Attached is my regular Second Amendment Update:

1. Tomorrow, Tuesday March 18th, 2008, the Supreme Cort will hear opening arguments on the DC Gun Ban Case: Tomorrow is a big day for the second amendment, as the precedent set by the Supreme Court will have far reaching ramifications for the 2nd Amendment. Further, despite an official brief in support of the DC Gun Ban published by the Department of Justice, Cheney has come out with a brief against the ban.

From The Post:

In preparation for oral arguments Tuesday on the extent of gun rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has before it a brief signed by Vice President Cheney opposing the Bush administration’s stance. Even more remarkably, Cheney is faithfully reflecting the views of President Bush.

The government position filed with the Supreme Court by U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement stunned gun advocates by opposing the breadth of an appellate court’s affirmation of individual ownership rights. The Justice Department, not the vice president, is out of order.

2. Washington Dem’s are furious over the proposal to extend licensed carry into national parks: Anythign that Dick’s and Feinstein are against is a strong recomendation.

Anti-gun Democrats on Capitol Hill, led by Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, are livid about a common-sense effort to allow legally licensed citizens to carry concealed sidearms inside national parks. It’s as though they think the proposal was tantamount to condoning genocide.

Despite once insisting that a photo of himself with a dead pheasant be published on the cover of Fishing & Hunting News, Dicks has hardly been a friend to gun owners and Feinstein’s record speaks for itself. Both are “F” rated by the National Rifle Association.

Dicks and Feinstein have threatened to block a sensible move by Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to change national park rules to allow concealed carry in the parks. Opponents claim this change will open the parks to rifle-toting poachers. It’s not true and they know it.

This change would allow citizens who have gone through state licensing procedures, including background checks, to carry firearms for personal protection only. Such people rarely commit crimes.

3. NAS recommends against Ballistic Imaging Database: The NAS being the National Academy of Sciences who was asked to form a committee to evaluate the feasibility of a possible national database containing the ballistic images of all new guns sold in the US.

4. New Orleans suggests a DC style Gun Ban: Talk about a history of missing the boat. This was the same group lead by “Chocolate City” mayer Ray Nagin and police chief Warren Riley, who confiscated guns from law abiding citizens in the aftermath of Katrina. What a track record for success.

From the NRA:

Before espousing the need for yet another law that has been proven ineffective, Riley should consider that the City of New Orleans has already lost two highly questionable firearm cases in court, and there are already more than enough laws on the books to prosecute criminals who illegally possess firearms. He should also consider the fact that any proposal such as that discussed in the interview would violate his state’s firearms preemption law.

A final thought from Wayne LePierre of the NRA:

There are millions of [right to carry] holders in this country. You drive next to them, you shop with them, you see them every day. They’re your dentist or your pastor, your boss or your star employee. They’re everywhere. And the reason you may not know that is because they’re not the problem.

They’re already carrying in your church, the grocery store, and the public library. They’re with you at your favorite restaurant or your local bookstore. And the reason you never think about it is because they’re not the problem.

I found the attached from WorldNetDaily this morning.

In Arizona, legislation that would allow people to carry their guns onto community college or university campuses has been advancing, and now awaits further Senate action, after critics demanded public schools be removed from the plan.

State Sen. Karen Johnson, the bill’s sponsor, said she was reluctant to make that change, because “I still feel our little kindergartners are sitting there as sitting ducks,” she told the Arizona Republic. But Johnson said the remaining bill now has a better chance to move forward.

Not a popular choice, but I think the correct one.

Lets do some math, and consider what this means. A reasonably competent person with a bolt action rifle (the slowest reload you are likely to see in modern times) can shoot about 30 rounds in a 60 second period - or 1 ever 2 second. With a little practice such a person could shoot one ever second, or 60 in a minute. In even the best cases, it will take the police 5 minutes to get to a scene like a school shooting. So, assuming only a moderately trained individual, and a manual reloading weapon, thats between 150 and 300 dead. Basically Ammo is the only limit.

I fully understand the hesitance of having guns in Schools - even though I am an avid gun owner. But how much safer will our children be if, for example, a teacher who has received special training and had a detailed background check, be permitted to carry a gun? The same is true for our collages - if adults, be they students or teachers, who receive both a detailed background check and special training, are permitted to carry a concealed weapon, that makes it a safer place; Right?

