Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Congress Blames Top ATF Officials for Fast and Furious

Congressional investigators probing the Obama administration’s deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-running scheme concluded that senior Justice Department figures and five top officials with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) were responsible for the tragic program, according to the first segment of an official report. All of the ATF figures still work for the agency.

Various media outlets received advance copies of the damning document, which was prepared for House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). Both of the GOP lawmakers have been at the forefront of investigating and exposing the blood-drenched scheme since it came to light. 

The scandalous Fast and Furious operation, first exposed by whistleblowers more than a year ago, used U.S. taxpayer funds to put thousands of high-powered weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Hundreds of murders have already been linked to those firearms, including the now-infamous slaying of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in 2010.

The two Mexican “drug lords” supposedly being targeted by the Fast and Furious “investigation” already worked for the FBI and were considered “untouchable,” documents revealed later. Meanwhile, according to Justice Department e-mails uncovered during the congressional probe, the violence and killings linked to the weapons-trafficking operation were being exploited by senior administration officials to push for more infringements on the right of Americans to keep and bear arms.  

According to the latest unreleased report, one of three being prepared by U.S. lawmakers about the growing scandal, operation Fast and Furious was “marred by missteps, poor judgments and inherently reckless strategy” from the start. Five top ATF officials including then-Acting Director Kenneth Melson were singled out, with the former chief blamed for not shutting down the program sooner despite his apparent concerns.    

"I think they were doing more damage control than anything," Melson was quoted as testifying in the report concerning the administration’s reaction to the congressional investigation. "My view is that the whole matter of the department's response in this case was a disaster."

Another senior ATF official cited in the congressional report was then-special agent in charge of the Phoenix field division William Newell, who had previously come under fire for other half-baked “investigative” tactics. His attorney responded to the new report by attacking Rep. Issa, alleging that the Oversight Committee chairman "has consistently shown that he won't let the truth get in the way of his quixotic political witch hunt."    

Other ATF officials blamed in the report include Deputy Assistant Director for Field Operations William McMahon, Assistant Director for Field Operations Mark Chait, and Deputy Director William Hoover. It remains unclear what actions, disciplinary measures, or criminal charges, if any, will result from the probe.

“Now that the first report names five managers deemed responsible for allowing the operation to happen, it remains to be seen what Issa and company will do about it,” noted gun-rights activist David Codrea, who played a key role in exposing the scandal to begin with. Some potential criminal charges could include violations of the “International Traffic in Arms Regulations and the Kingpin Act,” he added, saying that “Issa himself indicated ‘prosecutions’ were a possibility.”

Codrea said it would be reasonable to wait some time before moving to file criminal charges — at least until certain highly anticipated developments in the ongoing saga. But if prosecutions do not ultimately happen, "many demanding justice will no doubt conclude the game has been rigged, and that those crying ‘politics’ have had a point,” he concluded.

According to the latest draft report, congressional investigators also discovered new evidence that ATF had attempted to mislead Mexican authorities. Apparently the agency sought to conceal the fact that two “Fast and Furious” guns were found at the scene of the high-profile murder in the Mexican state of Chihuahua of the attorney general’s brother in 2010. 

More information on Fast and Furious should be emerging soon. The other two segments of the report to be released as part of the congressional investigation will deal with the Justice Department’s role in the program and its subsequent ham-fisted efforts to cover up the scandal, according to the document.

“Part two will look at the devastating failure of supervision and leadership by officials at Justice Department headquarters, principally within the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and within the Criminal Division,” the report said. “Part three will address the unprecedented obstruction of the investigation by the highest levels of the Justice Department, including the Attorney General himself.”

Disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder, who lied under oath during the congressional inquiry, was held in contempt of Congress in late June for defying subpoenas and his lawless efforts to obstruct investigators. But the fanatical anti-gun zealot — he once proposed a tax-funded campaign to “brainwash” people against the right to keep and bear arms — is now abusing his position to shield himself from prosecution, according to critics.

Well over 100 members of Congress have called for Holder to step down, and numerous Democrats broke with their party on the vote to hold him in contempt. Instead of stepping down and preserving the integrity of the Justice Department, however, the disgraced Attorney General has lashed out at critics and the media while implausibly claiming investigators were motivated by politics or even race.  

Newspapers across the country have run editorials demanding accountability and disclosure in the case. So far, however, the Obama administration has refused, with the president even stepping in recently to assert “executive privilege” in withholding documents from investigators. Lawmakers are currently exploring other options to obtain the information.   

