Thursday, November 28, 2013

It is not racism when .....

...the victim is white.  Of course, it is not sexism when the victim is male, either.  The way that the MSM has been treating the so-called "knock-out game" is all part of the traditional Progressive narrative.  Minority actions cannot, by definition, be racist or sexist. Only the actions of the perceived majority group can be so described.

So I guess this mans action is racist, as well as another opportunity by the anti-gun left to avoid admitting how legally armed people in public is a social good, not a social threat.

What we are really seeing here is an attempt by the Progressive movement to define a new scapegoat-class: conservative whites, and white men in particular.  And we all know what happens to a scapegoat class. It is all part of the Progressive plan.

I wonder what would happen if a famous Lefty journalist was seriously injured or killed in the "knock-out game"?

Monday, October 7, 2013

Schadenfreude, Sweet Sweet Schadenfreude.

And found in the San Jose Mercury News, no less.

One of the best quotes:

"I really don't like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family's pocket each year, that's otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy."
So, do you think maybe the Republicans may have had something constructive to say in the ACA debate all along, like when not one Republican  voted for the mess that is the ACA?  Do you think that maybe Obama and the Democrats have taken you to the cleaners, and the crime was covered up my their media lackeys?  Do you think that you will perhaps do something different than voting the strait Democratic ticket in the next election?

Nah, that is too much to hope for.

Friday, September 27, 2013

The Obama Administration Lies Systematically

So says Seymour Hersh in this interview in The Guardian. Here is the full quote:
The Obama administration lies systematically, he claims, yet none of the leviathans of American media, the TV networks or big print titles, challenge him.
"It's pathetic, they are more than obsequious, they are afraid to pick on this guy [Obama]," he declares in an interview with the Guardian.
"It used to be when you were in a situation when something very dramatic happened, the president and the minions around the president had control of the narrative, you would pretty much know they would do the best they could to tell the story straight. Now that doesn't happen any more. Now they take advantage of something like that and they work out how to re-elect the president.
I say that if this is news to you, then you have not been paying attention. He finishes interview by saying:
"The republic's in trouble, we lie about everything, lying has become the staple." And he implores journalists to do something about it.
I say that will happen when we see the skies crowded with swine.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Richard Cohen Gets It Wrong - Again.

Richard Cohen spouts off about gun violence in his latest column appearing in the Washington Post.

Using the literary device of a mystical visit from his deceased grandfather, Cohen parrots the long discredited views of liberal gun grabbers:

"“No, boychick, the scourge of your times is the weapon. The scourge is not realizing that it’s all terrorism. What’s the difference between being shot in Chicago and being shot in Nairobi? Dead is dead. Believe me, up here we know that.”"
What a good way to trivialize and conflate important issues of domestic crime and international Islamic terrorism all in one sentence.  good job Mr. Cohen.
"“Okay, but what about the Second Amendment?”
“Hoo-ha! This I’ve been waiting for. The Founding Fathers didn’t mean for everyone to have a gun. They wanted a militia.”
“That’s a matter of interpretation, Grandpa.”
“Not for me it isn’t. I play pinochle with some of the Fathers. They’re sick at what they see. Bang! Bang! No militia. People shooting up playgrounds, movie theaters, the Navy Yard. Ya think that’s what they wanted? They wanted guys with funny hats and muskets.”"
Where to start? Every discredited notion about the 2nd Amendment is on display here.  Yes, the founders did mean for everyone to have a gun, because everyone was expected perform militia service, providing their own arms to do so.  Also, the 2nd Amendment does not just protect the right to own muskets, but for firearms in common use, just as the 1st Amendment protects the right for me to write this  post, not just to print broadsides using block printing presses.
"“Easy. Write that all this is terrorism. To fight terrorism, Americans will permit anything. The government can read your e-mails and listen to your phone calls and know where you go in the car and probably how long you take in the bathroom. "

Sadly, all to true, with extra emphasis after the Snowden leaks.  But this is also a wake-up call to a new tactic from the gun-grabbers: portray law-abiding gun owners as terrorists, a dangerous extension of government fears of resurgent right-wing extremist groups.
"“This is bigger than some show. Listen! Pay attention. Start with that Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA. Whenever he’s on TV, have those special-effects geniuses in Hollywood make him look like a terrorist. Call him Mullah Wayne. Get the idea across. And when that happens, the courts will say, hoo-ha, we’ve got to reinterpret the Second Amendment. The justices, they’ve got their finger to the wind, too, believe you me.”"