The New York [del]Enquirer[/del] Times did an article on this law which, despite its slant, is a good read. There was a couple of interesting points:

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a Washington nonprofit organization, said 15 states were considering legislation that would authorize or make it easier for people to carry guns on school or college campuses under certain conditions. Those states include Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Virginia, according to the center, but it considers the Arizona proposal particularly egregious because it would not only allow students and faculty to carry such weapons, but staff members as well.

First, it is good to see that not only Arizona but also several others are having a fit of good sense. I need to write my state representative and get him to get something moving here in Texas.

The point about allowing staff members to also carry guns as being “egregious” is a non started. What the Brady Bunch has failed to consider is that everyone, be they faculty, staff, or students are required to take the same training, pass the same testing, and pass the same background test.

A co-worker said it best: People do not go around punching people in the face because people tend to punch back. The same behavior is true regardless of the medium of exchange - be it fists, clubs, or guns. If you have a place where the victim cannot strike back at the aggressor then that place becomes very attractive to the crazy people out there who want to cause us harm.

Gun laws and gun free zones just stack the deck against us and our loved ones. Crazy people to crazy things, and the best we can hope for is a fighting chance.

How about some levity on a Monday Morning:

This was too good not to share. A little sarcasm in the morning makes the day go smoother.

Hat Tip to Lone Ranger and Dustin’s Gun Blog

Gun Control - Simple Solutions for Simple Minds
Ten Really Good Reasons To Ban Guns - a satire by Bruce Gold

1.) Guns are used in self-defense over 2 million times a year. However, this makes the attempted crime a “non-event,” which necessarily complicates the Police investigation. Without civilian ownership of guns, these Police investigations would not have been compromised. Civilians should leave crime prevention to the Police, who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime’s completion.

2.) Some .004 % (4/1000 of 1%) of guns are used in crime each year. This is way too high. All guns should be banned.

3.) Guns are unnecessary. In 98% of civilian gun defenses, no shot is fired. If you are not going to fire a shot, you clearly don’t need a gun. This proves that the guns are unnecessary. Banning guns will prevent these unnecessary defenses.

4.) Guns cause criminal migration. In tough gun-law Washington, D.C., violent crime rates are very high. This high crime rate is caused by the migration of criminals from gun havens like Virginia. This migration is caused by the criminal’s cowardly avoidance of armed householders and concealed-carry civilians. This criminal migration is detrimental to helpless unarmed citizens in no-gun areas and must be stopped. Guns should be banned everywhere.

5.) Most gun crimes are committed by inner city gangs and drug dealers. These relatively small and geographically restricted groups consistently commit the majority of gun crimes, which usually peak as turf wars erupt over Drug War changes. The best way to prevent this is by denying guns to all law abiding people everywhere.

6.) No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder. The Police will protect women by investigating the crime after the fact. Remember, Police paperwork is all the protection anyone really needs.

7.) Gun owners are disrespectful of authority. Good citizens should completely rely on the authorities. A failure to do so is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. Failure to completely and absolutely trust and depend on the authorities is excessive democracy and sends a bad message to children.

8.) Gun owners engaging in self-defense are taking the law into their own hands. This is wrong. Only the Police and Criminals have the right to take the law into their own hands. It should be kept out of the hands of citizens.

9.) Children and young people should remain ignorant about guns. Real guns and real gun knowledge dissipate the fantasies created by violent video games and TV. Ignorance, once lost, can never be restored and needs to be protected. Not to mention the lost sales of all the violent movies, TV shows, video games, etc!

10.) Guns reduce people’s reliance on the Police and Government. This fosters a mistaken belief in “rights”. No person has the right to question authority. No person should be less than 100% dependent on authority. This is fundamental to social order. Banning guns will help to establish the Order the authorities want. This is good.

The following is my regular Second Amendment Update.

1. Bush Administration / Department of the Interior to adjust Firearms Rules for National Parks: For over 25 years the US Department of the Interior has banned firearms from national parks and wildlife refuges. This from the NRA:

In a letter hand-delivered today to the U.S. Senators who wrote him asking for this policy change, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne has directed Lyle Laverty, Assistant Secretary for Fish, Game and Parks, to “develop and propose for public comment by April 30, Federal regulations that will update firearms policies on these lands to reflect existing Federal laws (such as those prohibiting weapons in Federal buildings) and the laws by which the host States govern transporting and carrying of firearms on their analogous public lands.”

