. So am I now shooting an unsafe pistol. The California DOJ thinks so.
It is nothing more than a creeping handgun ban.

Victory - California Enjoined from Enforcing AB962!

2011-01-19T08:43:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, January 18^th, California gun owners dodged a bullet: AB962, the new ammunition control law prohibiting, among other things, mail order ammunition deliveries, was enjoined from enforcement by a Federal judge. You can read about this decision in the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) press release.

But no one who follows California firearms politics thinks that this is the end of the story. First of all, the law is still on the books, and the lawsuit may still proceed to trial. Second, the state might appeal the decision, which the CRPA thinks is likely, attempting to have the injunction removed. And even if Ab962 is ultimately struck down by a Federal court, then the legislature can pass new legislation that corrects the “unconstitutionally vague” language by listing the prohibited ammunition explicitly.

If that does come to pass, even then we are not out of options. Other lawsuits that have bee dismissed, particularly OOIDA v. Lindley, which attacked provisions of AB962 that attempted to regulate common carriers, something that has already been found to by unconstitutional.

Anti-Gun Idiocy in RI

2010-12-21T09:13:00.000-08:00

The Boston Globe is running this story about a “gun” buyback program run in Providence , Rhode Island, that buys and destroys TOY GUNS!

It never ceases to amaze me how easily people are duped into thinking that symbolic, feel-good, addle-brained programs like this one will have an impact on gun violence. I also think that elementary school aged children are too young to understand the symbolism. But the program sure works to enable the Attorney General Patrick Lynch to cliam he is doing something about the problem!

About 200 children attended the gun bash, said Jim Baum, a prosecutor with Lynch’s office who helps run it. The event used to be held four or five times a year, but budget cuts have forced them to scale back the program, he said. City and state employees donate many of the toys, along with nearby businesses.

“We hope it makes a difference,’’ Baum said.

How typical of political hacks: spend money on a idiotic program without knowing if it effective, or even what you're trying to accomplish with the program.

Take a few minutes to read the comments at the end of the article. Boston Globe readers think the program is pretty stupid as well. Why not do something constructive that might actually help children be safe, like hold an Eddie Eagle Safety Program in the school.

Hat tip to Calguns.

Panama City School Board Shooting - Comments At Greg Laden's Blog

2010-12-20T12:39:00.000-08:00

I am sure that everyone has heard of the shooting at a Panama City,FL school board meeting. If not, you can read about, and watch the remarkable video of the incident in the Washington Post. Greg Laden posted these comments about this incident on his blog. The one I take particular issue with is this:

Clay Duke tried to kill several school board members, but missed from a distance of between 6 and 8 feet with his Smith & Wesson pistol. Indeed, over 25 rounds were fired in the small public space, all aimed from a short distance, and only one fatal shot occurred. This puts an end to the idea that if everyone in every public meeting had a pistol that the bad guys would be easily dispatched.

To which I replied on his blog in the comments section:

Your comments about the marksmanship of the shooter proving ANYTHING about the ability of other people being able to stop this attack with lethal force is simply ignorant.
You completely disregard any consideration about the level of training that the shooter may or may not have had. If he was really trying to shoot the people seated at the desk, then his level of training was absolutely minimal, bordering on non-existent. He had target shooting conditions, and he missed. He was either a bad shot, or he deliberately missed.

Either way, he is not excused, because potential victims cannot know what his intent might be, so if armed, they would be completely justified to shoot back.

I can assure with complete confidence that the shooters lack of competence DOES NOT in any way invalidate the possibility of any one of the victims from being able to shoot the assailant and stop the attack. Your assertion is actually nonsense because all of the victims were unarmed, and their level of training is unknown.

Any implication from this incident that armed self defense is worthless is in fact worthless

To which, Greg Laden replied:

Left Coast Conservative: You completely disregard any consideration about the level of training that the shooter may or may not have had.
Of course the level of ability or training matters, an that is exactly my point! When the average gun-nut moron comes around screaming that if only everybody had a gun there would be no shooting, they are of average ability. Some can shoot, some are like Mr Clay. This is not a difficult concept.
I can assure with complete confidence that the shooters lack of competence DOES NOT in any way invalidate the possibility of any one of the victims from being able to shoot the assailant and stop the attack.
Oh, that makes me feel much better. I just watched a guy on a video empty his extra large clip a few feet from a concentration of people and the only hit he could manage is when he put the barrel of the gun to his own head and pulled the trigger.
Your assertion is actually nonsense because all of the victims were unarmed, and their level of training is unknown.
I'm talking about the hooting ability of the assailant, the gun nut with the gun, not the victims, who did not have guns. Jeesh.
Any implication from this incident that armed self defense is worthless is in fact worthless.
No it isn't. On the other hand, any implication that the average gun nut who comes by screaming about how everybody's gotta carry a gun or we iz all dooomeded is .... well, just look at your idiotic comment!