Yep. Here we go: demonize the NRA, or at least its leader, because we all know that only the NRA stands in the way of "reasonable" gun laws.  The American people want guns controlled more tightly, if not eliminated from society.

I think that what we see here is a liberals wet dream: he would love for this to happen, and is publishing it to inspire anti-gun organizations to use this tactic to smear all gun owners. But this entire column, and the shifting tactics it outlines, is also an admission of failure: the gun grabbers traditional arguments have utterly failed to get stricter gun laws enacted. They're on the ropes and flailing about to find something that works.

I think that the gun control train has already left the station, with most passengers and crew  carrying concealed weapons.  While the NRA is always portrayed as the chief obstacle to "common sense" gun laws, the reality is that there are many millions of concealed carry permit holders, most of whom are not NRA members, who believe very strongly that they wish the right to keep and bear arms to be even less infringed than it is today.

Monday, September 23, 2013

An Old Study Making the News

This study has been making the rounds as if was new.  It is not: it was published in 2007, but that does not make its conclusions any less valid.  This is definitely one that the gun-grabbers wish had never been published.

The Truth About Gun Control

This is what the gun-grabbers think, and why they want to ban guns.  Guns, to them, can act on their own to create "gun violence". How can we debate with people that do not deal in reality?

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Gun Control Lies

Most arguments on hears for gun control are either lies, or based on lies.  Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse lists these lies in this outstanding post.  Here is one part of the post that I wish had been more effective in California this year:
This is very clearly an attempt to ban guns (oh, right--you don't actually want to ban guns. See above).  It's just a dishonest attempt.  But go ahead, tell me why X rounds is "enough," and what task it's enough for, and your credentials for making that statement.  You can't answer those questions, because you're lying.
What you mean is, "I want to find ways to make it tough for people to own guns."
- See more at:

Sunday, September 15, 2013

The Death of Gun Control

Gun Control is dead, at least this article, and Bill Maher say it is dead.  A sentiment that I fervently wish is true, but I'll wait for confirmation.

Classical gun control has been diffacult to sell in the political marketplace lately, however, and there is a reason for this. The gun control movement cannot gain traction because of this: trust.  We gun-rights advocates do not trust the anti-rights side at all.

The history of gun control laws is to set up a legal framework to regulate some aspect of gun ownership.  It is modest at first, and maybe everyone agrees that it is "reasonable".  But later, usually after some horrific shooting event that that the previous regulation failed to stop, the previous framework is expanded to include more types of guns, or to exclude more types of people, newly defined to be criminal enough to deny firearms. We are seeing this play out in the California legislature even as I write this.  A bill, SB 374, that would ban an entire class of firearms, awaits Governor Browns signature. This bill expands the definition of "assault weapon" to include rifles that were never intended to be included in the original assault weapon category, rifles that have no military resemblance at all, rifles that anywhere else in the United States are considered ordinary sporting and hunting rifles.

History has also shown that the anti-rights side of the issue does not know what the word "compromise" means.  To the anti-rights side "compromise" means "shut up and give me every new regulation I want, and just be glad I left you something".  That is not compromise, that is a dictate.  An example of true compromise might have been this: vote for Manchin-Toomey background checks, and our side will support National Concealed Carry Reciprocity.  Compromise: each side gives up something to get something they deem valuable in exchange.  The anti-rights side does not understand this concept.

From my reading of the bill text, Manchin-Toomey was not the stinker that the NRA claims, but that is not the point.  The point is, the anti-rights side has acted, and continues to act as if their point of view is the only point of view that matters.  They act as if the tens of millions of gun owners in this country should not have their concerns, needs, and desires accounted for in any legislation. They act as if gun owners do not, and should not, count.

If we gun-rights advocates have learned not to compromise, to never give an inch, it is because we have learned it from the gun-grabbers.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others....