The Justice Department has also been obstructing a separate congressional investigation into the drug money-laundering activities of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), first exposed late last year by the New York Times. Separately, the DEA is also under fire for its role in killing women and children in Honduras recently as part of an effort to find a canoe allegedly carrying some narcotics through a jungle. 

The ATF, meanwhile, is currently embroiled in yet another scandal after its new acting boss, B. Todd Jones, sent out a video unlawfully threatening agents with “consequences” for going outside the “chain of command” to report problems. Of course, whistleblowers — including the agents who exposed Fast and Furious — are protected by federal law when exposing criminal or unethical conduct.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and its role in drug trafficking is back in the international media spotlight again, too. Mexican officials recently accused the “intelligence” outfit of attempting to “manage” the drug trade rather than fight it — a familiar charge that has been made for decades by top officials, drug smugglers, investigators, and even the former head of the DEA.

Other experts told The New American that Fast and Furious almost certainly went beyond just the ATF and the Justice Department. "There is no doubt that the top management of ATF knew and approved the operation," said Andy Ramirez, president of the Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council (LEOAC). "However, the fact is there is no OP that is run by a federal agency, with the exception of CIA, that is run without an Assistant US Attorney supervising it. They report to the US Attorney unless the OP is run out of Main DOJ in DC, and so on up the chain of command. This type of OP is so badly thought up that it had to go up to the very top, meaning AG Eric Holder and the White House."

Ramirez also said that, according to his sources, "Homeland Security" boss Janet Napolitano was probably deeply involved in Fast and Furious, too. "That means two departments were involved and if you have two, then State and the White House knew, too. Hence the massive size and scope of the cover up itself," he concluded.

The latest congressional report concluded that “strong leadership” would be needed at ATF to overcome the “deep scars” left by Fast and Furious. Critics of the agency, however, argue that the unconstitutional institution should be abolished altogether, and that other leads should be pursued as well. Anyone responsible for helping to unlawfully arm Mexican cartels, meanwhile, must be held accountable in a court of law to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

Congress Blames Top ATF Officials for Fast and Furious

Monday, July 30, 2012

Aurora Had Zero Effect on Opinions About Gun Control

Except, of course, for the opinions of those who hold irrational fear of inanimate objects above logic and reason. 

On the question of whether controlling gun ownership is more important than protecting the rights of gun owners, Americans feel almost exactly the same as they did before James Holmes shot 70 people in a movie theater, according to Pew. 


Original Page: http://www.topix.com/guns/2012/07/aurora-had-zero-effect-on-opinions-about-gun-control?fromrss=1

Why Are Republicans Calling To Disarm The American People?

The recent deluge of attacks against the second amendment were completely predictable in the aftermath of the Colorado massacre, but what perhaps wasn't so expected was the fact that a lot of them have come from so-called Republicans.

Although normally aligned with the right to keep and bear arms, over the last week numerous self-proclaimed conservatives have proven themselves to be wolves in sheep's clothing.

The most recent rhetorical assault on gun rights came yesterday courtesy of Reagan appointee and so-called intellectual anchor of the Supreme Court's conservative wing, Justice Antonin Scalia.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Scalia said that the second amendment leaves rooms for certain types of weapons to be regulated.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia told host Chris Wallace, adding that "They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," when the Constitution was signed.

Scalia's remarks prompted outrage from conservatives, who accused him of selling out to the political left.

Other luminaries on the political right did not wait long before joining their contemporaries on the left to call for gun rights to be restricted.

Within 48 hours of the 'Batman' shooting, media mogul Rupert Murdoch, labeled a "GOP kingmaker" in the United States, voiced his support for restricting the second amendment, tweeting, "We have to do something about gun controls."

Similarly, in several shows broadcast in the days following the Colorado massacre, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly has repeatedly advocated the creation of a national database of gun owners, currently prohibited by federal law, joining the likes of Piers Morgan, Michael Moore and Michael Bloomberg in savaging the second amendment.

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol also reacted to the Aurora shooting by calling for a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. He was joined by talk radio host Michael Savage, who despite modeling himself as one of the Obama administration's most ardent critics also advocated reintroducing the ban.

With so-called "conservatives" like this, who needs liberals?

Given the fact that virtually all of the names mentioned above are ardent supporters of Mitt Romney, who signed into law an assault weapons ban while Governor of Massachussets, in addition to making repeated public statementsabout supporting strict gun control laws in order to "provide for our safety," whoever wins the presidential election, the next four years are going to be a battle for gun rights activists.

