There's lots of discussion (some of it a bit heated) these days in the gun rights community about H.R. 2640, the NICS "Improvement" Act. This bill is championed by longtime enemies of gun rights, including Representative Carolyn "I don't know what a barrel shroud is, but let's ban them anyway" McCarthy, Senator Chuck Schumer (couldn't think of a catchy middle name for him), Paul "Have I mentioned that I was mayor of Ft. Wayne, IN?" Helmke . . . and it is also championed by the NRA.

On the other side stands Gun Owners of America, supported by the American Legion and the Military Order of the Purple Heart. Ted Nugent, interestingly enough (I don't remember him fighting the NRA on anything before), is also opposed. The Liberty Zone has voiced some pretty compelling arguments against it (most recently here). I've made no secret of my own opposition (here, for example), although not so much for the reasons most emphasized by the GOA.

My comprehension of legalese is quite shaky, at best, but after slogging through the text of the bill, and reading the points made at Snowflakes in Hell and at Of Arms and the Law, I am inclined to believe that the threat to veterans' gun rights is being significantly exaggerated by the GOA. The previous two links argue pretty effectively for the point that the bill includes fairly robust protections against the kinds of horror stories warned of in recent GOA alerts.

Then again, "robust protections" seemingly tend to end up being a whole lot less robust than one would expect. Take, for example, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms–how could that law fail to be enough to get Gary, Indiana's lawsuit against gun manufacturers thrown out? All it takes is a few judges whose personal dislike of certain provisions of the Bill of Rights outweighs their respect for the law, it would seem. How could Ohio's straightforward law banning municipal gun laws more strict than the state's be ruled insufficient to get Clyde, Ohio's ban of guns in city parks tossed out like the garbage it is? A State Supreme Court that has more respect for gun bans than for the laws that prohibit them, apparently. Therefore, although it would seem that veterans are protected by the way the bill was written, people can perhaps be forgiven for a lack of faith in those protections.

Still, for me, the much larger concern with the bill is that it constitutes a major (and quite expensive) expansion of the NICS program–a program that I simply cannot reconcile with "shall not be infringed." The idea of "keeping guns out of the hands" of felons, domestic batterers, and insane people certainly sounds good, but if these people are so dangerous (either to themselves or to others) that we cannot take the risk of allowing them to buy guns legally, then they would seem to be too dangerous to be trusted not to obtain guns illegally, or to simply commit their crimes with something other than a firearm. Such people should not be running loose in society.

As to Senator Coburn's "hold" on the bill, I applaud him, and believe that even supporters of the bill should lay off with the criticism. The hold is not an insurmountable obstacle–it only prevents the bill from being passed without floor debate (or with only perfunctory floor debate), and without a recorded vote. As pointed out at War on Guns, the requirement for discussion and vote for the passage of a new law is hardly an attack on our form of government. If Senators are unwilling to debate the merits of a bill they want passed, what does that say about the bill? If they do not want their constituents to know how they voted on the bill, what does that say about it?

Frankly, anything that makes laws more difficult to pass sounds good to me (and I realize that laws that I would like to have seen passed have been stopped in this manner–that's a price I'm willing to pay). It's unfortunate that a legislator's job is to . . . legislate–in other words, to pass more laws. In still other words, to make our bloated legal code even more grotesquely vast than it already is. In yet other words, to place more restrictions on what we can do. If Senator Coburn wants to introduce a speed bump into the process, I say more power to him.

Senators, if H.R. 2640 is so good for America, so necessary, then stand up on the Senate floor and defend it. If passing it is in the best interests of your constituents, put your name on your "Yes" vote, and proudly let them know of your support for it. If not, then I guess NICS doesn't need to be "improved," after all.

The Premiere of David T. Hardy's Documentary In Search of the Second Amendment opened to a great crowd in Twin Falls that included Twin Falls City Councilman Trip Craig and Vice Mayor Glenda Dwight. Author and Historian Clayton Cramer made a presentation following the film. You can download the interview with Clayton Cramer and myself on Top Story. Cramer discussed the rise and fall of disgraced anti-gun author Michael Bellesiles who rewrote history to fulfill his anti-gun agenda. The follow up showing will be tonight, I encourage others to arrange a screening or purchase a copy of the film.