.... especially if they are members of Congress.

This, and things like this, are why I am no longer a member of any political party.  They are all irredeemably corrupt.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

I Have Heard Cops Say The Same Thing...

Spoken like a cop, not a peace officer:

"After all, anti-gunners might ask, if you aren’t doing anything wrong, what have you got to hide? And what are you afraid of?"

Read the while thing here:

The Black Civil-Rights Movement Has Become Self-Parody

I completely agree with everything written in this article. The black "civil rights" movement has become self-parody.

The ultimate indictment:

"There are vast career opportunities, money and political power to be gleaned from the specter of Mr. Zimmerman as a racial profiler/murderer; but there is only hard and selfless work to be done in tackling an illegitimacy rate that threatens to consign blacks to something like permanent inferiority. If there is anything good to be drawn from the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy, it is only the further revelation of the corruption and irrelevance of today's civil-rights leadership."

My Thoughts on the Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman Incident

I have not posted much, if at all, on this incident because others have done so more competently than I could. But watching the reaction of some people over the verdict, I find myself at a loss to understand how people think that the verdict was an "injustice", and I wonder if they followed the trial testimony at all.  Typical of the is that of Molly Rose. of Palo Alto, CA published in the Opinion section of the San Jose Mercury News:

What if the races were reversed in incident?
Regarding the George Zimmerman trial and a juror statement that race did not play a role. Hogwash.
If the races were reversed, if a black man shot a white teenager because he thought he looked threatening, what do you think the verdict would have been?
Molly Rose
Palo Alto

I think that, yes indeed, if the races were reversed, but all other circumstances were the same, that a black man would be acquitted similarly as George Zimmerman.  Molly Rose is incorrect in her view of the crime. Zimmerman did not shoot Martin because he looked suspicious, but because Martin attacked Zimmerman.  Facts established at the trial indicate that this is the most likely interpretation of the evidence.

I find it incomprehensible that people think that Zimmerman stalked and shot Martin, presumably because Martin was Black, but the same people choose to ignore evidence (testimony and forensic evidence) that Martin was shot because Martin, at some point in the encounter, became an assailant.

A man is dead, which only happens when mistakes are made. And I believe that people in this incident made mistakes.  Should Zimmerman have followed Martin?  Probably not.  Should Zimmerman have engaged Martin in conversation? Probably not.  Both actions were unwise, but they were not illegal.  

But why in Hell did Martin attack Zimmerman, as evidence shows he did, instead of telling Zimmerman to go F**k himself and then walk away?  Zimmerman is not a cop and cannot order a citizen minding his own business to do anything.  Why did Martin not blow Zimmerman off?

So, mistakes were made, and now a man is dead.  But those calling for "justice" are wrong headed.  There was a trial, despite lack of evidence, and a jury rendered the verdict.  That is justice.  Calling for "Justice for Trayvon" when you don't like the verdict is not a call for justice, but for state-sponsored vigilantism.

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Ammo Taxes Fail - AB 187, AB 760

Great news to start the weekend: two ammunition tax bills failed to clear their committees before the deadline, and are therefore dead for this year. AB 1020, a bill that would require the DOJ to send out letters to people in the DROS process summarizing various gun laws also failed to report out of committee.  That bill was a waste of money, especially for handgun purchases.  What the heck is the purposed of the Handgun Safety Certificate if not to educate the owner on safe storage laws.

Sunday, May 19, 2013

The Future: No Handguns For Sale In California

There may come a time when California gun shops may have only a dozen or so new handgun models for sale. Or, perhaps, none. Think that’s an exaggeration? California still has no less than 46 civilian disarmament bills floating around in the Sacramento legislature. It’s a slave state for sure.

That is the intent of the law.  Some bills mentioned in the article indicate that the gun-grabbers are beginning to work in earnest on getting rid of the rifles.  Hey, you hunters, who think "They'll never come after my bolt action rifle." had better starting thinking again.

Armed Teachers - Can It Work?

It sure seems to work in Utah.  

Wow! No blood in the classrooms, no teachers going postal, not accidents.  Nothing.

