• Search for:

• Categories

  • "Assault Weapons"
  • "Gun Free Zones"
  • "Sniper Rifles"
  • Administrative Information
  • Ammunition Issues
  • benefits of guns
  • Colorado State Issues
  • Concealed Carry
  • Conspiracy theories
  • Courts
  • Culture War
  • Elections
  • fairness doctrine
  • Federal Law/Policy
  • Foreign Gun Laws
  • Gangs
  • gun bans
  • Gun Law Failures
  • Gun Shows
  • Guns in Schools
  • History
  • Hunting Issues
  • Junk Science
  • Legislation
  • Legislative
  • machine guns
  • Media Bias
  • non-gun violence
  • Official Misconduct
  • Order of Battle
  • Other States
  • Politics
  • psychology
  • Registration
  • Research
  • Second Amendment
  • Self-defense
  • Socialism
  • Spree Killings
  • Treaty Threats
  • Trojan Horses
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions
  • United Nations
  • Vietnam
  • War on Terror

• Blogroll

  • ballotpedia
  • Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
  • Colorado Gun Issues
  • Dave Kopel
  • Front Page Magazine
  • Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
  • National Rifle Association
  • Sam Adams Alliance
  • The Unarmed Citizen
  • The Volokh Conspiracy
  • The War on Guns

• Statistics

  

Check out the site here for H.R. 675.  The bill would allow “civilian employees of the Department of Defense the authority to execute warrants, make arrests, and carry firearms.”  The bill mentions these powers in conjuction with “any offense against the United States.” 

As I read H.R. 675, the disturbing powers granted by the bill are the authority to “execute and serve any warrant or other process issued under the authority of the United States,” and to “make arrests without a warrant…”  for probable cause of past commission or the commission of actual offenses against the United States.   Do we really want game wardens serving warrants?  What additional federal statutes might be passed that would give these newly minted minions of the law increased control over state and local issues?

Possession of a firearm following a conviction for a domestic violence misdemeanor was retroactively made  a violation of  federal law.  (Lautenberg Amendment)  Does this bill mean that a game warden would be making arrests during deer season for someone who pled out to a domestic violence beef in 1970 to avoid attorney’s fees, before the conviction meant a loss of Second Amendment rights?  (Sorry about that, but the SCOTUS ruled that the Lautenberg Amendment did not have an Ex Post Facto problem.)

 This proposed law seems to be an effort by Democrats to implement Obama’s national “civilian” security force.  The US Department of Defense has issued Directive 1404.10 that appears to pave the way for a massive ”Civilian Expeditionary Workforce” to support military operations inside and outside the United States.

Are these measures designed to protect the American People from terrorism, or are they designed to protect the Federal Government from American Citizens?  Do these activities, taken as a whole represent an attempt to circumvent the Posse Comitatus Act, which keeps the Federal Government out of local law enforcement?

Do the Democrats plan to establish a national police force along the lines of the French Surete?  How will these plans relate to Obama’s volunteer youth corps?  (See my post, “Obama’s ’service’ speech: Gestapo, Red Guards, or something else?” 07-21-08, under the tag, “national security.”)

Ask your senators and representatives to tell you what they know about H.R. 675 and DoD Directive 1404.10.  These laws and regulations sound suspiciously like the birth of the Gestapo, the S.A., the S.S., the NKVD, or the KGB.  Of course, this flurry of activity  might be nothing at all.  We need to find out what it is, before we have federal agents asking to see our papers at roadblocks and investigating “hooliganism” in our neighborhoods.

Def Mech

The Denver Post article, ”Book goes inside the minds of gun criminals,” by Monte Whaley, in the 06-26-09 issue of the paper, deals with 73 criminals who used firearms in the commission of one or more crimes.  The upcoming book, Guns, Violence, and Criminal Behavior: The Offender’s Perspective, apparently offers interesting insights into criminal gun use among some Colorado offenders.

The US Justice Department’s Project Safe Neighborhoods Program supported the project.  CU Professor Mark Pogrebin led the team of CU and CSU researchers, who surveyed prisoners in 2003, 2004.