It's ironic that while many conservative and Republican icons have joined the political left in exploiting the Colorado massacre to rhetorically ambush the second amendment, the federal government under the Obama administration is simultaneously arming itself to the teeth as part of preparations to deal with unruly Americans in the event of civil unrest.

While the Department of Homeland Security puts out requests for "riot gear" to deal with civil unrest during the upcoming RNC, DNC and presidential inauguration, the federal agency also recently awarded defense contractor ATK a deal to provide the DHS with 450 million rounds of bullets over a five year period.

The DHS has also recently purchased a number of bullet-proof checkpoint booths that include 'stop and go' lights.

Leading conservatives don't seem too fussed at the fact that the federal government is gearing up for violence as it targets politically active conservatives as domestic extremists.

However, when it comes to calling for Americans to be disarmed and the second amendment to be eviscerated, the Republican establishment shows equal if not greater zeal than the left in rushing to blame tragedies such as the Aurora shooting on God-given rights enshrined in the very same Constitution that conservatives are supposed to uphold and cherish.

http://www.infowars.com/why-are-republicans-calling-to-disarm-the-american-people/

Friday, July 27, 2012

Olympic Sports You're Pretty Sure Don't Exist: Shooting

Welcome to the Gawker Guide to the Obscure Olympic Sports You Have Never Heard Of Or Given A Damn About. Next up: Shooting for sport! The 21st Most Important Olympic sport.

What the hell is going on here?: Men and women shoot at targets with guns. This is a sport that seems to mostly involve only a single arm and a powerful index finger, but really, it is so much more than that. (I have never fired a gun. I suspect it is so much more than that.) That said, it almost certainly requires no traditional athletic coordination or skill.

Olympic shooters fire one of three guns: the rifle, the pistol, and the shotgun. The pistol and rifle events are fairly similar. In the early rounds, shooters fire at a 10-ring target; those who advance to the finals must fire at a 10-ring target whose rings have been split up into 10 score zones. They do all of this in an enclosed shooting galley that looks something like a bowling alley, only instead of the audience watching and clapping politely as competitors roll balls into pins, the audience watches and claps politely as competitors fire deadly weapons across the room. Hope they're accurate! Ha, ha.

They are generally very accurate. In shotgun events, the shooters stand in a huge field and fire at small orange discs that fly through the air some 60 feet at high speeds that can change with the wind. The discs are just over four inches wide. Despite all of this, the rifle shooters actually tend to hit the orange discs, which usually explode in a really satisfying little burst. That is the nicest thing I can say about shooting, and I watched every minute of shooting during the Beijing Olympics for work.

Cool reference to bring up during broadcast to impress your friends if you have any: At the 1900 Olympics, held in Paris, two events actually used pigeons as the targets. "Too bad they can't take Sparky here," you can say, laughing genially, as you gesture toward your neighbor's Corgi.

Your prepackaged heartstrings/oh-no-he-didn't storyline:

  • Matt Emmons, pictured above. Ever heard of the yips? It's this strange physio-psychological phenomenon wherein highly trained athletes suffer sudden, almost inexplicable collapses in skill when it is needed the most. Matt Emmons, a 31-year-old Team USA rifle competitor from Brown Mills, N.J., has a history of the yips at the Olympics. In the 50m rifle event in Athens in 2004, he held a sizeable lead over his opponents going into the final round, he lost it. On his final shot, he fired at the wrong target for a score of zero and finished eighth. In 2008, in Beijing, he fell from first place in the 50m rifle event once again, when he fired too early. He finished in fourth. Will Emmons fuck up this year??? Tune in to find out.
  • Relevant inspirational video:

    Sport rating: This is like a 3. No one breaks a sweat. There is even an event called "50m Rifle Prone." "Prone" means that the shooters are literally lying down during competition.

    Sex rating: Do you have a thing for humans who are incredibly accurate with deadly weapons? 5.

    Nerd rating: 7. Masculine edge, but still a creepy basis, kinda.

    Perfect for: Pacifists who still really like firearms and are not sure what to do about that, anyone with a firearm fetish.

    Where you can watch it: You'll find some coverage on the NBC Sports Network, formerly known as Versus and available in certain cable packages. (Check out NBC's schedule, sortable by sport, for full coverage.) If you have a cable provider (or, you know, a generous friend with a cable provider), you can sign in on NBC's Olympics website to watch all coverage. Make an original drinking game of it: Every time they shoot, you take a shot.



Original Page: http://m.gawker.com/5929259/gawkers-guide-to-the-olympic-sports-youre-pretty-sure-dont-exist-shooting

Schumer is Sending All the Wrong Signals

I'm sure you've heard that Senator Chuck Schumer has introduced an amendment to the Cyber Security bill that would prohibit the manufacture and transfer of magazines with more than 10 rounds of capacity:

Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.

Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some "reasonable" gun control measures.

Needless to say it's sponsored by all the usual suspects:

The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.).

Of course this amendment makes little sense. It's being introduced as a method to protect individuals by restricting the maximum number of rounds a criminal can have in their firearm but the Aurora, Colorado shooter's 100-round AR-15 magazined jammed. Considering that fact wouldn't the proper response to the Colorado shooting be to encourage people to buy ridiculously high capacity and notoriously unreliable magazines?

I know many gun bloggers are going to tell you to contact your "representatives" and demand that they oppose this amendment. That's good and all but I think we should have a backup plan, let's figure out how to easily manufacture reliable standard capacity magazines. Obviously this is the agorist in me speaking but I think it's time we started ignoring these idiotic prohibitions. If we can manufacture registered parts of AR-15s on a 3D printer producing magazines shouldn't be too difficult. Attempting to ban something that every yahoo with basic metalworking equipment can produce in a few minutes is impossible and it sends a signal to the state, we're done complying with your stupid rules, regulations, and prohibitions.

This is the concept of nullification of bad laws by the people. It is an extension of the Tenth Amendment, where the states have more authority than the federal government, and by extension individual citizens have more authority than any governmental organization. Everything distills down to the individual. 

To quote Howard Zinn, "Civil disobedience, as I put it to the audience, was not the problem, despite the warnings of some that it threatened social stability, that it led to anarchy. The greatest danger, I argued, was civil obedience, the submission of individual conscience to governmental authority."


Original Page: http://christopherburg.com/2012/07/27/schumer-is-sending-all-the-wrong-signals/

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Bitch on a Donut Run

This goes out to Christopher Titus. Keep helping to wake up the sheeple. 


Let me start out by saying that Left and Right are both wrong. 

Now, on to the news. 
Another increasingly-rare, yet ever-increasingly-reported instance of violence against innocent fellow sheeple in a gun free zone led to the loss of twelve lives in Colorado last week. If anyone doubts that gun laws are effective, they only have to discount reality, heavily. Like buy-one-get-ten-free discounted. 



Does anyone believe that just because statistical data shows gun ownership is increasing, while violent crime is decreasing, could actually correlate? Does anyone believe making something illegal makes it go away, or that someone else enjoyed that something without hurting anyone else? Wow, crimes with no victims? Sounds like fascism in full swing...
There are always generally more laws, it's what keeps politicians in business. Despite increasing volumes of convoluted and unconstitutional laws impeding natural, human rights, somehow people are still violent against each other, on occasion. It's in the genes. 

We died before we were born and we waste the time we have been spared to live. No wonder so many collapsitarians believe we won't survive. 

The definition of a criminal is one who commits an act of crime. I thought it was a simple premise as well, I fear few can muster that level of cognitive disention. It's like winning by default; I'm still a loser. 



Fight for your fucking lives people. Lest it no longer be yours when you wish to exercise the free will upon which you allowed encroachment, albeit rather slowly. We the People hold the final power to nullify bad law and despotic regimes. ...then they came for me and there was no one left...

And if some evil fucktard zombie jumps out and starts doing harm to others? Get some live tactical experience. And take responsibility for the safety of you and those near you. Law enforcement is not responsible for public safety, they react to criminal breaches of the peace. And remember kids, when seconds and lives matter, police are only minutes away...

It's a hell of a lot better than being someone's BITCH ON A DONUT RUN. 

Backyard Shooting

I bought a used Remington AirMaster77, .177 pump pellet rifle earlier this summer. It came with a little scope ad also shoots BBs. I find that off the patio about ten yards out to the fence it shoots fairly well, even in low light. It almost makes up for my homeowners association frowning down on discharging live ammunition at home.

Monday, July 23, 2012

Huff and Puff: Why Would Anyone Think Gun Control is Patriotic?

Sanjay Sanghoee, writing for the Huffington Post this week suggested that gun control would be patriotic. In other words, destroying the Second Amendment would be showing patriotism. He wrote:

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado, it is time to take a long, hard look at the role of guns in our society. This is not about politics but about pure common sense.

Let's start with the simple facts: a gunman, who is most likely insane, went to the front of a packed movie theater during a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises and opened fire on the crowd with assault weapons. A dozen people died and dozens other were injured and probably traumatized for life. A disgusting act that has shocked the nation, but who is to blame for what happened?

