The need to bear arms - watch it on video

If there were ever an argument to end all arguments favoring the need (the "right" is beyond argument) to bear arms and concealed carry it is at this link ...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675

... and thanks to the guy who sent it to me.

Here we go with gun control again

I voted for Obama, though with many reservations - among which is his history of voting for gun control. So here it is, more than two months before his inauguration and the opening volleys have been launched.

Obama's web site on 11/7/08 announced a plan to hit the Second Amendment with four whacks and the NRA, which had warned for many months that Obama was an enemy to gun owners, is going ballistic.

I read somewhere the day after the election that the Democratic Party Agenda could proceed. Not the American agenda, not the needs of the people who voted for this man, but the Democratic Party Agenda. Likely this gun threat came from party flacks, because it wasn't Obama being quoted.

So this thing which appeared on Obama's web site that flipped out NRA may also have been the Party's idea and the reason I think that is because this page had been pulled from the site this morning when I tried to access it. That may be reversed by the time you read this.

Before its disappearance the NRA captured it in pdf format and you can read it here.

If Obama proceeds against gun owners - as NRA members believe he will - there will be a mighty rift - an even mightier rift - among Americans as the new President comes out of the gate.

Guns: Score one against the Loony Left

The gun issue decided by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote was, simply, do individuals have the right to own guns?

What amazes me is that any level of government in this country could ever make a law that assumes individuals don't have that right, that the right to own guns belongs exclusively to militia, which is to say to government.

It is absurd to believe that the revolutionaries who wrote our Constitution for lasting freedom - and who were guarding against oppressive government in the Amendments - were, in the Second Amendment, giving a monopoly on gun ownership to government.

That this issue has been settled at last is little comfort. Government has all but taken over our lives and tightens its grip with each new law, while the Loony Left cheers.

If that upsets you, read this.

Self-defense by force isn't just a guy thing

The Ohio Senate unanimously agreed that Ohioans should be able to respond with force in defense of their lives and family. Further, that doing so should not open them to civil lawsuits.

State Senator Jay Hottinger of Newark is to be congratulated for his vote on this, the Ohio "Castle Doctrine."

We should use the occasion to remember that this isn't just another NRA Second Amendment fight, though the NRA is leading this law through state legislatures. SB 184 - the fight of law-abiding citizens who want to live safely in their own homes - now goes to the House for consideration.

We also need to remember that this isn't just a guy thing. Many, if not most, homes today are headed by the "weaker sex," mostly the sex that needs emboldened for self-defense. They need to buy guns and learn to use them safely, and this might be a small impetus.

That Ohio and other states need to "legalize" something so fundamentally necessary as the "right" to defend oneself in one's own home against criminals is pretty sick. It is just one more sign of how far off the edge the legal profession has pushed rights of regular people.

Wal-Mart, you're stupider than they say

Wal-Mart is the country's fav whipping boy. It can't do anything right in the eyes of a national media; it is portrayed as a threatening giant from every perspective, and that idea has filtered down to Everyman, almost.

Perhaps it's merely an attempt to escape this media perception that influenced Wal-Mart to join big-city mayors on controlling gun ownership by making a video record of the all gun sales, which the store will keep on file and will effectively create a video database of gun purchasers.

Also, Wal-Mart employees will be given discretion to deny firearms purchases to anyone who has had a firearm traced by BATFE for any reason.

The NRA news release about this quotes a Wal-Mart executive as saying: “The costs are, we think, part of what it takes to be responsible ... This is not a signal that we're getting out of firearms."

Really? Perhaps more so than Wal-Mart might suspect. And likely it won't be selling as much of anything to the NRA faithful as it has been.

Obama, God and guns

Obama did a real knee-cap on himself with his rural-folks-cling-to-guns-and-religion speech. So bad was it that the term "Crackerquiddick" has arisen in media vernacular, likely to act for a long time as the Senator's personal cross.

At first, I gave Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt. But as the thing reverberates and draws fire, I think it may be among the first indicators of what this country is in for, once he is elected to the Presidency (and in my mind that's a given).

I think it gave us all a peek at the man's brand of Chicago Liberalism and the probability that he is a danger to liberty. Check what the NRA says about it.