We should keep in mind that 73 individuals constitute an extremely small sample size, totaling about four percent of the subjects of the landmark prison study done by Professors Wright and Rossi.  (See my post under the Category: “Research.”)

The Colorado study group may have been an available sample rather than a random sample, but we will have to wait for the book in July to look at their selection process.

Given these potential limitations, we can consider the self-reports of the prisoners to be representative to some degree of the Colorado population of convicted felons who have used firearms in the commission of a crime.  (We should keep in mind that it is illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm.)

It will be instructive to find out if the book goes into other crimes committed by the research subjects.  The book does apparently touch on the role of drugs, especially Meth, in increasing violent criminal behavior.  (It is also illegal for drug addicts to possess firearms.)

According to the article, the Colorado findings suggest that “gun-control laws would have had little effect on the study subjects’ criminal behavior.”  The impressive CDC Study and the even more massive NAS Study, which indicate that there is no substantial scientific evidence that gun control laws prevent crime, support this conclusion.  (See my posts under the Category: “Research.”)

Another interesting finding of the study in question is that some criminals would be deterred by liberal concealed carry laws.  Wright and Rossi found that criminals are risk averse and, in effect, do a kind of risk/benefit analysis when selecting victims.

Florida Scientist Gary Kleck found up to 2 million defensive uses of firearms every year in the United States.  Economist John Lott postulates that “shall issue” concealed carry laws save lives and reduce crime.  (See David Kopel’s review of John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime, here.)

An interesting artifact of the Colorado Study is that “most inmates said that concealed weapons…” or “the perception” of concealed weapons in the hands of potential victims would lead to more violent behavior on the part of the criminals.  There are two possible problems with giving credence to this idea.

The first problem is that the criminals in the study group could have been motivated by bravado, attempting to convince the researchers (and themselves) that they were not intimidated by the idea of relatively widespread, spontaneous, armed opposition to their felonious acts.  The second, and more insidious possibility, is that the convicts knew that their responses might find their way into public policy debates on concealed weapons permits.  What better way for a career criminal to improve “business conditions” than to provide responses to researchers that might actually disarm potential victims?

Most criminals do not attack police officers in order to take their weapons.  Few criminals attempt armed robberies at gun stores or gun shows.  I personally give more weight to the much larger Wright and Rossi Study and the evidence of crime deterrence suggested by Dr. Kleck and Dr. Lott.

One convict’s remark that he would shoot people he thought were carrying concealed guns should make it abundantly clear that CCW permit holders’ names must be kept private to protect them and society as a whole.  Another implication of this individual’s attitude is that we should incarcerate dangerous felons for as long as possible to keep them from committing future criminal acts.

According to the Post article, this small Colorado study seems to agree with much of the research supporting the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of American Citizens to self-defense against crime.  Defense against tyranny and genocide appear to be beyond the scope of the study.  It will be interesting to check out the book.

Def Mech

Please contact your US Senator and ask him or her to oppose the nomination of Harold Koh as legal advisor to the State Department.  Mr. Koh has a history of promoting internationalism that does not bode well for the Second Amendment.  David Kopel wrote here about Koh.  See the Gun Owners of America alert here.

Mr. Koh has reportedly said that a civil society can not exist in the presence of an armed civilian population.  Given the threats posed to the Second Amendment by Obama’s other appointees, proposed laws in the Democrat-controlled House and Senate, and the CIFTA Treaty, we simply don’t need another anti-gunner in high public office.  

Def Mech

Denver Post Columnist Charlie Meyers, on Page 14 C of the 06-21-09 Sunday paper described a situation affecting gun owners and outdoor sports enthusiasts that occurred in Douglas County, Colorado in June of last year.  The headline was “Douglas County has gone to the dogs.” 

Colorado Citizen Ron Wedow killed a large dog that was attacking a doe, after the dog had killed her fawn.  As Meyers points out in the article, Wedow was justified in the shooting by Colorado State Statute 33-3-106.  Quoting from the statute: “Nothing in this section shall make it unlawful to… kill, or otherwise dispose of…dogs without a permit in situations when it is necessary… to prevent them from inflicting death or injury to big game…”  (Here.)  Click on Colorado Revised Statutes and look up the number.  (Not legal advice-just reading the law.)