Also, when was the last time there was a mass school shooting in Utah?  This list says never, but I would think that the moral teachings of the Morman Church has more to do with it than the presence of armed teachers.

But is does prove that the mere presence of guns does not necessarily make kid less safe.

Update: 5/25/2013

The Texas legislature has passed and sent to the Governor a bill authorizing schools to arm and maintain teachers in the role of "armed marshals".  As with Utah, we will not see the results of a national experiment: armed teachers in schools vs. gun free zones in schools.

Will the mere presence of guns make schools "unsafe", as claimed by most teachers unions? Will armed teachers be effective in stopping active shooter incidents? Will anything significant change as a result?

Let's check back in a few years to see.

And The Lies Keep Rolling On

The San Diego Union-Tribue published this article about the avalanche of anti-gun bills that are moving through the legislature, which contained the following quote:

"In California, a centerpiece is Steinberg’s Senate Bill 374 that prohibits the sale, purchase, manufacturing or transfer of certain rifles with high-capacity clips.

“You can spray more bullets a lot faster, killing or hurting a lot more people,” Steinberg said."

The above, is the worst type of lie, telling a half-truth.  SB 374 redefines the definition of "assault weapon" to include any rimfire or centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine.  Steinberg's statement implies that these are military pattern rifles, but SB 374 would sweep up many rifles that are used for hunting or target practice.  The Ruger 10/22 and the Remington 570, and many others would be assault weapons if this bill becomes law.

"Assault weapons" are prohibited for sale by dealers, may not be sold or transferred by people who possess them, and must be surrendered, destroyed, or sold out of state when the owner dies.

"Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, a San Diego Democrat, said gun owner fears are overblown.

“I don’t see a total ban on guns. The bills aren’t about that,” she said."

SB 374 is a ban in all but name.  If it is signed into law, an entire class of rifles will disappear from gun store shelves, and eventually disappear from the public.  The only thing that this bill does not do is authorize the police to go door to door searching for and seizing weapons

Between this bill, and existing Roster of Handguns Approved for Sale, California has banned the sale of thousands of weapons. How are these not gun bans?

Prediction:  if this bill passes, they will be back with further restrictions:

1. Ban the sale of semi-automatic rifles that have fixed magazines, like the M-1 Garand.

2. Ban the sale of bolt action rifles because they are "sniper rifles" capable of firing "armor piercing"  ammunition.

3. Extend the Roster to include semi-automatic pistols as unsafe because of their ability to spay-fire 10 rounds without reloading.

4. Extend the Roster to ban large bore revolvers because large calibers are "unsafe".

We are on the slippery slope on gun rights in this state, and the Progressives are greasing the hill.  Where will it stop?

Friday, May 17, 2013

Creeping Handgun Ban Now in Effect

Today, May 17, 2013, the California Department of Justice has certified that microstamping technology is now available from more than one manufacturer unencumbered by patents.  Because of this event, microstamping will now be a required "safety feature" for all new handguns seeking approval by the DOJ for inclusion on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale.

The bulletin announcing this change can be read here.

It remains to be seen how handgun manufacturers will respond, but if they do not comply with this requirement, and many do not comply with the existing requirements, the effect will be a creeping handgun ban in California, with the models available for sale dwindling as the manufacturers allow the existing models to go out of production.

The only way to get this reversed will be either litigation, or boycott by the manufacturers.

Let me be the first to urge all firearms manufacturers to refuse to sell to police departments in California until this intolerable act is repealed. 

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Guns and Homicide - No Correlation

Part of the mythology of anti-gun activism is that fewer guns mean less violence.  But in at least one measure of violence, homicide, there seems to be no correlation between the number of guns per capita  and the number of homicides per capita.

This infographic reveals the fallacy of this claim.  The United States has the most guns per person, but is among the lowest homicide nations.  Many other countries have low gun ownership, but very high homicide rates, and some countries, notably the U.K. and Australia have low gun ownership and low homicide rates.

In short, there is no correlation between guns and homicide.

Los Angeles Considering An Unwise Magazine Ordinance

As reported in the Los Angeles Daily News, the Los Angeles city counsel is considering an ordinance that would authorize police officers to confiscate firearm magazines of greater than 10 round capacity.