The liberals would say that it is the NRA and the gun industry, who make it absurdly easy to secure assault weapons in the United States, including over the Internet. The conservatives in turn would say that it is not guns but people who do the killing. Literally speaking they are correct, but if the essence of what the conservatives claim is true, then the reason we have crazy massacres in this country is because Americans are a bunch of homicidal maniacs with no impulse control; and if that part is true, then should we really allow this same crackpot citizenry to carry firearms? You see the problem?

This is just nonsense. But then the writer added:

The Second Amendment of our Constitution was meant to protect us from harm, but had the Founding Fathers known back then that the proliferation of guns would put us in harm's way today, I bet you anything they would have put safeguards in place to prevent abuse.

The framers of the Constitution did create safeguards against despotic regimes: the Bill of Rights. Those inclusions were intended to reaffirm the natural rights of citizens and restrict the state from infringing upon them. 

The right to defend oneself makes sense but that should not encompass the right to own weapons of mass destruction, or to endanger the welfare of society. The belief that we need to stockpile guns of every kind to protect us from our own government is a sign of deep paranoia and madness.

In terms of gun rights, freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable searches, etc., the government can be seen as a threat for its efforts to restrict or remove many of these guaranteed freedoms. There is no paranoia or conspiracy theory when we have entire municipalities and states restricting firearms rights to near non-existence. Think of Chicago, New York City, or the entire state of California. To get much worse, gun rights are simply remove entirely. 

And to the people who think that way, let me ask you this: do you really believe that if the U.S. government decided for some reason to direct all its military might against you , you would stand a chance against them?

Would standing up for those collective liberties in the face of a government which is out of control not be most patriotic? I believe so, and gun owners understand why more than most. 

Guns were actually fairly common when the Founding Fathers drafted the Second Amendment. And do we really want to take the risks of being left defenseless?

The spark that started the rebellion against the crown in this country occurred when Britain tried to end gun ownership by the colonists. I believe they knew better than anyone the reason firearms rights were more than necessary to defend a free society. 


Original Page: http://www.firearmstruth.com/2012/huff-and-puff-why-gun-control-is-patriotic

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Jason Alexander: 2nd Amendment proponents aren't 'true patriots'; Piers Morgan agrees

Constitutionally, the 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms. Actor Jason Alexander, however, says supporters of it are not "true patriots." He wrote a lengthy commentary stating as much.

I'd like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow (cont) tl.gd/if2nht— jason alexander (@IJasonAlexander) July 22, 2012…


Original Page: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/22631/

Quote Of The Day

In a column for PJ Media, Mike McDaniel examined the killing of two home owners when their homes were invaded by SWAT teams. In both cases, neither home owner had broken the law and no evidence of any wrongdoing on their part was found. Their only "crime" was to be armed in the presence of overzealous SWAT teams. In the case of Jose Guerena, the police had a warrant but no probable cause for its issue. In the case of Andrew Lee Scott, they had the wrong guy and the wrong apartment when they knocked on the door.

McDaniel is a former police officer, detective, and SWAT team officer so I think he knows of what he speaks.

In a free society, a society with a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, police officers believing they may shoot a citizen in his own home simply because he is carrying a firearm cannot be tolerated. Officers must absolutely avoid putting citizens in situations where they might be armed, or even pointing firearms in the direction of police officers banging on or breaking down their front doors. If such misconduct is tolerated, as in the cases of Jose Guerena and Andrew Scott, the next knock on any citizen's door may be the last they ever answer.

Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/NoLawyers-OnlyGunsAndMoney/~3/21Y1HxpSKs8/quote-of-day.html

Political Opportunism

As everyone who pays attention to political blogging knows, tragedies are too tragic to politicize. Discussing gun control in the wake of a tragic shooting is despicable political opportunism. Discussing the discussion of gun control in the wake of a tragic shooting, however, isn't politically opportunistic because it's a morally neutral, second-order discussion about a discussion. It's a meta-discussion about the propriety of having a political discussion in the wake of a tragic shooting, meaning it's an apolitical discussion whose participants are immune to the charge that they're violating decorum by politicizing a tragedy. For example, here's Glenn Reynolds's first post about Aurora:

A TRULY AWFUL mass shooting in Denver. At the Batman premiere.

UPDATE: More here.

It doesn't exploit the tragedy by using it to score cheap political points, so no one could accuse him of political opportunism. But here's his second post on the tragic shooting:

POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM: CNN's Piers Morgan, First to Use Colorado Tragedy to Assault Second Amendment Rights. I'm sure he won't be the last.