Not long ago, I mentioned an editorial in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel that advocated a new ban on so-called "assault weapons." The media and the civilian disarmament advocacy groups (but perhaps I repeat myself) seem to be engaged in a blitz against these firearms (as has been pointed out at Snowflakes in Hell, Traction Control, Days of our Trailers, Captain of a Crew of One, and undoubtedly others that I've missed).

A reader and commenter (Straight Arrow) here at Armed and Safe pointed out something about the editorial that I missed. Although I of course made note of the paper's editorial board's tyranny-enabling advocacy of a ban on "assault weapons" for civilians, while simultaneously claiming that "people shouldn't be opposed to cops having these weapons," I failed to spot the verbal gymnastics (despite their decided lack of subtlety) used a bit earlier in the editorial:

Understandably, officers in more South Florida police agencies have been arming themselves — at their own expense — with patrol rifles to be on more even footing with criminals — particularly gangs — they encounter.

Suddenly, what had been an "assault weapon" (or the even less honest use of the term "assault rifle") has become a "patrol rifle"–presumably because it is now in the hands of a police officer.

Perhaps I should count this as progress. After all, we (as gun rights advocates) have been arguing all along that the outrage and loathing should be directed at the evil person who commits evil with a gun, rather than the gun he uses for that purpose. By referring to an AR-15 in the hands of a gang banger as an "assault weapon" (with all the menace that term is intended to convey) while calling an identical firearm in the hands of a police officer a "patrol rifle" (a much more noble-sounding designation), they seem to have come a bit closer to that understanding–it at least implies an understanding that the user of a weapon determines whether good or evil is done with it.

Still, it's not enough. They refer to these firearms as "assault weapons," whether they belong to criminals/psychopaths, or peaceable civilians who would never shoot someone who does not mean them harm, and who does not present a serious, credible threat. Likewise, I assume that to them, an AR-15 in a police cruiser's trunk is a "patrol rifle," whether the officer in the car is a courageous protector of his/her community, or a monster with a badge.

In the end, an "assault weapon" is a "patrol rifle," is a homeland defense rifle, etc. To put it another way, "a rose by another name . . . ." To put it still another way, whether a gun is an instrument of evil, or a lifesaver, boils down to the intent and actions of the person holding it, rather than the cosmetic features or designation it bears.

I have been overlooking the cases that the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund has taken on or assisted in. Then take a look at the Gun Owners Foundation and the cases that they have assisted in. Not surprising is that a majority of the cases are dealing with the ATF and how the ATF has trampled on the rights of citizens. This is a very dysfunctional agency, that is far beyond repair with problems on the inside as well. Or the waste or tax dollars, it was on the day of our appeal that former ATF Director Carl Truscott resigned for alleged mismanagement and misconduct, the OIG Report is a must read. A look at it's disregard for the Second Amendment and the mentality towards firearms is tell-tale sign:

“If it wasn’t for criminals, there wouldn’t be a gun industry in this country.” Gerard Nunziato (former BATFE official)

“Also troubling is the NRA’s attempt to protect the gun industry from lawsuits that could help shut down gun dealers.” Ron Schuman (former BATFE official)

So is the ATF so far gone after reading the post on Of Arms and the Law, which an ATF official states: "Perhaps the problems are too significant to place on the shoulders of 3 men, or maybe the Bureau is beyond repair. Either way, the complaints continue as does the retaliation, abuse of authority and the climbing number of EEOC, OSC, OIG and internal grievance complaints."

When a Federal Agency resorts to destroying the Constitution to justify their own existence then it is time to shut it down.

The members' blogging tool has some strange characteristics.  I'm thinking it's not quite ready for prime time.  Everything is readable, but they don't come out formatted like you'd expect including text bolding and paragraph marks.  I'm looking for an answer.  

In the meanwhile, feel free to use the blogs.  If we end up having to install a different tool, we'll transfer all the existing data. 

OK–that's not really what they call themselves. But recently, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Ladd Everitt (who is also the president of the Washington DC chapter of the Million Mom March–I know this is none of my business, but if he is one of the Marching Mommies, I wonder who the father is–on second thought, I don't want to know), as much as publicly admitted that supporting tyranny was the objective.

