All posts by Chris Knox

Chris's Blog

From Derek Bernard: British Faith In Gun Control

British Gun Restrictions: Nevermind The Results, It’s Faith

Our good friend Derek Bernard has sent another epistle from across the pond.  In his prvious piece he forwarded an op-ed by Richard Munday, another English friend, that explored the Mumbai incident in a historical context.  

The latest essay tracks the history of British gun restrictions back to the time just after the Great War of 1914-1918.  Prior to that time, guns were common in England, and the streets a good deal safer than they are today.  What particularly interests me is that the British Home Office’s concern about guns arose from that fact that WWI had trained a generation of men with skill at arms.  The hidden agenda of the early British gun control was to prevent a revolution such had already happened in Russia.  But the public excuse was, as always, crime.  England’s crime rate has been steadily rising for the past half-century, and with an increasingly heterogeneous population, one can expect that rise to increase.  I’ve been amazed over the past couple of years to see the debate over gun control in England appearing in the staid grey pages of The Times.  Richard and Derek are voices crying in the wilderness, but lone voices have made significant changes in the past. 

Derek submitted his story as a PDF file.  Read it here.

 

14 May Update

At Derek’s request I have replaced Derek’s earlier essay with an updated version.  The original contained a sentence that threatened to cause considerable legal trouble and given the state of British libel laws, Derek considered it more prudent to alter the essay.  He’s added some more information, and certainly it is still a strong statement.  It’s been altered to get rid of the potentially troublesome language.

–Chris

Special Report

Did Pelosi Call for Registration?

Pelosi: "We want them Registered."

    When Nancy Pelosi said those words on Good Morning America she opened a can of worms she has been trying hard to keep hidden on a back shelf – but what was she really talking about?

    Pelosi’s comments have generated quite a bit of rhetoric from gun-bloggers and some rights groups, and I’m not coming to her defense in any way, but while we are critical of our opponents’ distortions and inaccuracies, we need to be doubly careful about our own accuracy.  Both Pelosi and the interviewer were struggling with spoken English during the brief interview and it is difficult to definitively say exactly what was meant by almost anything either of them said, but here’s my take.

Continue reading Did Pelosi Call for Registration? →

The Knox Update

Range Protection

Range Protection

The Noisy Wheel Gets the Shaft

By Jeff Knox

 

      (April 2, 2009) Range protection is a hot topic these days and it’s becoming more important every day.  Urban sprawl continues to envelope ranges and traditional shooting areas, pushing shooters farther and farther out to engage in their sport and training.  Developers build houses closer and closer to established ranges and soon the new residents are complaining about the noise.  While much of the emphasis in range protection has been focused on passing laws shielding ranges from noise complaints, such laws only provide limited protection and can give ranges a false sense of security.  Noise is just the tip of the iceberg and ranges need to guard against the mountain hiding beneath the surface.

Continue reading Range Protection →

Special Report

Guns in Mexico

The Truth About Mexican Crime Guns

    The often repeated statistic that 90% to 95% of guns seized in Mexico are traced back to the U.S. is an outrageous distortion.  The actual statistic is more like 17% and even that might be exaggerated.

    For several years The Firearms Coalition has been closely monitoring the situation on the U.S. – Mexico border as it relates to firearms.  Our good friend Landis Aden of the Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association has provided a steady stream of news stories from Arizona and Mexico along with other useful information and blaming the U.S. for Mexico’s crime problems is nothing new.  What is a fairly recent development is the claim by U.S. and Mexican officials and media that 90% to 95% of crime guns traced from Mexico originally come from the U.S.  Anyone who knows anything about guns has been suspicious of that claim from the beginning because the guns described in the news stories are very often full-auto military weapons, rocket propelled grenades, and such; weapons which are clearly not available at your local gun shop in Phoenix or El Paso.

    The answer to the conflicting reports comes – as it often does in firearms related statistics – in the specific terms in which the statistics are couched.  It is true that about 90% of firearms traced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives originate in the U.S. but what is left out of that statement is the fact that fewer than half of the guns involved in crime in Mexico are ever traced by the ATF.  Mexican authorities only submit guns to ATF when they believe the guns originated in the U.S.  When all of the guns are included it turns out that some 83% of guns involved in crime in Mexico come from sources other than the U.S.

   So the correct statistic is that about 17% of guns seized by police in Mexico are traced back to U.S. sources – and those doubtlessly include many guns legally sold to the Mexican government over the years and guns acquired by Mexican citizens for self-defense in the face of rampant crime in that country.

    Fox News has finally reported the truth of this matter in this special report.

    Rights activists are encouraged to send copies of this story to any reporter or news outlet they see repeating the 90% lie and to send copies to their elected officials demanding that government officials stop misrepresenting the facts.

The Knox Update

Training Politicians

Training Bad Behavior

 

By Jeff Knox

 

(March 5, 2009) The Republican Party lost big in 2006 and lost even bigger in 2008.  They didn’t lose because of opposition to the war in Iraq.  They didn’t lose because of the floundering economy.  They didn’t even lose because of a "culture of corruption." Those were symptoms and side issues.  The reason Republicans lost, and continue to lose, is because they have failed to keep their promises, live up to their stated beliefs, and they have provided little reason to their base to get excited about keeping them in office. 