So, let me take these points one at a time:

I don't claim that if citizens were armed, that there would be no shootings. I do claim, that citizens can defend themselves and very possibly stop the attack. Look at what Mr. Duke did when met with resistance: he shot himself. This is not an uncommon reaction.
Once again, just because Clay duke was a lousy shot, does not mean everyone is a lousy shot. I just spent a day in a defensive shooting class and any one of the students in that class could have shot at and hit Mr. Duke from the positions of the board members, especially since they would had the board meeting table to rest their hands on while shooting.
I know you were talking about the shooting ability of Mr. Duke, but you project his lack of marksmanship on everyone else to discount the value of armed self defense.
And hence my claim that your opinion is worthless for judging the value of armed self defense. Remember, it was an armed man that ended this incident, a man with training available to anyone, should they seek it out.

Greg Laden, it seems to me that you think anyone who advocates armed self defense is a gun nut, and idiot, and that they would use their firearms in a irresponsible and ineffective manner. The record shows that you a simply wrong about that:

Learn About Guns
The Bluff

There are many more examples that can be easily found. My core assertion is this: with proper training, any one of the people at the meeting could have quickly ended the attack. No one who carries a gun in public should do so without training.

California Cap and Trade - Kill Jobs without Saving the Globe

2010-12-20T08:34:00.000-08:00

Last week the California Air Resources Board voted to impose a cap and trade system in California starting in 2012.

My mind boggles that this state is continuing to careen down the path of economic ruin, but others are looking forward to California's folly:

They also empower the business development arms of the various states now led by Republican legislative majorities and energetic, business-friendly governors like Ohio's John Kasich, Florida's Rick Scott, Texas' Rick Perry, Michigan's Rick Snyder, Wisconsin's Scott Walker and Pennsylvania's Tom Corbett, among others.

The job-seeking professionals accompanied by their smiling, just-elected governors will be happy to set up appointments with the governor so that a side-by-side comparison of life under California's new rules contrasts with life in, say, the Buckeye State.

Arnold's "legacy" is thus a job-killing, metastasizing bureaucracy that accomplishes only the destruction of jobs without even a miniscule impact on the world's climate.

Is anyone paying attention at all? Bueller...Bueller?

NRA Personal Protection in the Home Class

2010-12-19T20:16:00.000-08:00

Last week, 11 December, 2010, I attended the NRA Personal Protection in the Home class offered by Bay Area Professionals for Firearms Safety and Education (BayProfs), and held at the San Jose Municipal Firing Range, home of the Santa Clara Valley Rifle Club. I had previously taken the NRA Basic Pistol class from BayProfs, and found it to be very valuable for a novice handgun enthusiast, and I had been looking forward to taking this class for quite some time. I was not disappointed.

Students were expected to provide a firearm, a holster, gun belt, magazine carrier, and at least three magazines. BayProfs provided the instructors, ammunition, and the venue. BayProfs also provided each student with a packet of instructional materials that included the NRA Guide To the Basics of Personal Protection Inside the Home, and the book How To Own A Gun And Stay Out Of Jail, 2010 Edition, which, in my opinion, every gun owner in California should own and read. The fee for the class was $200 for an entire day of instruction: 9 AM to 6 PM.

While BayProfs recommended standard Kydex training holsters, I had long since purchased a rig in leather, and on consultation with Tom Laye, the training director for BayProfs, got the approval to use my rig. It consists of:

Holster: El Paso Saddlery Sky Six
Belt: El Paso Saddlery Garrison Belt
Magazine Carrier: El Paso Saddlery Friction Mag Pouch 2F
Magazine: Wilson Combat Elite Tactical Magazine
Firearm: Kimber Custom II

The class size was small, only seven people, with a mix of ages and genders. Two students in my class were women, one of whom could not have weighed more that 90 pounds soaking wet, who shot a full size automatic pistol as competently as any other student in the class. While all individuals in the class had taken the NRA Basic Pistol Class from BayProfs (a prerequisite), some had taken additional classes from other organizations. While a variety of firearms were used by the students, no revolvers were present in this class.

It is well known by any student that has taken BayProfs class that the BayProfs instructors are huge enthusiasts of the famous 1911 pistol, which was designed by the famous John Browning, and has been in continuous use and production for nearly one hundred years. Every instructor present had a 1911 pistol in their holster, and while a few joking comments about how the students should “get a real gun” were heard, the BayProfs instructors are all of the conviction that any gun in a credible defensive caliber will work just fine for personal protection. The gun is a tool, the weapon is a person with training, the correct mindset, and a determination to survive, holding the gun.