Others may blame Hollywood. In both cases, it's a mix of opportunism and a desire not to confront the existence of evil. Well, okay, in Piers Morgan's case, it's not much of a mix, really.

UPDATE: Left Blames Aurora Shooting On Rush Limbaugh. Of course they do. Hey, never let a tragedy go to waste, when you might use it to smear an opponent.

Every time something like this happens, they roll out the blood libels.

[...] 


Original Page: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/07/glenn-reynolds-demonstrates-how-to-avoid-politicizing-a-tragedy

Govt Staged Batman Shooting For Gun Control. Or Not

Gun Control Only Makes Law-Abiding People Defenseless

guncontrol_ad_cropped
One of the missing elements of the Aurora, Colorado, shooting spree was the apartment of James Holmes. There is an abundant amount of news coverage describing how it was wired with explosives. The first person who entered the room would have been killed. The police need to be commended for some good reconnaissance work.
If the shooter planned for months to kill people and trip-wire his apartment, making the purchase of guns illegal would not have stopped him. He would have used explosives. They’re illegal, too. More people would have been killed because of the percussion effect – an explosive device going off in a small space.
If people want to kill other people, the law’s not going to stop them. Box cutters and airplanes brought down the Twin Towers. If word got out that ten to twenty percent of the population was carrying a firearm, I suspect that nut jobs and world-be terrorists would have second thoughts about going on shooting rampages. We might, however, see an up-tick in other types of killings.

Great Britain has strict gun control laws. Advocates of gun control believe that these laws cut down on violence and crime. Such laws only empower lawbreakers. Gun homicides were low in the United Kingdom even before gun control laws went into effect. This does not mean that there hasn’t been any gun violence since these laws went into effect in 1977.
“Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year’s Day this year [2002] a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.”
I can't think of a worse place to hold up as an example, except maybe as what not to do.
Gun control has had an impact elsewhere: a dramatic increase in other violent crimes. “For example, comparing London and New York, cities of very similar population and demographics, the rate of assaults and robberies is over six times as high, and 7 or 10 times nationwide (depending on statistic used).” Compared with the United States, “the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80.”
[...]
John Lott is right; more guns = less crime. And the inverse is also correct; more gun restrictions = higher violent crime rates. Imagine that...

Brady Campaign Sees Tragedy as Opportunity

I subscribe to the Brady Campaign email list, though I find that reality is in conflict with most of the views of the campaign. When I first heard the news of the tragedy in a Colorado movie theater last week, one of my first thoughts was that the campaign would jump on the opportunity to exploit the loss of life for political gain, like they always do. The misguided folks at the Brady Campaign believe that guns are the cause of violence, rather than a tool of those violent individuals.

It's the guns! It's the guns! It's the guns!
Dear hoplophobe,
How angry are you in the wake of the horror in Aurora, CO? Are you angry enough to do something? We need your help now.
Only one thing enabled this mass killing: America's terrible gun laws. And we know who is responsible for these terrible laws: our elected officials. The Brady Campaign has one clear goal – to get our representatives to address the national problem of easy availability of guns in this country – NOW!
In just the last few weeks, we have seen mass shootings in Alabama, Washington state and now Colorado – all states whose leaders have capitulated to the NRA and passed laws that allow dangerous people to get guns and carry them on our streets.
Laws that make it LEGAL to carry deadly weapons into public places … and the police can do nothing until the trigger is pulled.
We are mobilizing people across the country to demand our elected leaders stop cowering to the NRA. Change will only happen when the American people DEMAND change.
We must mobilize to demand Congress to act to prevent another shooting. I urge you to stand with us now. Only your support will help make this possible.  
Daniel Gross PhotoSincerely,
Daniel Gross Signature
Dan Gross
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

What the Brady bunch fails to recognize in their "reports" on this specific tragedy is that the movie theater in question is a gun-free zone. This means that guns are not allowed on the premises. But those who support the natural and Constitutional right to self defense understand that laws and signs have no effect on those willing to inflict violence on others.

Those at the campaign have convinced themselves that outright gun bans will reduce crime, yet are out of touch with reality as usual. The calls for stronger and more complex gun laws is more than misguided, it is dangerous to society. Without a population willing and able to defend itself, we all suffer and become vulnerable to tragedies like these.

Luckily for those who appreciate freedom, yet are unwilling to stand up for it themselves, calls for stronger gun laws are falling on deaf ears. Legislators and representatives understand that criminals by definition circumvent those fiat protections. Simple words on paper have no protective ability against crazed gunmen. Gun-free zone signs have no power to deter those seeking to inflict injury on others.