From taxes to abortion to free trade to fiscal responsibility, Republicans have routinely betrayed the trust of important issue groups and constituencies.  But no group has been betrayed, ignored, and taken for granted by Republicans more than gunowners.

Continue reading Training Politicians →

Chris's Blog

Missouri Highway Patrol Shifts to Reverse

Various news sources, including the Kansas City Star, and the local NBC affiliate are reporting that Missouri Highway Patrol Chief James Keathley has issued an order to stop distribution of a controversial report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center, a "Fusion Center " that provides intelligence and analysis for law enforcement.  Reactions to the report, which lumped libertarian, Christian, anti-abortion, and Constitutionalist activism with racist, neo-Nazi and other right-wing extremists, created a backlash across the political spectrum. 

Governor Jay Nixon, a Democrat, was quick to distance himself and his administration from the report after Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder, a Republican, held a press conference to denounce the report.  The report has quickly grown toxic with both Republicans and Democrats angling to score political points. The head of the Missouri Highway Patrol, Superintendent James F. Keathley denied having seen the report prior to its being publicized, but promised that MIAC reports would go through his office before being released.

The larger issue, which no one in authority has yet addressed, is what the "Fusion Centers" are, how they are overseen, and what kind of information they produce. I suspect that other "analyses" like the Missouri report have not come to light.  

Jeff's Blog

Fewer Guns in Cockpits?

Washington Times Going Off Halfcocked

     The Washington Times reported in a scathing editorial on Tuesday that the Obama administration has quietly diverted some 2 million dollars away from the armed pilot, Federal Flight Deck Officer program, and into a new program of inspectors to investigate existing FFDOs.  TSA says the criticism is unfounded as they have a strong commitment to the success and growth of the FFDO program and that the $2 million shift is to provide administrative support for the program which they say has outgrown the current structure.

    The real truth of the matter probably lies somewhere between the Times’ editorial and TSA’s claim.  While the program has been steadily growing and probably is becoming difficult to effectively supervise, any time a bureaucracy adds more bureaucracy to improve “oversight” of a program, the result is almost always going to be more red tape and less progress.  TSA has consistently drug their feet on the FFDO program; making the application and training process ridiculously complicated and intrusive and placing the only training facility in the most out of the way location possible.  There are also issues of pilots not being reimbursed for many of the expenses that they must pay out-of-pocket.  If ensuring adherence to the rules is becoming too difficult, rather than expanding the supervisory and compliance staff, the better solution would be to simply reduce the number of hoops FFDOs are required to jump through.

    Airline pilots are highly trained professionals.  Most of them have military experience and many continue service in the National Guard and Reserves.  As Neal Knox said when he proposed creating an armed pilot program back in 1988;  "If a captain can be entrusted with a $30-million aircraft and 300 passengers, he can be trusted with a firearm."  Unfortunately the politicians and "experts" didn’t listen to Neal in 1988 when he pointed out that without the "last resort" of an armed pilot to protect an aircraft, commercial airliners are "sitting ducks" because no ammount of screening is ever going to be perfect. Since the attacks of 9/11/01 the options have narrowed even further because if the pilot and crew can’t maintain control of their aircraft, the next alternative is a missile from a fighter jet – a fighter jet which is very likely to e piloted by a current or future airline pilot.  Does anyone question the wisdom of that pilot being armed?

Continue reading Fewer Guns in Cockpits? →

Special Report

No Brass, No Ammo!

DOD Reverses Policy on Destruction of Brass

The Department of Defense, under intense pressure from rights advocates, industry forces, and members of Congress – particularly Senators Baucus and Tester of Montana – has reversed its decision to require that all brass cases be destroyed and sold as scrap metal rather than sold as reloadable cases.

Much credit for the quick resolution of this issue goes to Gary Marbut of Montana Shooting Sports Association.  Gary was the first we saw alerting the public and calling on his Senators to take action, and his calls did not fall on deaf ears as Tester and Baucus responded quickly and helped to snuff the issue in short order.

Thanks Gary!

Our original story is below.

Goverment Orders Destruction of Fired Brass

    There are reports that the Defense Department has ordered that all fired brass from the military be "de-militarized" by crushing or otherwise making it unusable for reloading.

    The Firearms Coalition is looking into these reports and will keep you posted.  In the mean time, there is no harm in contacting Senators and Representatives to ask them to look into the matter.

    Scrap brass metal sells for only a few cents a pound while once-fired brass in popular calibers sells for a few dollars a pound.  Add to that the cost of physically mutilating the cases and the government moves from a net gain in disposing of their fired brass to a net loss.

    A policy calling for the destruction of otherwise usable and resalable brass would be right in line with what we have been expecting from the Obama administration.  We have been on the lookout for bans on importation of various guns and gun parts, bans on importation of ammunition, and expansion of the Attorney General’s lists of guns "not suitable for sporting purposes."

    No such actions or policies should be tolerated and they should be opposed with the strongest legal action possible.