[…]

The move for regulatory change by the Administration will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes in most national park lands and wildlife refuges and will make the laws consistent with state law where these lands are located. Fifty-one U.S. Senators from both parties sent a letter to the Department of Interior late last year supporting the move to make state firearm laws applicable to national park lands and wildlife refuges

You can find a copy of the letter from Secretary Kempthorne here. I can only say that this is an about time thing. Camping in our National Parks and refuges is an often dangerous thing. Not only are there natural dangers from wild animals, but there have been many cases of people disappearing or being killed in these areas. I would prefer to be able to defend myself.

2. Schumer / Boxer Propose tougher gun laws: The instinctive reaction from the anti-gun crowd in the wake of schools shootings is always to enact more laws. Never mind that the murder broke numerous laws already - lets add some more while failing to enforce the onces we already have. After all, we need to make our constituents think we are doing something productive. Taking the Norther Illinois University shooting as a case in point lets consider that the attacker already broke the law by obtaining some of his weapons illegally, brought guns into a gun free zone, and possessed psychological issues which would have precluded him from owning a gun under federal law. This from NewsDay:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), at a news conference yesterday in Manhattan, said he and congressional colleagues plan to step up efforts to close loopholes in gun-control measures and create a federal task force to come up with national school safety guidelines. They also plan to push for congressional hearings on links between mental illness and school violence.

3. Kennedy Introduces another Handgun Ban into Congress: The ever delusional Ed Kennedy once again pushes his belief that the manufacture and sale of handguns should be terminated. At least he is consistent. From the NRA:

As we recently reported, on February 7 this year, ten days after endorsing another handgun ban supporter–Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.)–for president, Kennedy renewed his efforts to ban handguns by introducing S. 2605, a bill that seeks to ban the manufacture, importation, and transfer (sale, etc.) of any semi-automatic pistol that does not possess “a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol . . . etched into the breech face and firing pin of the pistol,” and stamp both sets of characters into the cartridge case of a round of ammunition, when the round is fired. On the same day, Representative Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) introduced an identical bill, H.R. 5266, called the “National Crime Gun Identification Act.”

The Kennedy-Becerra bill is much more severe than the micro-stamping handgun ban passed in California last year. Where the California ban applies only to models of semi-automatic pistols that are produced after January 1, 2010, the Kennedy-Becerra bill would apply to all models of semi-automatic pistols.

I have already written on the issues with micro-stamping, so will not go into them again here.

4. Hillary Calls for “Presidential Summit on Gun Control”: Hillary confuses the hell out of me. Is this woman even speaking the same language as the rest of us? This from the Daily News:

Clinton started with the line she rolled out a couple days ago about recognizing that there is “no conflict” between letting lawful gunowners have weapons and keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys and the mentally ill.

She went on to propose a solution to coming up with a solution for the problem — kind of like her plan to come up with a plan for fixing another politically difficult problem, Social Security.

“I believe we really should have a summit where everybody comes together on all sides of this issue,” Clinton said. “Let’s figure out how we can be consistent with the Second Amendment, which I wholeheartedly support, and do more to keep people safe.

“I think we can do that, but it’s going to require us all to maybe give a little and understand the point of view of the other people,” she said. “That’s something I would do as President to really bring people together.”

“We know we need better background checks and we know we’ve got to have mental health information in there,” she said.

Moonbat.

I got this in e-mail the other day, and it was quite a laugh so I thought I would share it.

Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Texas Conservative?

The answer can be found by posing the following question:

Q: You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you.

You are carrying a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot.

You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Democrat’s Answer:

Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

Republican’s Answer:
BANG!

Texas Conservative’s Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG !

Click….. (Sounds of reloading)

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Daughter: ‘Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?!
Son: ‘Can I shoot the next one?!’
Wife: ‘You ain’t taking that to the Taxidermist!

While I could never be a one-issue voter, some issues are closer to my heart that others. I have made no apologies for my views and have been very outgoing is stating that I am, above all, a values based voter. I will never vote for a candidate that is “Pro Choice”, and I will never vote for a candidate that is pro homosexual. These are absolutes which I will not waver on, but there are some issues, like Gun Control, which figure into my considerations as well.

To be clear, I am a strong supporter of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. I am an owner of multiple firearms, hold a concealed carry permit in 3 states, am a member of the NRA, and am looking forward to the day when I can team my own son how to handle and use a firearm safely and responsibly. I am also against Firearms in the hands of fellons, those with a history of violent behavior, and those who have proven themselves to be mentally unstable.

The other day I stumbled upon this link at CNN which had some very interesting information on the stance of the different candidates.