It is the people ourselves who are responsible for our safety, not laws, signs, or even law enforcement. We are the first defense, and the last. Don't fall victim to the hollow pleas from groups like the Brady Campaign, who seek to restrict the rights of the public to self defense, while having little to no effect to reduce violent crime.

Do your part to protect your fellow citizens. Support the right to keep and bear arms by those responsible people in your family and community to be that first line of defense. There is no requirement for all to take up arms, but there are more than enough willing to do so when the state is put in it's place and prevented from infringing on that natural and Constitutional right.

Friday, July 20, 2012

Second Amendment Foe Bloomberg Exploits Colorado Shooting

New York mayor and notorious gun-grabber Michael Bloomberg has exploited the shooting at a Colorado theater to demand that Obama and Romney “stand up and tell us what they’re going to do about” the criminal behavior of psychopaths.


According to Bloomberg, the world would be a better place if the government confiscated legally owned firearms and had a monopoly on violence.
Where the government has a monopoly on violence, crime is significantly higher than in free societies.

“Soothing words are nice,” Bloomberg told WOR News Talk Radio 710 in New York City. “But maybe it’s time the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they’re going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country. And everybody always says, ‘Isn’t it tragic?’”
And statists like Bloomberg are the first to jump on a fresh tragedy, not letting it go to waste in order to promote a fascist agenda.

“I mean, there’s so many murders with guns every day,” he continued. “It’s just gotta stop. And instead of these two people, President [Barack] Obama and Governor [Mitt] Romney talking in broad things about, they want to make the world a better place. OK. Tell us how. And this is a problem. No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them, concretely, not just in generalities, specifically, what are they going to do about guns?”

[...]
More: Second Amendment Foe Bloomberg Exploits Colorado Shooting

Tragedies and Ill-conceived Gun Laws

Early last night I sat and watched Dr. Suzanna Hupp's testimony to Congress on gun laws after the tragedy at Luby's October 16, 1991, in Killeen, Texas.


Sadly, there was another shooting tragedy in Aurora, Colorado late last night, near another preventable tragedy: Columbine.




I am sure that many will call for increased gun laws, but as always these are hollow and fail to take into account the reality that criminals will not heed laws, that is their nature. More gun laws only negatively impact the liberties of law-abiding citizens. Calls to ban high-capacity magazines and assault weapons were proven to increase violent crime during the Assault Weapons Ban of 1992. There is a reason the Brady Campaign failed to keep the AWB on the books; it was a failure, a solution to a problem it created itself.

As Hupp correctly suggests, when a person commits these sort of acts, it is an illness, a mental problem that compels them. No law will prevent their intended actions, only the dedication of law-abiding citizens to protect each other in these situations. Violent criminals like these examples are like rabid dogs. The focus needs to be on those politicians willingly legislating away the right to defend ourselves from them.

Law enforcement's duty is to respond, by which time the tragedy is usually over. Many courts have ruled that police have no duty to protect, which can only lead us to understand that we have to defend ourselves. If this means breaking bad laws, so be it. A right the judicial body will never disclose is that of nullification. A jury can set a precedent and strike down a bad law simply by failing to convict a defendant of a charge.

It is statistically proven that allowing citizens to arm themselves decreases crime rates. All we need to do is consider the increases in violent crimes in places like Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, even the United Kingdom and other locals to see that the solution is obvious if only we would consider reality instead of relying on emotional arguments and opinions. Gun control encourages criminals to commit violent crime.

Remember this the next time you consider abiding by a poorly-conceived gun law and ask yourself if it makes you and your loved ones any safer. As Suzanna Hupp put it, I would rather be charged with a crime, defending the lives of those I love, than to adhere to bad laws and have to bury them. This is why the Second Amendment was worded the way it is:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Empty Holster



As a Texas concealed carry permit holder (a right subject to restrictions and authorization is a privilege), traveling through California is  somewhat disconcerting. Seeing so many citizens who willingly give up their natural and Constitutional rights for completely subjective reasons, rather than through logic and reason. I find it ironic, as I look more the part of a pacific northwest resident than a Texan most of the time. 

As a silent act of defiance, I wore my holster empty through California, Oregon, and Washington. Upon reaching Utah, I saw my rights somewhat restored all the way home to the (mostly) free state of Texas. 

Sunday, July 8, 2012

Empty Holster



As a Texas concealed carry permit holder (a right subject to restrictions and authorization is a privilege), traveling through California is  somewhat disconcerting. Seeing so many citizens who willingly give up their natural and Constitutional rights for completely subjective reasons, rather than through logic and reason. I fin it ironic, as I look more the part of a PNW resident than a Texan most of the time. 