Magazines greater than 10 round capacity are illegal to transfer, import, manufacture, and sell in California, but they are not illegal to possess if they were acquired before the effective date of the law.

Note that one cannot move into the state with larger than 10 round magazines, as that would be "importing".

California gun laws are, at this point in time, already pretty comprehensive, lacking only firearms purchase permits and firearms possession permits that some states require. But the "gun-grabbers" must be seen to be "doing something" about "gun violence", so they are considering a magazine confiscation law.

This idea has at least two problems. First, it would be an unconstitutional taking of property without either due process or compensation.  Second, it would be a violation of the California firearms preemption law, which precludes local laws more strict than state laws.  The preemption law has been used several times in the past to challenge local ordinances, especially in San Francisco. 

If adopted, this law is CERTAIN to wind up in court, and it would probably be overturned. But this incident does underline the threat of AB 180, a bill that would provide an exception to the state preemption law to the city of Oakland, California.  If that bill is granted, would Los Angeles be far behind in demanding a similar exception? And if granted, who can doubt that Los Angeles will go forward with a magazine confiscation ordinance, or even licensing and registration frameworks as intrusive as those found in Chicago and Washington, D.C.?  

I have no doubt that they would at least try, and California could be come the Illinois of the West Coast.

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

This is a sad day....

.... for Joan Peterson.  A good day for the people of Minnesota.  They're not going to get hosed like we will in California.

Friday, April 26, 2013

The Armed Citizen - Owner Authorized Handguns

The Armed Citizen web site had an article about owner authorized handguns are the new gun control frontier.  Actually, this are not new, and here are the comments I posted in reply:


This is nothing new. Anti-gun rights politicians are trying to jam SB 293 through the California legislature again, a bill which would add the owner authorized requirement to the "safe handgun roster" requirements. To all of you in free states, what the "safe handgun roster" does is define the features required by handguns to be eligible for sale in the state of CA. These requirements make California a market where many new handguns are ineligible for sale to regular people. Law enforcement officers are exempt from the "safe handgun" requirements.

This is a concept that anti-gun people regularly return to, because they think that it will solve a lot of gun control problems. First, stolen guns cannot be used by criminals because the guns are paired with an owner. Second, children cannot accidentally shot themselves or others. Third, the anti-gun people think that this technology can never be defeated.

All three of these assumptions are wrong, as this study shows:

But there are some real problems with this concept, the greatest problem is that guns with this technology have a real product liability risk. What if a gun should fire, but does not? What is a gun should not fire. but does? It is very telling that many law enforcement agencies have already indicated that they will not use owner authorized handguns: office safety would be compromised.

That should tell gun owners all they need to know about owner authorized handgun technology.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

2013 CA Legislature Gun Bill List - CRPA

The California Rifle And Pistol Association has published a comprehensive list of gun-related legislation currently under consideration.  Please review and contact you representative to make your support or opposition known.

Among the worst bills are SB  374, which would classify any semi-automatic rifle with a removable magazine, and those with fixed magazines with capacities greater than 10 rounds of ammunition as assault weapons. Existing weapons would have to be registered by July 1, 2014, and further sales of such weapons would be prohibited in the state of California.  Citizens moving into the state would be prohibited from importing their legally owned rifles into the state.

This is a semi-automatic rifle ban.  It would ban, for example, the Ruger 10/22 and the Ruger Mini-14, neither of which were considered assault weapons anywhere else, as far as I know.

SB 374 would instantly wind up in court if it passes, but please oppose this bill!

Bloomberg: NRA is Not the Entire Reason Why Gun Control Fails

Read the article, which is pretty good analysis, here.  It expresses a sentiment that I have long shared: the NRA may be the public standard bearer against gun control, it is not the only force in America with which anti-rights activists must contend.  It may not even be the most powerful:

3. Americans really dig their guns. This is a bitter pill for many blue-state liberals. But big swaths of the country are deeply enmeshed in the gun culture. Not crime culture, gun culture. 
Anti-rights people repeatedly try to convince people that gun ownership is declining, usually citing the General Social Survey.  That does not explain nearly five years of crazy gun buying by the public.