The instructor to student ratio was high, with six instructors present to help the students as well as ensure safety on the firing range. The class format alternated between lecture and shooting sessions on the range. Topics covered included, but were not limited to, firearms safety, the ethics and morality of self defense, legal aspects of the use of deadly force, the use of cover and concealment, and defensive shooting techniques. Safety was a paramount concern during the shooting sessions, with each student paired with an instructor, and a range master keeping watch over everyone. NRA rules required that the class was run with a “cold range”, which means that no loaded pistols were holstered. Students practiced the draw and presentation with unloaded pistols, and only loaded them on command of the range master after drawing, presenting to target, and then entering the low ready position. All shooting commenced from the low ready position. When a course of fire was completed, instructors required each student to clear their firearm, show the instructor that the firearm was clear, and then drop the hammer on the empty chamber.

There was as much discussion about how to avoid a gunfight as there was about how to survive one. The class emphasizes that the only gunfight one wins is the gunfight one avoids in the first place. Once the shooting starts, one does not “win”, one only survives. Awareness of ones surroundings was taught as the key discipline to learn to avoid violent encounters whenever possible, and to be fully prepared for them when avoidance fails. Awareness combined with prior planning is essential if one is to act effectively once a threat is encountered, and employment of a firearm is always the last option in any plan, used only when everything else fails.

Shooting sessions started with a marksmanship check of each student, and proceeded to a demonstration of combat accuracy, and the explanation of the “flash sight” picture. As the day went on, more elements were added the shooting problem: shooting from cover, shooting around corners from both the strong and weak sides, shooting from the kneeling position, and transitions between standing and kneeling. One of the final shooting exercises was two fast shots to the center of mass of the target, with aimed shots into the cranio-optical cavity. This exercise was very challenging, and some students had to reload a more than once to accomplish the task. After the very first shooting session all students were responsible for keeping their magazines loaded, and for reloading their firearms as required during all courses of fire, further simulating the conditions that might be faced during a real firefight.

One of the final exercises of the day was BayProfs version of the Teuller Drill, a demonstration of how fast an attacker can close to knife range before an armed defender can draw and fire. With a shooter in the low ready position and facing down range, another student, the runner, placed his hand on the shooters shoulder and faced up range. The runner would start running up range at a moment of their choosing, and the length of distance covered before the shooter could place an effective round on the target was measured. In almost all cases the runner could cover 20 to 30 feet before the shooter could react and fire, demonstrating why all police agencies and defensive shooting instructors consider an attacker with a knife a deadly threat within 7 yards of a defender.

One instructor, fresh from a defensive shotgun class, gave a short talk and demonstration of defensive shotgun usage, including shooting a few rounds to demonstrate the spread of the pellets and effectiveness of the weapon in self defense. Each student was then invited to shoot the gun, a modified Remington 870 Police Magnum. I must say that I was very impressed with the gun, and with the effects of the Vang Comp ported shotgun barrel. Seeing the spread of 00 buckshot at 7 yards clearly showed why shotguns must be aimed for maximum effect, not simply pointed as so many people assume.

The class ended with a recap of the most important points covered that day, and with tips for both dry practice and range drills for the students to use to hone the techniques introduced in the class. Dry practice drawing and presenting the firearm to the target and reloading the fireatm help develop “muscle memory”, making these operations automatic in a defensive situation. Emphasis is placed on correctness of each motion, not on speed. As one instructor said, “Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast.” Range drills included a sight flash shot at center mass, followed by a head shot using a 3”x5” index card as a target.

My final impression of this class is that it was a very good introduction to practical, defensive shooting. The quality of the instructors was evident, as well as their enthusiasm for the subject. Instructor demeanor in the class is supportive and consultative, without the “boot camp” mentality that I have heard other instructors use. This must be especially comforting for female members of the class who might be intimidated by strident instructors. An amazing amount of material and new concepts were presented, too much to master in one day, or even adequately absorb. Should this class be offered again, I would be tempted to repeat is because I am sure I would come away the second time learning things that I missed in the first session, and with a deeper understanding of things that I thought I knew. I do know that this class has changed how I will practice at the range, and during dry practice at home.

Political Reality

2010-09-01T22:51:00.000-07:00

Democrats = subsidize the poor.
Republicans = subsidize the rich.

Both parties = rip off the middle class.

That is where the money is.

Bizarre Posts on Crime Guns, and Videotape

2010-08-21T08:00:00.000-07:00

I have been reading Crime, Guns, and Videotape for a while now, and am constantly amazed at the bizarre conspiracy stories posted there. But today's post really stands out:

Rod Blagojevich has zero protection, as he poses a danger to the political future of Obama and other criminals in his administration. The Whitehouse occupants have just two choices. They can get Blagojevich a free ride on some technicality or have the former governor murdered. I’m betting on the latter.

Now, anyone who knows me or reads Left Coast knows I am no fan of President Obama or his policies, but I flat out do not believe that Obama is going to have Blagojevich whacked. Even Nixon didn't go that far.