Mostly Livingston wanted the “Living Letters” to help advocate stricter gun control in the U.S. He was joined by Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, who bewailed: "We have a real pride in violence in our country." He likewise exclaimed, "We also profit from it,” fingering the U.S. films that “glorify violence and promote vigilante justice,” according to a WCC account.

More revealingly, Everitt insisted that “the government must have a monopoly on force,” according to an account by my assistant Rebekah Sharpe, who attended the meeting. He identified the obstacles to fuller gun control as “hardcore gun owners” who have a “profoundly, virulently anti-government attitude.” Many of these hardcore zealots adhere to the National Rifle Association’s ostensible belief that “if our government becomes tyrannical they have a right to take over that government, our democratically elected government!” [emphasis mine]

"The government must have a monopoly on force," eh? I have never doubted that this was the core objective of the civilian disarmament groups, but I never expected them to come out and publicly acknowledge it. Note also his dismay at the thought of people believing they have a right to overthrow tyrants (especially if they are elected tyrants).

The article I quoted above is about a delegation from the World Council of Churches, which recently came to the United States "to investigate America's violence" (their itinerary wisely included Washington DC, with its rampant violence, and its draconian civilian disarmament laws–but I doubt they made the connection). The delegates were, oddly enough, referred to as "Living Letters" (is it just me, being a child of the '70's, or is anyone else having trouble shaking these mental images?). It was while they were in DC that Ladd made his speech to them. This speech was apparently well received–as evidenced by the agreement of the "Letter" from South Africa:

“Yes… the right wing out there wants to de-legitimize government… [If we give in to them] we are playing into the hands of the forces of chaos.”

Evidently, Africa has no history of governmental abuses–I'm so glad that I was apparently wrong about that.

The group also bleated and wailed in anguish over the various war memorials–reverence for courage and sacrifice is apparently very upsetting to their tender sensibilities.

The “Living Letters” also toured Washington’s many presidential monuments and war memorials, where they found lots of glorification of “violence.” Naturally, they were very concerned and asked, “Victory and sacrifice are the only way to build a great nation?” They also wondered why the “cost of freedom is paid by so many human lives.” While visiting the recently built World War II Memorial, they realized to their horror that “these praises of violence and sacrifice are not only memories of humanity’s past but are very much present today, in times we as churches are called to be protagonists.”

I suppose that's to be expected–anyone who opposes the use of force to free oneself from tyranny is naturally going to be horrified by using force to help free others.

Just curious, Ladd, when the tyranny you are trying to help bring about is imposed, do you figure to be one of those holding the whips, or is it your plan to survive through abject boot licking (I understand that some folks are into that sort of thing)?

The fix is in! You better immediately contact your Senators people (and keep contacting them) and tell them NOT to vote to confirm Michael J. Sullivan for BATFE Director (Sullivan is currently Acting Director of the BATFE/ATF.) I have addressed Sullivan's agenda in prior redpills.org posts but if that won't wake you up then how about Senator 'Chappaquiddick' Kennedy's opening remarks at the 9/26 hearing regarding Sullivan's appointment:

It’s a pleasure to welcome to the Committee today two fellow Bay Staters, my good friend and colleague Senator John Kerry and Mr. Michael Sullivan, whom President Bush has nominated to serve as the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. I’d also like to welcome Mr. Sullivan’s wife Theresa, daughter Alyson, and his father Thomas Sullivan. Your family is surely proud, Mr. Sullivan, that you’ve served the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for over a decade {as U.S Attorney} and I look forward to hearing your views on issues that are so important to our country today.

A fellow native Bostonian, Mr. Sullivan has been a lifelong resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. A graduate of Boston College and Suffolk University Law School, he’s had a distinguished career dedicated to public service. Beginning in 1990, Mr. Sullivan served as a Representative in the state legislature for three terms. Then in 1995, he went onto become the District Attorney for Plymouth County where he began to develop a strong relationship between himself, the Boston Police Department and the ATF.

In 2001, Mr. Sullivan was appointed to serve as the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts – a position that he still holds today. Since August 2006, Mr. Sullivan has also held the position of Acting Director of ATF.