The plot thickened when a Douglas County Animal Control Officer later cited Wedow for cruelty to animals.  When advised by the State Department of Wildlife that it was legal for Wedow to shoot the offending canine, Douglas County Officials stood what seems to be their shaky ground.

Research on the Douglas County Website indicates that animal control in the county is done through a contract between the Sheriff’s Office and the Pikes Peak Humane Society.  Please call Douglas County Offices at 303-660-7400 and Animal Control at  303-660-7529 and ask them to abide by state law.

The county website is here.  Apparently you have to log in to comment.  They may only accept on-line comments from county residents. 

As far as I can tell, we are still living under the rule of law. Bureaucrats, no matter how tender hearted and well meaning, can not legally trump state statutes with local regulations.

Lest you think this issue is not significant, Wedow estimates his legal bills to be in the ballpark of $15,000 and it ain’t over yet.  Eternal vigilance!

Def Mech

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency of the Department of Homeland Security is proposing restrictions on the importation of pocket knives that seem to threaten the possesion of folding knives that can be opened with one hand through the use of a slot or a stud on the blade.  See the proposed rule change here.

David Kopel on the Volokh Conspiracy has blogged on this topic and the NRA has issued an alert.  WorldNetDaily story here.  There is some question about whether the 80% figure on knife sales refers to all knives or all folding knives.  In any case, we don’t need more restrictions.  Please write to:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of International Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Attention: Intellectual Property and Restricted Merchandise Branch, Mint Annex, 799 9th Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20229.  Comments must be received on or before June 21st, 2009.  I didn’t see a way to E-mail them.  There might be one.  Snail mail must be sent immediately.

Pocket knives are certainly militia equipment that should be protected by the Second Amendment.  Knives that open with one hand are extremely useful as tools.  The Brits are collecting sharp pointed kitchen knives to prevent stabbings.  Where will it end?  Will we all live in rubber rooms to prevent injury to self or others?  Even then, would the Liberals really feel safe?

Def Mech

Those on the Left are going ballistic over the Holocaust Museum Shooting.  They hoot that this tragic incident validates the Homeland Security Report’s portrayal of veterans as potential domestic terrorists.  ”Progressive” pundits shout that this murder should be the basis for more restrictive gun laws.  Before we all go off half-cocked,  let us consider a few basic facts.

Washington D.C., where the Holocaust Museum Shooting took place, is a legally mandated “gun free” zone for ordinary, common citizens.  (Think of it as a criminal-safe, free-fire zone, although, this time, there were armed security guards.)

Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is against the law. Brandishing a weapon is illegal.  Murder or attempted murder, battery, or even a verbal offer of violence is illegal.  Von Brunn broke numerous laws in his intended rampage, which thankfully was ended by people with guns.  Criminals, by definition, don’t obey laws.  That statement should be engraved somewhere on a library.

There are roughly 80,000,000 law-abiding gun owners in this country.  We must not allow ourselves to become hostage to acts of violence perpetrated by deranged individuals. 

For those firearms enthusiasts who slowly shoot paper targets, collect antiques or “curios and relics,” and those hunters who use lever action, bolt action, or pump firearms, be advised that this crime was committed with an “old” rifle.  Do not ever be deluded into the notion that the “Progressive” Left only wants to take away handguns and “black” rifles.  If they can ban an AR-15, I believe that they can and will, ban your target rifle, hunting rifle, or Winchester ’73.

Look at the interconnecting web of restrictive regulations being spun by the Homeland Security Report on “right-wing extremists,” H.R. 2159, and H.R. 2401.  The Homeland Security Report broad brushes veterans, abortion opponents, Evangelical Christians, and “single issue” advocates (read Second Amendment supporters) as potential terrorists.

H.R. 2159 allows the Attorney General to declare you to be a terrorist based on “a preponderance of the evidence” and may deny you the right to confront your accuser based on “national security interests.”  Once on a watch list, you have no legal right to possess a gun or get on a plane.