Sunday, April 21, 2013

2013 California Firearms Legislation

The California legislature, in response to the Sandy Hook School shootings, even though passing laws in response to a tragic event in Connecticut does not make much sense, has put forward a variety of new firearms bills.  After all, they "must do something" to protect the children, even though California has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. 

This post lists the bills and my comments on them.  I will update this post as the session progresses 

2013 CA SB 47 - Yee, Firearms: assault weapons


This bill re-defines assault weapons to include semi-automatic rifles equipped with bullet buttons, and to require their registration with the state.  After the registration period, further sales of these rifles would be prohibited since they would now be assault weapons under CA law.  

My Comments

This bill is a semiautomatic rifle sales ban.  Closing so-called loopholes that alarm that ignorant tool Leland Yee.

2013 CA AB 48 - Skinner/Ammiano, Firearms: ammunition: sales


Disassembled magazines that can be restored to function and hole more than 10 rounds will be illegal to import, possess, sell, lend, or transfer.  Any entity selling ammunition must first obtain a license to sell ammunition from the state.  Ammunition purchases are to be recorded in a new California Ammunition Database.  Ammunition dealers must check each person against the California Ammunition Database for eligility to receive ammunition. Each purchase record will be checked against the Prohibited Persons File, and if a match is made, the information will be forwarded to local law enforcement .

My Comments

This one is bad.  Now they do not want you even having parts to make a larger than 10 round magazine, and they are regulating ammunition as well.  I wonder how all the ammunition regulations will work out if ALL of the pass?

2013 CA SB 53 - DeLeon/Yee, Ammunition: purchase permits


This bill establishes licenses for vendors to sell ammunition, and permits required for individuals to purchase ammunition.  Records of ammunition purchases will be kept, and checked against the Prohibited Persons File.

My Comments

This is another bill that will end up doing very little while irritating law abiding shooters.  It will also inspire an enormous black market for ammunition, both by criminals, and by law abiding citizens who do not wish to pay the extra regulatory costs.  Criminals will still get their ammo, massive amounts of mostly useless data will be compiled, and the broke state of California will spend a lot of money to very little effect.

2013 CA SB 108 - Yee, Firearms: residential storage


This bill requires gun owners to secure their firearms whenever the owner is not within the residence, and defines violation of this law as an infraction or as a misdemeanor for subsequent violations.

My Comments

More nanny-state bullshit from Senator Yee.

2013 CA SB 127 - Gains, Firearms: mentally disordered persons


Requires psychotherapists to report (electronically) people who threaten violence to local law enforcement within 24 hours, and for local law enforcement to report to the Department of Justice within 24 hours.

2013 CA AB 169 - Dickinson, Unsafe Handguns


Exemption of unsafe handguns laws for C&R handguns is eliminated. Single shot exemption for semi-automatic pistols is eliminated. Eliminates sales from exempted persons (LEO) to non-exempted persons.

My Comments

The gun grabbers are pissed that there are a few holes in Californias farcical "safe handgun list", and this is an attempt to close them.  Interestingly, it closes a loophole that benefits LEOs.  See, guys, they will eventually come after you too.

2013 CA AB 170 - Bradford, Assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles


Defines a "person" as an individual for the purpose of owning assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles.  This means that ownership by corporations, LLC,  associations, groups or other entities is eliminated. 

2013 CA AB 180 - Bonta, Registration and licensing of firearms: exclusive regulation by the Legislature


This bill explicitly exempts the City of Oakland from the California firearms preemption law which reserves to the California legislature the exclusive power to enact laws regulating firearms.  The City of Oakland would be able to enact city ordinances more restrictive than California law. 

My Comments

This bill MUST BE STOPPED.  Sure, the gun laws in this state suck, but they are at least uniform across the state (certain city ordinances excepted).  Allowing this exception will open the floodgates: who can deny that Los Angeles and San Francisco will not clamor for the same exemption to the state preemption law?  And left free to do so, they would pass weapon and ammunition bans.

This bill is the way California becomes Illinois, and Los Angeles becomes Chicago.