First the Democrats. Hillary’s view on gun control seems to be that of most main stream democrats:

Voted for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban. Voted for requiring extensive background checks at gun shows. Supports licensing and registration of handguns, mandatory trigger locks for handguns, holding adults responsible for their children’s use of guns, raising the youth handgun ban from age 18 to 21, limiting gun sales to one per month and allowing the Consumer Products Safety Commission regulate guns.

A moderate view, but one that still failes to recognize that there are no dangerous guns, only dangerous people. I agree with the need for an FBI NICS check for any purchase of a gun, even at gun shows. How else can we assure that the responsibility and privileged of gun ownership is only available to those who can reasonably shoulder it? I also agree that adults should be held responsible if children get a hold of their guns. The assault weapons ban is garbage, as are mandatory trigger locks. My gun safe is a perfectly good place to keep my guns. Limits on purchases of guns is just as pointless, and limits the rights of those of us who are law abiding citizens.

Now Obama is the real scary one - this view is far left even for the Democrats.

Supports extending the assault weapons ban. Supports national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions for retired police and military personnel. Supports limiting gun sales to one per month.

No concealed carry? First, that is not a national issue, that is a state issue and the states have overwhelmingly supporting the individual right to carry a concealed weapon for self defense. Obama would effectively turn the nation into one massive “gun free zone” where the only armed people would be the criminals.

Now the Republicans. First, Huckabee:

Opposes reauthorization of the assault weapons ban. Opposes mandatory trigger locks for handguns. Opposes waiting periods for gun purchases. Owns a variety of firearms. NRA member. Has a concealed carry permit.

Good, good and good. I didn’t know Mike had a concealed carry permit, but I applaud him for it. Our focus in gun control needs to be a balance between allowing lawful citizens to enjoy gun ownership and defend them selves if needed while at the same time limiting the ability of guns to fall into the hands of those who have proven themselves incapable of responsible gun ownership.

Now McCain:

Sponsored legislation requiring background checks at gun shows. Voted against a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban. Opposed legislation requiring trigger locks for handguns. Opposed 1994 crime bill, which contained the assault weapons ban.

Good again. I agree with background checks being required, but not with the the others.

I guess this is one to add to my already long list of why I would never vote for Hilary or Obama.

In case you have been living in a bubble and have not yet heard about yesterdays shootings at Norther Illinois University, here are details from CNN:

Steven P. Kazmierczak, identified as the gunman in Thursday’s shooting rampage at Northern Illinois University, was “an outstanding student” who reportedly stopped taking medication recently and became “somewhat erratic,” the university’s police chief said Friday.

Kazmierczak of Champaign, Illinois, opened fire on a geology class Thursday, shooting 21 people before killing himself. Five people were killed in addition to the shooter.

All the victims were from Illinois. The DeKalb County coroner’s office identified four of them: Daniel Parmenter, 20, of Westchester; Catalina Garcia, 20, of Cicero; Ryanne Mace, 19, of Carpentersville; and Julianna Gehant, 32, of Meriden.

The fifth victim, Gayle Dubowski, 20, of Carol Stream, died at a hospital in Rockford and was identified by Winnebago County authorities.

University Police Chief Donald Grady said people close to Kazmierczak have told authorities he was taking medication but had stopped and had become “somewhat erratic” in the last couple of weeks.

My heart and prays go out to the families of these kids who where struck down at the peek of their potential. Life is precious, and I cannot imagine the grief of the families right now.

The paramount question on everyones mind has got to be “Why?”. Why did this happen? Why did he do this? What should we have done to prevent this?

The Brady Bunch already has their anti-gun response on there website, along with a petition you can sign. CNN has taken a more reasonable approach (shocking!) and actually asked for thoughts from there viewers and collected some of them on their website (note none of the ones I read actually said the guns where the problem).

Illinois was listed as the Brady Bunch as the state with the 9th most “complete” gun laws in the country. Yet this happened there, even where Guns are more restricted. Even School grounds where guns are strictly prohibited, even by those who have passed the screening process to carry a gun.

I will not go into the standard rhetoric about the irony of “gun free zones”, nor the fact that more and tighter guns laws just provide more unarmed victems. I have already done that here.

I will, however, point out again that it is not illegal to be crazy. Unless we want to pre-emptively lock off those who may be capable of such a thing, then the first real notice we get is when a violent crime is commited. Perhaps if we focused on minimizing the impact of these events our time would be better spent.