McCarthy’s bill, H.R. 2401, the “No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009,” would include “persons who may be prevented from boarding an aircraft in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System…”

The Page 1B, 05-31-2009  Denver Post article,”Name’s not the same?  That just won’t fly,” “Mistaken ID’s of flyers on watch lists happen daily,” outlines some of the problems with the current aircraft boarding program.  What happens if you happen to have the same name as a “terrorist” on the “No Fly List?” “No Fly, no buy?”  

What happens if an errant bug falls into a printer at our Big Brother’s Ministry of Information or whatever it was that they called “Spy on You Central” in Terry Gilliam’s prophetic, dystopian movie, Brazil.   It could be, “No Fly, no buy!”  No legal right to own a gun, ever! 

(Dystopia is a variation on utopia, meaning a utopian vision that didn’t work out.  See 1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World, It Can’t Happen Here, Soylent Green, Minority Report, and Logan’s Run, for a few warnings about dystopian societies that may be closer to our present reality than we would like to think.)

By the way, isn’t it strange that shortly after the Homeland Security Report came out, we have multiple shooting incidents that seem to reinforce the conclusions of the report?  Abortion clinic shooting.  Anti-Semitic shooting.  Hmmm!  Von Brunn: name sounds Nazi-like, doesn’t it?  (See my post, “Look for more shootings after church killing and more calls for gun control,” 03-12-09, under the Category “Spree Killings.”)

In any case, all law-abiding gun owners must stand together in resisting further attempts by the Left to restrict our fundamental right to self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide.  Failure to do so will result in our demotion from citizens to subjects.  Remember!  The British Olympic Pistol Team trains in Switzerland, because it would be illegal for them to practice on their native soil.

Def Mech

There is a rumor that city officials in at least one Colorado city have asked citizens about the number of guns that they own.  I have been unable to locate evidence that this has occurred.  If you or someone you know has been contacted by your city or county government regarding gun ownership, please let me know.

Thanks,

Def Mech

There was a bill in 2000 with the number of  S. 2099 that would have registered and taxed handguns.  The bill did not pass in 2000.  There is no bill so far this year with the number 2099 that deals with handgun registration.

I would not normally bother with this, but today at a gun show, I heard a firearms dealer adamately insist that S. 2099 is a current threat.  Urban legends on the Internet are often almost impossible to kill.  Here is my two cents worth.  Die, Monster!  Die!  

Snopes, the Urban Legends Section of About.com, and the NRA-ILA all confirm that a 2009 version of S. 2099 does not exist as of this date.

A 2009 bill, HR 45, would register owners of handguns and semi-autos with magazine wells and apparently would ban anyone under 18 from touching a firearm under all but life or death, self-defense circumstances.  (See my posts on HR 45 under the Category: “Registration.”)  HR 45 is very bad bill that bears watching, even though it is probably not going anywhere.  Keep an eye on it!

Trust, but verify!  We all make mistakes, but let’s correct the ones that we discover and try not to spread unfounded rumors.

Def Mech

In a decision that may set up another gun rights battle in the Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.  The case is NRA v. City of Chicago, which was decided this week.  One day after the ruling, the NRA filed an appeal.  And so it goes.

I’m not an attorney, but some people who are, take issue with the Seventh Circuit’s virtual dismissal of the “Due Process” Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.  Constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh offers his opinion here.

For me, personally, as a non-lawyer, there are several quotations that bear strongly on the argument.  The first is from William Rawle, who was appointed U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania by George Washington.  Rawle reportedly turned down Washington’s offer to name him Attorney General of the U.S.  In writing about the Second Amendment, Rawle asserted:

“The prohibition is general.  No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people.  Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature.  But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

In the Supreme Court Decision, Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S.253 (1886), the court cited U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542.  The Cruikshank opinion said that, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms ‘is not a right granted by the constitution.  Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.  The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress…”

Eugene Volokh points out in the above citation that 19^th Century cases do not cover arguments relating to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Due Process arguments are precisely those arguments that were later used to incorporate other amendments against the states, in many cases involving civil rights for Blacks.  Cruikshank also states that the right to keep and bear arms is independent of the Bill of Rights.  As such, in my opinion, it must be counted among the natural rights of free individuals.  The Seventh Circuit, in a truly amazing and terrifying hypothetical, postulates that even the right to self-defense could be “legally” criminalized.  See David Codrea’s post here.