2013 CA AB 187 - Bonta, Taxation: ammunition: Public Safety Emergency Prevention Fund


This bill creates the Public Safety Emergency Prevention Fund.  This bill would also create a tax on ammunition purchases of 10% of gross sales, receipts of which would be deposited in the Fund, and allocated to fund public safety programs in high crime areas.

My Comments

Great! A new sin tax. This is a really good incentive to start an underground market for ammunition.  A lot of people will simply route this by obtaining their ammunition elsewhere.

2013 CA AB 202 - Donally, Schools Safety: School Marshall Plan


This bill authorizes schools to use general purpose funds to train a school employee to be armed, in accordance to PC 626.9, on school property and at school events.  This bill would also exclude from public disclosure the application for a license, or the license itself of a school marshall.

My Comments

I am frankly surprised that this bill even exists.  Arming school personnel is the only thing, IMHO, that can possibly have a positive effect on school security during an active shooter incident.  This is a true "common sense" gun law.

So it will probably die in committee.

Update - Yep! It died in committee.  This state will NEVER allow armed people in public schools, no matter how many times teachers in other states stop active shooters.  After all, GUNS = VIOLENCE, and we can't have guns in schools.

2012 CA SB 140 - Leno, Firearms: prohibited persons


This bill diverts $24,000,000 from the Dealers Record Of Sale Special Account to fund activities aimed at eliminating the backlog of cases in the Armed Prohibited Persons System.  

My Comments

The Armed Prohibited Persons System is intended to ensure that armed prohibited persons have legally disposed of their firearms, or to confiscate them if necessary.  California is the only state, IMHO, that has such a program, and I have no problem with it.  It is an example of enforcing the laws on the books.

The problem I have with this is that DROS funds are one of the few in California that are running a surplus.  Imagine, a state fund running a surplus!  That in turn means that DROS fees are too high,, and should be reduced, and the monies refunded.  Instead they are being diverted.

This one has already passed in the Assembly and is in the Senate.

The Futility of Gun Control

Larry Correia wrote one of the best essays on the futility of gun control that I have ever read.  I am surprised that it has taken me this long to find it.  Outstanding.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

51st Armed Citizen Report Listed

I just added the 51st report of an armed citizen with a concealed carry permit successfully defending themselves with a firearm.  The incident was reported in Fort Worth TX, April 16, 2013.

Read all of the incidents at my Armed Citizen Self Defense page.

San Jose Mercury News on Gun Bills in Sacramento

This article appeared in the San Jose Mercury News today. It discusses if the recent Senate gun control loss will have an effect on the several gun control bills pending in Sacramento.

It is my belief that the recent Senate vote will only encourage state gun control advocates to push even harder to make up for the failure to enact "common sense" gun control at the Federal level.  The only silver lining I see is reluctance about the ammunition tax.  My own representative, Jim Beall is mentioned in the article:

"Already some California Democrats are conspicuously mum. For example, of eight lawmakers -- five assemblymen and three state senators -- who scored above zero on the National Rifle Association's 2012 score card, only one would talk to this newspaper last month about proposals to regulate and tax ammunition. And that one, state Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, said he wasn't too hot on the ideas."

I fear, though, that all of the bills will pass, and it will all be hashed out in the courts.

The Elephant in the Room is Recognized - For Once

Gun control advocates constantly whine about that nasty NRA, and how, if it were not for the NRA, we could all live in a gun-free, which, therefore, would  be violence-free, utopia.  The NRA only exists, the gun controllers insist, because the gun industry supports them with cash.

Well one reporter finally realized that the NRA is a membership organization, more than most other lobbying groups, and that advantage in membership, nearly 5 million strong, is what gives the NRA its edge. 

Adam Winker wrote in another article that gun control advocates stirred up the mistrust of gun owners:

Focusing on assault weapons played right into the hands of the NRA, which has for years been saying that Obama wanted to ban guns. Gun control advocates ridiculed that idea—then proposed to ban the most popular rifle in America.

To gun control advocates who may be reading this post: make no mistake about it. We absolutely do not trust you to deal wither honestly or fairly on this issue.  The contents of the Schumer background check bill confirms that your intent is to slowly eliminate legally owned firearms, and that was an loud wake-up call to gun owners everywhere.