There's a piece in National Review Online by Mark Steyn entitled "God and Guns." It's over-written, but worth your time if you care about freedom and what's happening to it in Europe and America.

It says, in part: "Senator Obama’s remarks about poor dumb bitter rural losers 'clinging to' guns and God certainly testify to the instinctive snobbery of a big segment of the political class. ... What Michelle Malkin calls Crackerquiddick ... is not just snobbish nor even merely wrongheaded. It’s an attack on two of the critical advantages the U.S. holds over most of the rest of the western world. In the other G7 developed nations, nobody clings to God’n’guns. The guns got taken away, and the Europeans gave up on churchgoing once they embraced Big Government as the new religion."
...
"Maybe one day a viable society will find a magic cure-all that can do without both, but Big Government isn’t it."

Ohio's low score from Brady is admirable

"Ohio is not doing enough to protect its citizens against gun violence, according to an annual scorecard released Thursday by backers of the Brady gun-control law," wrote the Columbus Dispatch today.

The NRA says this is a good thing. On its web site today it speaks about the scoring by the Brady Campaign:

"Brady says that a state could get a perfect "100" if it would: limit the frequency of gun purchases; prohibit private transfers of firearms; require gun show attendees to sign a ledger to be provided to the police; prohibit the sale of firearms that do not engrave a serial number on fired ammunition and require registration such firearms' purchasers; license and regulate firearm dealers at the state level; prohibit handguns that do not have "smart" gun features; prohibit detachable-magazine semi-automatics and some pump-action rifles and shotguns; allow the arbitrary rejection of Right-to-Carry permit applications; allow local jurisdictions to impose gun control laws more restrictive than the state legislature; and allow the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in legitimate self-defense."

Jeff Garvas, president of Ohioans for Concealed Carry, said, in the Dispatch report, "I like to look at the Brady scorecard to see how well we're doing," Garvas said. "They're going after the rights of law-abiding people."

A low score from Brady is a high mark for freedom. We are proud.

Clinton, Obama, Edwards would restrict Second Amendment rights

The NRA distributed a news release 1/18/08 entitled "Leading Democratic Candidates Call for Severe Restrictions on our Second Amendment Rights"

Here it is:

"With the Presidential nominating season in full swing, trying to pin down the various candidates’ unequivocal stance on issues of import can often be difficult, if not impossible. Amidst their political posturing and refining of positions at the recent Las Vegas Caucus, Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), and former Senator John Edwards (D-NC), were asked a series of questions about the gun issue. All called for severe restrictions on our Second Amendment rights."

Here's a link to the that part of a recent debate among Democrat party candidates.

Zack Space sponsors needed gun legislation

A bill being co-sponsored by our congressman, Zack Space, will, according to NRA, "make it easier for lawful gun owners and dealers to comply with federal law and regulations, while ensuring those who break the law are punished accordingly."

It also "serves as a vital step toward modernizing and improving BATFE’s overall operations," said the NRA.

I once spent countless man-hours retrieving from BATFE a family heirloom gun that had been stolen from me, even long after the case had been resolved in court. Bureaucrats working there seemed obstinate and out of anybody's control. Long story that involved years'-long effort, a thick file of correspondence, and finally the return of my by-then rust-spotted gun.

The new bill is H.R. 4900 - "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2007.” The NRA put out a news release on it today at this link.

NRA's balls are outgrowing its musket

As a member of the National Rifle Association for many many years, I've spent many many dollars in defense of this country's Second Amendment. When you think about it, that is incredibly wasteful thing to have to do, considering the stupidity of anyone who questions The Second Amendment or tries to circumvent it.

It has been - and still is - necessary because there are multitudes of morons who don't "believe in it," many of whom are ensconced as journalists; morons who will destroy it if guys like me don't shell out to protect it. That's how stupid this country has become.

Likely the Second Amendment's existence depends on the NRA and it owes practically nothing to journalists. But that's no excuse for the NRA's attack on the First Amendment.

At issue is the absurd NRA-backed law passed by the Ohio legislature that gives concealed-carry licensees an exemption to the open records requirement based in the constitution.