The Knox Update

Mandatory Training?

The Knox Update

From the Firearms Coalition

The Myth of Mandatory Training

 (March 12, 2009) Rights activists are shooting themselves in the foot whenever they advocate for mandatory training for concealed carry, and they’re shooting themselves in the foot a lot lately.  There is absolutely no question that all gunowners, especially those who choose to carry in public, need to take their responsibilities seriously and seeking out quality training is just the beginning of the responsibility. 

But legislating training is a seriously bad idea. 

If it is reasonable and prudent to mandate training for concealed carry, why would it not be reasonable and prudent to mandate training for open carry?  If that is reasonable, what about mandating training for anyone wishing to even own a firearm, and mandatory training for anyone who lives in a home with a firearm?  If mandatory training makes sense, then what is the argument against mandatory storage requirements?  The bottom line is that firearm safety is a matter of personal responsibility and that responsibility can not and should not be legislated by government.  Personal responsibility is, by definition, personal.

The idea of mandatory training stems from the huge and disturbing assumption that the people have no common sense of their own and must be led to sensible behavior by the government.

Continue reading Mandatory Training? →

Chris's Blog

Missouri State Police Profiles “Modern Militia Movement”

1 Comment

 

Mo. State Police Report says You’re a Potential Terrorist:  Not Profiling, It’s An "Educational" Document…

A document from the Missouri Information Analysis Center, a division of the state police, conflates privately organized militia groups with libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, Constitutionalists, race separatists, and even some collectivists, who distrust the Federal Reserve.  The document, which we obtained last week, is marked "Unclassified, Law Enforcement Sensitive," indicating that the Missouri state patrol guys don’t want to talk about it.  We can confirm that last bit as they failed to return phone calls or email.  Before running the document I wanted to verify it.  The Associated Press has since picked the story up, so we’re running it now. 

You can see the document here.

The AP story quotes Lt. John Hotz of the Missouri State Highway Patrol who called the report "an educational thing."

"Troopers have been shot by members of groups, so it’s our job to let law enforcement officers know what the trends are in the modern militia movement."

The most encouraging thing I see in this story is that it leaked.  

We’ll be following this one.

March 16, 2009 Update.   The Missouri Libertarian Party issued a press release, available here. 

Additional Note from Jeff: This "analysis" by the Missouri Information Analysis Center has the fingerprints of the Southern Poverty Law Center all over it.  Morris Dees of SPLC has for years maintained a site for tracking "hate groups."  That’s fine and dandy, but Mr. Dees is very good at drawing connecting lines between organizations and individuals even when there is rather obviously very little or nothing to connect them.  Back in the mid 90’s I attended a presentation by an associate of the SPLC and sat in stunned disbelief as he drew circles on the board containing the names of organizations and individuals he said were connected.  Among these were connections between groups like the KKK, neo-Nazis, and such, and groups like NRA, the John Birch Society, and GOA. He drew other links between these groups, militia organizations, and individuals including Larry Pratt of GOA, and most shocking to me, Neal Knox, my own father.

Now I know a bit about the NRA and I know Larry Pratt to be a fine Christian man.  I also know that there is absolutely no truth to any allegation that Neal Knox was any more connected to these groups and their philosophies than Morris Dees himself is.  The "connections" were based on the simple fact that the individuals and many in the groups al espoused one or more similar beliefs such as belief in the Second Amendment as an individual right and that the federal government should be constrained by the US Constitution.

For Dees and his friends to make such links is simply outrageous.  For official government agencies – particularly law enforcement agencies – to use these bogus connections or draw connections of their own suggesting that millions of law-abiding,  patriotic Americans are "potential terrorists" because they object to excessive taxation or question the wisdom and constitutionality of the Federal Reserve system – or they believe that they have a God given right to the means necessary to defend their families and their nation – is beyond outrageous, it borders on criminal.

Barack Obama has much closer ties and connections to terrorists and subversive philosophies than do most tax protesters, gunowners, or Constitutionalists, yet asking questions about these connections is one of the indicators that the Missouri "analysis" suggests is an indication of being a dangerous extremist. 

Rather than paint with a broad brush anyone who questions government actions or motives, the government needs to be openly, and honestly answering questions, correcting procedures, and abiding by the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Case in point: After the lunatic in Alabama’s recent killing spree, the streets of the small town where it happened were patrolled by armed soldiers from nearby fort Rucker.  While some would say that’s a reasonable response to such a violent event, especially in light of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India recently, the fact of the matter is that armed military troops patrolling the streets of America is ILLEGAL.  The military is for fighting foreign enemies in wars, not enforcing laws in the US.  There are specific and clear proscriptions against military involvement in civil affairs.  Whether their use in this case was "harmless," or "reasonable," or "appropriate," the fact remains that it is absolutely ILLEGAL and must not be done.  If we the people wish to change that, we need to address it Constitutionally and legislatively, not just allow the government to ignore the law.

March 18 2009 update.  Rush Limbaugh reported on this story at the beginning of his broadcast today.

March 27 2009 update.  The entire Missouri state governmetn is running from the report as fast as they can.  It has been officially "withdrawn," as reported here.