Yes, the NRA has a lot of money to throw around. Both members and gun manufacturers contribute millions. I myself contributed money for the first time in my life to the NRA-ILA to help fight these bills. But Mayor Bloomberg spent even more pushing gun control in this Congress, and has got precious little to show for it.  

This victory belongs to the NRA, which, like the militia, is composed of people, the membership of the NRA.

Friday, April 19, 2013

The Brady Campaign PAC is Broke

I continue to be amazed that anyone takes the Brady Campaign seriously.  Bitter at Shall Not Be Questioned posts some hilariously satisfying data on the amount of money raised and on hand as reported by the Brady Campaign PAC.  They raised nothing in 2012, and had a whopping $2578 on hand at the end of 2012.

Heck of a war chest ya got there.

Meanwhile, liberal gun control fanatics wonder why the pro-rights people won on the S. 649 this week.  Bottom line: not enough people care about "common sense" gun laws to give a few bucks to the Brady Campaign.  Is perhaps because these "common sense" gun laws are simply unpopular?

How can that be?!

Nancy Pelosi Plays To Her Base

This article on Politico at first seemed to show Nancy Pelosi thinks we are all stupid, but I realized after reading the following, that she is only playing to her base:

Pelosi said voters should now focus their efforts on the House version of the Toomey-Manchin amendment introduced by Reps. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Mike Thompson (D-Calif.). The bill calls for expanding checks for commercial gun purchases, including those made at gun shows.

Read more:
Come on Nancy! You are the Minority leader, not the Speaker, so how likely is it that your bill will pass the in the House? And if it does, it must go to the Senate for passge there, the same Senate that failed to pass background checks yesterday, and that today had the entire gun control bill (S. 649) pulled from the floor by Harry Reid.

Gun control is dead in this Congress, unless there is another mass shooting.  In which case, the usual suspects will jump up on a soap box filled with dead bodies to shout and bully for more laws that erode the 2nd Amendment.

Anti-Gun Narrative is Not Convincing The Public

It is an important part of the anti-gun narrative is the meme that guns in the home do not make you safer.  The Brady Campaign constantly emphasizes this in their "gun safety" campaign.  But there is evidence indicating that Americans are not buying the notion that guns are not the answer to home security.

A recent poll,commissioned by the Washington Post, posed the question

"Do you think having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be or a more dangerous place to be?"
The results to that question show that 51% of respondents think guns make the home a safer place, 29% of respondents think guns make the home more dangerous place, and 16% think that "it depends".  More surprising is that the trend is for an increasing number of people think that guns make the home safer. The anti-gun advocates are not making their case.

This, and other evidence, such as the increasing numbers of gun sales and increasing numbers of concealed carry permits, and the increasing numbers of women gun owners are indicative of a cultural change in this country, a shift that is in favor of gun rights, including the right to bear  arms in public.

When you read about and watch gun control advocates tearing their hair and gnashing their teeth bout how the NRA derailed gun control in the Senate, reflect on where the power that the NRA comes from: their 4 million plus members, and more indirectly, the many millions of non-member gun owners.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Ammunition Tax Bill in Suspense

The Los Angeles Times has the good news: the bill in the California state legislature has been placed in the "suspense file".  This means that it will not be brought to the floor for a vote.  But this does not mean that the bill is dead.  It is not unknown for bills in suspense to be pulled out and voted upon.

Good news, but we are not out of the woods yet.

Friday, March 8, 2013

Dianne Feinstein - Full of Crap as Usual

Dianne Feinstein, gun-grabber-in-chief, made the following wild claim in this article:

“The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices, those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. Limiting magazine capacity is critical because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down.”
No, Senator Feinstein, it is not legal to hunt human beings with any size magazine, not even a single  shot weapon.  Hunting humans is called homicide, and it is illegal in every state.  Is this statement a mistake, or is it attempted FUD to sway the low information voter?

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Hillary Clinton is a Liar

I read this article today by Deb Saunders, and I have this reaction:

Does anyone not remember that it was Hillary who said that the Clintons were the victims of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" when it was really the case that Bill Clintons cock was regularly in Monica Lewinskys mouth?