Presser goes on to say: “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.”

It would appear from this long statement that the Supreme Court in Presser made the critical distinction between the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the power of the states to raise and regulate militias.  The much more recent Heller Decision should have driven a final stake through the heart of the “Collectivist Right” argument.

Since the “Commerce Clause” has been used by the Federal Government to impose so many restrictions on state sovereignty, it would be interesting to see if this so-called “Elastic Clause” could be used to impose Second Amendment guarantees of freedom upon recalcitrant state governments.  (Just a thought.)

We can expect opponents of the individual right to armed self-defense from crime, tyranny, and genocide to grasp at every legal straw in their efforts to disarm the American People.  The Collectivist Argument is hopefully dead forever.  Now we will continue to fight the battle for freedom at both the state and federal levels.

Colorado and a number of other states have in their own constitutions an articulation of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  This will help.  However, as I have said before, we can not rely upon the provisions of the law alone.  (See my Post, “S. 843-Gun registration bill threatens your rights,” April 27th, 2009, Category: “Registration.”)

We must make the political price of infringement of the Second Amendment so prohibitively high that, to paraphrase Patrick Henry, no one will dare approach the “jewel” of the public liberty with anything but reverence.  Eternal vigilance!

Def Mech

If you’ve spent much time talking to Liberals about gun control, you are probably tired of hearing about “sophisicated Europe,” the land of perfection.  Socialized medicine, draconian gun control, intrusive law and order, mandated social responsibility and all the other things that we uncouth, barbarian, rednecked, knuckle-dragging, gun-loving, God-clinging Americans “should” aspire to, but don’t, are thrown in your face by the gentle advocates of “Progressive” culture.

Here’s a newsflash!  An Associated Press story in the May 14th Denver Post on Page 2A carries the headline, “N. Europe still tops U.S. unwed births.”  Oh!  But unwed mothers are so cool.  You remember the old slogan, ”A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”  Fine!  What has happened in many cases in this country is that either the poor slob of a biological father ends up paying for about two decades of child support, or we the taxpayers foot the bill.  I wonder how it works in Europe?  Oh!  Right!  They just take your back teeth in taxes.

British and European Liberals’ desire for control seems to know no bounds.  In England, they are collecting kitchen knives.  (See my posts under the Category: “Foreign Gun Laws.”)  In Germany, following the most recent school shooting, the government wants to ban paintball games.  Sooner or later, everyone in Europe except government officials, rich people, and rock stars will be wearing handcuffs or those new shock bracelets that can incapacitate the wearer by remote command.  

The other problem with “sophisicated Europe” is that in about one or two generations Europe will be Eurostan, a Muslim suburb.  The sophisticated, native Europeans are not having enough babies to maintain their oh-so-cool population levels.  Muslim immigrants don’t seem to have that issue.  Read Mark Steyn here for a brief discussion of the European population problem.

By the way, during the last century, “sophisicated Europe” spawned two world wars and numerous genocides.  Europe seems to be going the way of the Passenger Pigeon.  (That’s extinction for recent graduates of public schools where self-esteem is the most important subject.)  If we continue to emulate the ways of Socialist Europe with regard to gun control, economics, education, immigration policy, health care, and religion or lack thereof, I am afraid we will follow them in their sad journey toward the death of Western Civilization.

Gun control is just part of a larger pattern, but it is a very important part.  What are Liberals planning that is so terrible that they fear armed resistance?  Once Liberals turn the West into a dying, Socialist  prison camp, who will guard the guards?

Def Mech

• Recent Posts

  • H.R. 675-A national police force?
  • Small Colorado prison study generally supports gun rights arguments
  • Contact Senators to oppose Koh nomination
  • Dog kills deer-Man shoots dog
  • Write Customs to stop proposed knife ruling