As you know, the ATF is a key law enforcement agency within the Justice Department — with the dual responsibility of enforcing Federal criminal laws and regulating the firearms and explosives industries. With a new law enacted last year, this is the first confirmation hearing for the position of Director and I hope that it will provide us with a good foundation for future collaboration between ATF and this Committee.

I’m particularly interested in the role that ATF can play to help stem the tide of gun violence in our country. Nearly 30,000 Americans lives are lost to gun violence each year — more than 80 people a day. In his book, Private Guns, Public Health, David Hemenway from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center observed that, “Each day guns were used in the commission of about three thousand crimes. The U.S. rates of death an injury due to firearms and the rate of crimes committed with firearms are far higher than those of any other industrialized country.”

Just last week, the International Association of Chiefs of Police – IACP – took a dramatic stand against the escalating gun violence in our communities – releasing a comprehensive report with 39 key recommendations to reduce gun violence. The Chiefs’ compelling report and specific recommendations are a clear call to action. Without further delay, Congress and the Administration need to do our part by enacting concrete reforms that will reduce crime and protect the safety of police officers and all Americans. We all know what needs to be done and it’s a scandal that we have done so little for so long.

* We need to strengthen Brady Law background checks for gun purchases, especially for persons with mental illness.

* We need to close the gun show loophole once and for all.

* We need to renew the assault weapons ban.

* We need to pass Senator Feinstein’s bill for stricter requirements on the sale of extremely dangerous fifty-caliber sniper rifles.

* We need to amend federal law to ensure that all cop killer bullets are banned.

* We need to do more to see that law enforcement has access to the newest and most effective crime-solving technologies – like microstamping.

The IACP’s impressive work in producing this ground-breaking report should not go ignored. I’m hopeful that we can work together, across party lines, to reduce gun violence, solve gun crimes, protect our police officers and do all that we can to make our communities safer. Perhaps our dialogue today will be one positive step forward in that direction.

OK. If I need to spell this out to you then you have not been paying attention to how we are on the verge of losing more of our rights as pertaining to the 2nd Amendment. Sullivan, Kerry, Kennedy, and the SOB (Son Of a Bush) are New England elitist, blue bloods and they are after your guns. That SOB appointed Sullivan knowing full well his background. Sullivan may be OK as a Massachusetts State Representative or even a U.S. Attorney, I don't know, but SULLIVAN MUST NOT BECOME DIRECTOR OF THE BATFE! That I do know.

Yes, the legislation that Kennedy wants may or may not be the same as that which Sullivan wants. I know that. But what I do know is that Sullivan is rescinding Federal Firearms Licenses at an alarming rate, he's buds with 'Chappaquiddick', and most egregiously, Sullivan is creating an unlawful database of gun owners. A FIREARMS OWNERSHIP DATABASE MEANS REGISTRATION. REGISTRATION MEANS CONFISCATION. IT ALWAYS COMES DOWN TO THAT…and given BATFE's history and militancy, do you think they will shirk their perceived 'duty' if they are called upon? First they will come for the 50 caliber 'sniper rifles', then the 'assault rifles', then take the guns from all those not meeting whatever requirements the government considers appropriate, e.g., those who are 'mentally ill' (which according to them are all gun owners), those with a history of ADD, then those ….

Enough. Contact your Senators TODAY and keep at them. SULLIVAN MUST NOT BECOME DIRECTOR OF THE BATFE!

I will address Kennedy's remarks in a future redpills post. As usual he flagrantly and arrogantly shows us his agenda, his blatent disregard for the truth and what the American people want. But enough of 'Chappaquiddick'…contact your Senators re: Sullivan. Or give up your guns.

To redpills.org home page.
This article is copyright © 2007, by Gary Shumway. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.redpills.org is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. Gary Shumway is the author of Winging Through America and SCUBA Scoop.

On Wednesday and Thursday of this week we will be hosting the Premiere of David T. Hardy's Documentary In Search the Second Amendment. On Wednesday there will be a presentation following the film by Author and Historian Clayton Cramer. I have already had a couple local elected officials indicate that they will attend, I am also contacting the College and High Schools to have there students attend. The admission is FREE and there will be door prizes.