Why these people are ashamed of their status as being licensed to carry a gun is totally beyond me. If they are that ashamed of it, then why don't they give it up? I hope to become qualified for one of these permits and I don't care who knows it. Even if I did understand their concern, it wouldn't matter to the case in point.

As explained in a recent Advocate editorial, the Ohio law allows only journalists, not just any citizen, the right to look at records of concealed-carry permits.

As the Advocate said, "when a journalist inspects the record of a concealed-carry permit holder, he can look at the information but not touch his pen, or press the 'record' button, to take notes." He has to memorize whatever he's after in those records, which would open the way for inaccuracies and little taste for publication of those memorized facts.

The Advocate says this law is unconstitutional and that's dead-on correct.

The NRA over-stepped its purpose and its scope in this matter and the legislature passed a law that is unconstitutional. It was totally unnecessary in protecting anything in the Second Amendment, and it's time for the Ohio legislators to put it right.

If they don't, the Advocate should put its money where its mouth is and force the issue in court.

Ohio's Anti-First-Amendment Law

Ohio lawmakers have scored another big minus by creating a law that allows journalists to see certain public records, but not copy them.

Way to go, you legal sharpies at the state capitol.

The records in question are those with names of concealed-carry permit holders. The Dispatch published an article on it today. Here's the link.

The records are public records, not journalists' records, not NRA records.

And anyway, who cares that some of these people don't want to be identified as having state permission to carry a loaded gun? Who cares what the NRA wants, when it comes to stomping on the First Amendment, rather than the Second?

I fully intend to get one of these permits soon, and also maintain my NRA membership. I don't care who knows it and I don't see why anyone would.

This is another hypocritical Ohio law. Why aren't media raising hell? Where's Jay Hottinger when we need him?

NRA says - Gun owners, speak out

NRA sent a news release this morning regarding the media's assault on the Second Amendment. It says, in part ...

"The Culture and Media Institute (CMI) recently released a report entitled 'The Media Assault on the Second Amendment.' Its findings will not surprise you.

"According to the study, in the first seven months of 2007, the three major networks ran some 650 stories on firearm-related homicides, yet only two covering the use of guns for self-defense. Considering guns are used three to five times more often for self-defense than to commit a crime, this disproportion is staggering."

Read the entire release here.

The NRA also mentioned on its web site an article published recently by the Chillicothe Gazette, written by Ross County Sheriff Ron Nichols. Ron is very much in favor of citizens being better able to protect themselves because, he says, "The right to bear arms is guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and it's not the law-abiding citizens we worry about, anyway. It's the criminals: They're going to be armed whether there's a law or not!"

You can read that article here.

Information about how to get a concealed carry permit in Licking County is available at the Licking County Sheriff's web site.

NRA enters lawsuit against Ohio

The NRA this week entered a lawsuit brought by the City of Cleveland against the State of Ohio in an attempt to usurp state firearms law.

If Cleveland were to win its suit, the Ohio legislature would lose its authority to manage a uniform set of laws regarding the possession, sale and transportation of firearms across the state. Law-abiding citizens would be subject to conflicting ordinances from town to town. Read the NRA statements here.

You want to feel safe in your home at night? Read this ...

City fathers of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law 25 years ago requiring heads of all households to own and maintain a gun. Since then there hasn't been a single fatal shooting. Read about "Gun Town USA."

Concealed carry and mass murder

Before mass media begin their assault on the Second Amendment - which is what always happens when some vicious jerk gets loose with a gun in a crowded place - we should reflect on the value of individuals carrying guns for protection of themselves and others. It's called concealed carry.

Had there been one other armed person in that massacre room at Virginia Tech, the the story would have been written differently. Likely, the law-abiding person with a gun could have brought the killer down.

Had there been two other armed persons, almost surely many lives would have been saved.

The message from Virginia Tech is not that nobody should have guns with them wherever they go, but that many more responsible people should be armed. The concealed carry permit ensures that non-criminals brave enough to defend themselves and others with a hand gun will have been trained in gun safety and legal issues of self-protection. We need more guns in the hands of responsible people, not fewer.

Ohio gun laws improved

State Senator John Carey explains how and why the Ohio General Assembly overrode Taft's veto to bring reason and uniformity to concealed-carry regulations. Read it here