Category Archives: Chris’s Blog

 

Chris’s Blog

While I do some of the writing chores, my main role is behind the scenes. In particular, look for updates about the web site here. We’ve added several new features recently and there are more to come. Please let me know what you think. You can reach us by following the Contact Us link in the menu.

This is an exciting time for The Firearms Coalition. We’re encouraged by the level of encouragement we’ve received so far. It would seem there’s a need for what we envision The Coalition to be. Help us keep it on the right track.

 

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

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.  

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.  

Chris's Blog

Memphis Paper “Outs” CCW Holders

An important oversight in the drafting of the Tennessee concealed carry permit system left the record of who has a permit to carry concealed weapons resulted in a grandstanding newspaper putting up a web site with permit hoders' names and zip codes .  A huffy editorial from columnist Chris Peck resed on the sanctity of the public's right to know, pointed out that the paper only published a matter of public record, and feined shock and dismay that anyone should object.  Some bloggers responded by publishing home addresses of the paper's staff including Mr. Peck's.  

The issue heated up recently as an argument over parking escalated into an incident such as the Brady Bunch would have scripted and a man was shot.  Locals tell me that it looks like the permit holder was in the wrong and probably needs to go to jail. The Brady Bunch told us this would be happening all over the place.  That such incidents are exceedingly rare is the news that doesn't make the news, much as an armed citizen who stops a rampage barely makes a ripple in the media.

Chris's Blog

NYTimes warns of “Coming Swarm”

NYTimes warns of “Coming Swarm”

A New York Times Op-Ed piece by John Arquilla, a Naval Postgraduate School professer, titled “The Coming Swarm” warns of a possible terrorist threat in the form of a “swarm” attack, a series of simultaneous smal-unit actions much like the Thanksgiving Mumbi attacks.  The piece correctly points out that anti-terrorism respondents are geared toward a single mass-casualty event, where Mumbai was paralyzed by a half-dozen two-man teams. 

 I made a similar prediction shortly after the Mumbai event in a Knox Report column, “The Siege of Mumbai ” and friend Derek Bernard followed up with a piece by Richard Munday that was printed in The TImes of London.  Mr. Munday focused on an obvious point that seemingly went right over the head of Professor Arquilla, that being that some of the would-be victims might happen to be armed.  That there could be an armed citizen to fight back would indeed be a tall-odds proposition in disarmed Mumbai, London, or in Monterey, California, home of the the Naval Postgraduate School.  But in Phoenix, Dallas, or Orlando, where roughly two percent of the population have obtained concealed carry permits, the odds tilt. 

In those cities, I suppose we can expect the attacks to occur in airports or other disarmed victim zones.

Chris's Blog

A Sig Sticker

Jeff's been after me to create a "bumper sticker" image that guys can put in their sig files or on their web sites.  Clicking on this link will bring people directly to our home page.  We'll be more effective if we get more traffic.  That's good for us, good for your readers, and ultimately good for our gun rights.  We hope you'll agree and add us to your signature line and web site.

 

The Firearms Coalition

Here's the code.

HTML:

<a href="http://firearmscoalition.org/s.php " title="The Firearms Coalition" target="_blank"><img src="http://firearmscoalition.org/fclogo.gif" alt="The Firearms Coalition" /></a>

BBCode (for forums and such)

[url=http://firearmscoalition.org/s.php][img]http://firearmscoalition.org/fclogo.gif[/img][/url]

 

Chris's Blog

Republicans Elect Steele to Chair

The Republican National Committee yesterday elected former Maryland leiutenant governor Michael Steele to its top post.  Described as a "moderate," Steele showed little understanding of Second Amendment issues in a Washington Post interview snippet that's been making its way around the Internet.  In the interview he advocates "enforcing the laws that are on the books," echoing one of NRA's "kinder and gentler" lines from a few years ago.  Inviting strict enforcement of existing law can be a dangerous wish if that law is as broken as the 1968 Gun Control Act.  Steele also demonstrates the upside-down "needs-based" theory of "assault weapons."

"What do you need an assault weapon for, if you're going hunting?"

We'd point out that a) hunting is not a Second Amendment issue, and b) as Americans we are blessed not to have to demonstrate need for everything we want.  NRA endorsed his unsuccessful 2006 senatorial bid.  In the virulently anti-gun state of Maryland, an NRA endorsement could mean that he salivates less at the thought of banning guns than the other guy.

So, congratulations to Mr. Steele.  We hope to be able to work with him.

Chris's Blog

Reason’s Brian Doherty on Obama and the Second

Reason's Brian Doherty has taken a similar position to ours — that Obama, while definitely hostile to the Second Amendment, also remembers 1994 and is treading warily around the issue.  I responded with the following.  

I can't completely agree with Brian Doherty — I wouldn't say that our Second Amendment rights are "safe" under Obama. Doherty mentions Obama's choice of Eric Holder for Attorney General. The Attorney General can do plenty of damage to your gun rights without the help of Congress.

Yet the trend seems to be moving firmly in both directions. Hillary's Senate seat has been filled by the NRA A-rated, pro-choice, pro-gay rights Kirsten Gillibrand. Her mix of opinions, while jarring in the mainstream, sounds familiar to Reason readers. Could Senator Gillibrand be part of a new trend? Or will her position on guns "evolve?"

At The Firearms Coalition, we've taken a similar position to Doherty's. Get ready and wait. The Democrats have truly painful memories related to gun rights going back to the 1994 election. It's possible they've learned. If the Republicans are counting on another mass political suicide among the Democrats, they just might have a long wait.

Link to Doherty's post.

Link to my reply.

 

Chris's Blog

Gun Issue Crops Up In NY Senate Appointment

New York governor David Paterson has appointed Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to serve out Hillary Clinton's Senate term.  The pick has stirred a hornets' nest among the anti-gun forces with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy vowing to boycott the announcment ceremony in Albany, and to challenge Gillibrand in the 2010 primary.  "I will not show any support whatsoever," she said. "The majority of New Yorkers are trying to reduce gun violence. I just feel that everybody should know what her record is. If she changes, let's see it." McCarthy's vitriolic opposition, more than the NRA "A" rating, leads me to think Gillibrand's appointment could be a good thing.  

The pick hints that the Democrats do not plan to press the gun issue, at least not during Obama's first term, much to the dismay of the Brady Bunch.  And, quite possibly, to the dismay of the Republican Party leadership which would love to see the Democrats repeat their 1994 mass political suicide.  It appears that, for now at least, Republican hopes of the Democratic Party defeating themselves by over-reaching have been dashed— at least on the gun issue, and at least for now.  If this move is a reliable indicator of the Democrats' strategy, the Republican strategists who counted on returning to power on a backlash may be in for a long wait. 

News References: The Hill, Newsday