There are no deadly weapons or dealy martial arts, there are only deadly people. Those who fix the intent to do violence unto their fellow man into there minds will find a way to do so. We need to find a way to stop them.

Also reporting:
Stop The ACLU
Jammie Wearing Fool
Gun Toting Liberal

I wrote a piece yesterday where I compared the Brady Bunch’s report on the states with the most restrictive gun laws to the statistics on gun related fatalities. You can read about it here. I specifically mention that, while DC was not in the Brady’ Bunch’s list, it was both the most restrictive in terms of gun laws as well as the most dangerous in terms of gun related deaths. Well today Kay Baily Hutchinson penned an excellent piece in the Dallas Morning News which pretty much makes the same point.

In 1976, the Washington City Council passed the nation’s toughest gun control law, banning handguns completely and requiring rifles and shotguns to be registered, stored unloaded and locked or disassembled.

The D.C. murder rate was declining before this law; in the next 15 years it jumped 200 percent.

Not only that but, as of 2003, DC ranked the worst in the nation in gun deaths - scoring a whopping 26.9 deaths per 100,000 residents; a full 7 1/2 points above its nearest competitor. A shining testament to the effectiveness of gun control laws a real poster child for the Brady Bunch.

Next month, for the first time since 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the issue of Second Amendment rights when it hears arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller. The court’s decision will have major implications for all Americans.

I have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court with my colleague Jon Tester from Montana – along with Vice President Dick Cheney as president of the Senate, 53 other U.S. senators and 250 members of the House – for the respondent, who simply wishes to exercise his constitutional right to protect himself. It has the most congressional signatures on any amicus brief to the Supreme Court.

When the Supreme Court hears this case in March it will be a make or break time for gun owners. Do we have the right to defend ourselves or will we be forced to rely on the governments ever increasing power in our homes, our schools, our workplaces, even our places of worship? Can we really expect that power in the hands of politicians to be wielded in our favor?

We have a right of self defense and the Second Amendment was put in place in the anticipation that we may even need to defend ourselves from our own government.

Lets just hope it doesn’t come to that.

Earlier this month the Brady Bunch released a report which ranked the 50 states on the stance on Gun Control.

They ranked the states in several areas including:

1. Laws to Curb Firearm Trafficking
2. Background Checks
3. Child Safety
4. Assault Weapons Bands
5. Prevalence of “Gun Free” zones

Warner, over at STACLU did a nice little piece on this today - in fact reminding me that I did some comparisons that I should probably share.

Just out of curiosity, I decided to do some quick comparison. I took the Brady Report and compared it with the rates death due firearms. For the rates of death by firearm I used the CDC’s National Vital Statistics Report. Unfortunately, the latest report I could find that had a breakdown by state was 2003, so there is quite a gap between. However, given that the national average (which was available in the 2006 NVSR), has remained very similar to eh 2003 numbers, it is reasonable to assume we are not to far off.

So here is a simple table, comparing the Brady Report on the states with the most strict gun laws, and the CDC report of the states occurrence of Firearms related death. The state numbers are per 100,000 residents, so it is adjusted for population.

It should be noted that all Firearms death’s are included in the CDC numbers, which include homicide, suicide, and accidental death (self and other).

It is also interesting to note that the Brady Bunch did not include the District of Columbia in its finding. DC would probably have ranked number 1 in the list especially in like of the current Supreme Court Case, and it also ranks number 1 on my list of the highest number of gun related deaths per capita, a full 7.4 pts above its nearest competitor.

So, what do these statistics show us? While there is some merit (outside of the DC case stated above) that living in a state with freer gun laws results in more gun related fatalities, it is not quite so clear cut. Keeping DC out of the consideration, all of the main regions where firearms deaths are most likely to occur are areas with the lowest population density (Alaska, Louisana, New Mexico, Wyoming, Nevada). Also, many of the most restrictive states are also high on the gun death list (Maryland, California, Illinois). I thought about maping the chart above to states with CCW laws, and then rank by population density - but I will leave that for the experts.

What I really need to prove this out is recent data on crime related firearms deaths. The earliest data I have that separates out crime and accidental deaths is from 1993, and that is not valid because we know, from the US Department of Justice statistics that gun crime has fallen drastically since 1993. So, basically, the Brady list is pointless. The gap between the worst on there list (Oklahoma) and the best (California) is only 3 points, or 3 deaths in 100,000 people.