As a silent act of defiance, I have continued to wear my holster empty through California, Oregon, and now Washington. Upon reaching Utah, I will see my rights somewhat restored all the way home to the (mostly) free state of Texas. 

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Texas CHL Reciprocity

While I know that the majority of states on the return trip to Texas recognize my TX CHL permit (licensing and regulating unfortunately and unjustly changes a right into a privilege), it is worth knowing the details of how and where one may carry in other states. For example; Texas now allows carry in liquor-serving and selling establishments, while Montana does not. Taking the time to read the details of those states you will be traveling through can save you some time and hassle with local law enforcement, as well as representing Texas as a responsible firearms owner. 

CHL Reciprocity

Please consult official sources (links below) of states where you are carrying. The Texas rules you learned do not apply if you are carrying in a reciprocal state. Follow the rules for that state.

States Honoring Texas CHLs

Honors Texas CHLs

Alert New Mexico has rescinded CHL reciprocity with Texas. Read more...

  1. Alabama, August 8, 2006. [DPS Notice] [Alabama CHL Link]
  2. Alaska, September 26, 2005. [DPS Notice] [Alaska CHL Link]
  3. Arizona, September 15, 1999. [DPS Notice] [Arizona CHL Link]
  4. Arkansas, February 18, 1998. [DPS Notice] [Arkansas CHL Link]
  5. Colorado, resident only, 21+, December 29, 2004. [DPS Notice] [Colorado CHL Link]
  6. Delaware, November 1, 2005. [DPS Notice] [Deleware CHL Link]
  7. Florida, resident only, August 28, 2000. [DPS Notice] [Florida CHL Link]
  8. Georgia, November 22, 2004. [DPS Notice] [Georgia CHL Link]
  9. Idaho, April 19, 2004. [DPS Notice] [Idaho CHL Link]
  10. Iowa, January 1, 2011. [Iowa DPS Notice] [Iowa CHL Link]
  11. Indiana, November 2, 2005. [DPS Notice] [Indiana CHL Link]
  12. Kansas, resident only, January 30, 2007. [DPS Notice] [Kansas CHL Link]
  13. Kentucky, September 26, 2000. [DPS Notice] [Kentucky CHL Link]
  14. Louisiana, August 28, 1998. [DPS Notice] [Louisiana CHL Link]
  15. Michigan, resident only, September 1, 2005. [DPS Notice] [Michigan CHL Link]
  16. Minnesota, May 25, 2005. [Minnesota DPS Notice] [Minnesota CHL Link]
  17. Mississippi, September 7, 2004. [DPS Notice] [Mississippi CHL Link]
  18. Missouri, September 6, 2005. [DPS Notice] [Missouri CHL Link]
  19. Montana, November 29, 2004. [DPS Notice] [Montana CHL Link]
  20. Nebraska, 21+, October 27, 2009. [DPS Notice] [Nebraska CHL Link]
  21. North Carolina, April 19, 2004. [DPS Notice] [North Carolina CHL Link]
  22. North Dakota, February 4, 2005. [DPS Notice] [North Dakota CHL Link]
  23. Oklahoma, July 24, 1998. [DPS Notice] [Oklahoma CHL Link]
  24. Pennsylvania, February 28, 2005. [DPS Notice] [Pennsylvania CHL Link]
  25. South Carolina, resident only, February 25, 2005. [DPS Notice] [South Carolina CHL Link]
  26. South Dakota, September 6, 2005. [DPS Notice] [South Dakota CHL Link]
  27. Tennessee, August 30, 2000. [DPS Notice] [Tennessee CHL Link]
  28. Texas, of course.
  29. Utah, September 3, 2004. [DPS Notice] [Utah CHL Link]
  30. Vermont does not require a license to carry. [Vermont Link]
  31. Virginia, September 1, 2005. [DPS Notice] [Virginia CHL Link]
  32. West VirginiaMarch 23, 2012. [Letter of agreement] [Wisconsin CHL Link]
  33. Wisconsin, 21+. [Wisconsin state list] [Wisconsin CHL Link]
  34. Wyoming, July 25, 2002. [DPS Notice] [Wyoming CHL Link]
People holding California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington CHLs may carry in Texas.

For more reciprocity information see the DPS document athttp://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/reciprocity.htm.

TCHA Home PageBack to Texas CHL Info


©2012; Texas Concealed Handgun Association. Contact TCHA. Page updated 05/01/2012