Today, my particular bone of contention with the Left-wing media involves Mother Goose and Grim, which I submit is wasting ink agonizing over the restoration of a Second Amendment right to American Citizens in some of our national parks. This historic event is to occur early next year, after Congress passed an amendment affirming a Bush Administration rule change making possible this restoration of a lost right to self-defense.

In the simple arithmetic of the cartoon strip and probably many Liberal minds, allowing concealed carry permit holders to protect themselves and others equals exposing the parks to a hail of gunfire from trigger happy rednecks bent on killing Bambi, Thumper and each other. Don’t even mention hundreds of innocent bystanders! (Bambi and Thumper are registered trademarks of the Disney Corporation.)

We heard this same doomsday rhetoric before the passage of every “shall-issue” concealed carry law in the country. “Blood in the Streets! Fender bender shootouts! The end of civilization as we know it!”

The “expected” slaughter hasn’t happened. CCW permit holders are extremely law-abiding. Law enforcement officials in state after state have admitted as much.

The following statements are from two Texas police officials quoted by H. Sterling Burnett in Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers: Law-abiding Public Benefactors, Brief Analysis No. 324 from the National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas, TX, June 2, 2,000, Page 2.

John B. Holmes, Harris Country District Attorney, said of his former opposition to concealed carry, “Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris Country, and indeed statewide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless.” Glenn White, President of the Dallas Police Association, stated in support of concealed carry, “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen… I’m a convert.”

If someone intends to commit crimes using a firearm, how likely is he or she to go to the trouble of getting a permit? As one young gang banger opined years ago on Denver talk radio, “If you’re going to smoke somebody, you don’t need no paperwork.” Criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. (Someone, somewhere, please engrave this phrase in stone over the door to a library or courthouse!)

BTW, concealed carry has nothing to do with hunting in national parks, contrary to the 09-02-09 Mother Goose… cartoon in The Denver Post. Concealed carry is primarily a defense against two-legged human predators. Open carry of defensive handguns might be a sensible option against bear or mountain lion attacks, but such a display of “evil” guns would no doubt shock many Liberal tourists out of their Ho Chi Minh sandals.

For what it’s worth, to ease the angst-ridden minds of Liberals anticipating the destruction of parks by gunfire and the catastrophic pollution of all nearby water by lead residue, there are still laws prohibiting the brandishing and discharge of these “oh-so-deadly” concealed weapons. In other words, if you are going to display or fire a gun in a national park, you would want to have a legally defensible reason.

If the laws against display and discharge don’t deter would-be evil doers, how exactly would a policy against government sanctioned concealed carry be any more efficient in preventing crime? The simple answer is, it wouldn’t! (See my posts under the Category, “Gun Law Failures.”)

Furthermore, concealed carry in national parks applies only to those states that allow concealed carry in state parks. In those jurisdictions that still restrict the Second Amendment rights of their citizens in state parks, those rights are also denied in national parks within the boundaries of the infringing state. (We’ll have to fix that problem later.)

The action of Congress and the signature of President Obama on the CCW amendment simply restored a portion of the rights previously lost by American Citizens to armed self-defense against, crime, tyranny, and genocide. The forest streams will not run red with the blood of innocents, if our national experience with concealed carry is any indication.

Take heart, Liberals! Hoplophobia can be treated. You don’t need to live in fear.

Def Mech

Mike Littwin’s piece, “Is strategy a concealed weapon?” appears on Page 2A of the 07-24-09 edition of The Denver Post.  The Post editorial entitled, “Senators misfire on gun measure” is on Page 10B of the same paper.

“Political cover” involves action taken by elected officials to inoculate themselves from criticism by a constituent group by casting votes favorable to that group, after first determining that the measure in question has no chance of passing, with or without the politicians’ support.  According to a Washington Post columnist cited in both Denver Post articles, Udall and Bennet consulted with virulent anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer, before casting their votes.  The Thune-Vitter measure failed, after gaining 58 of the 60 “supermajority” votes required to get a bill through the Senate.

In any case, Udall and Bennet will probably receive some credit for their votes from pro-gun rights organizations, such as the Firearms Coalition of Colorado, the NRA, GOA, The Citizens Committee…, and JPFO.  Organizations that do not support the right of American Citizens to armed self-defense from crime, tyranny, and genocide will be unhappy with the votes of the Colorado Senators.  Everybody who is politically sophisticated on both sides of the issue will understand the “inside baseball” aspect of this situation.

Udall and Bennet did vote for the amendment to a credit card bill that preserved the endangered “right” of citizens to concealed carry in national parks where state law permits carry in state parks.  That concealed carry amendment was a partial victory for supporters of individual liberty.  We’ll take incremental steps to restore the full Second Amendment rights of Americans where we can.  We will also remember the votes that support or retard the recovery of freedom.

Stay tuned for more drama from D.C.

Def Mech

The anti-gunners are up in arms, so to speak, over this.  We need a good turnout.

Def Mech

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

A quick wrap up of ongoing and recent events:

HR 45 is still a threat to gun owners’ rights.  This bill registers owners of handguns and semi-autos with magazine wells, registers all future sales, appears to ban all possession of any firearm by a person under 18 (no exceptions), and may allow BATFE personnel to come into your home to inspect your gun storage arrangements.  (See my posts under the Category: “Registration.”)

S. 843 is a new threat on an old theme.  This bill is designed to “close the gun show loophole,” which in my opinion doesn’t really exist.  In any case this bill could very well “regulate” gun shows out of existence.  I don’t see how a promoter could meet the requirements of this bill without registering every single person who enters the show.  (See my posts under the Category: “Registration.”)

The OAS CIFTA Treaty remains a threat to gun owners in conjuction with AG Holder’s misinformation regarding the number of U.S.-made guns going to Mexico and supposedly “fueling” the endemic violence in that country.  (See my post, “OAS Treaty threatens Second Amendment,” under the Category: Foreign Gun Laws.”)  (See also, “Left overstates US gun impact on Mexican Violence,” under the Category, “Media Bias.”)

Homeland Security Chief Napolitano’s report linking gun rights advocates and other “right wing extremists” to possible terrorism dovetails with HR 2159, which is a retread of a bill introduced last year that allows the Attorney General to designate you to be a terrorist on the basis of hearsay information.  Once you have been so designated you can not legally own a firearm or board an airplane.  You may not have the right to confront your accuser and getting off the list in the case of a mistake may be very difficult.   

Governor Bill Ritter vetoed HB 1180, a Colorado bill that would have allowed concealed carry permit holders to use their permits to buy a gun without going through an additional background check.  Montana, Wyoming, and Utah are using this system without having a flood of blood in the streets.  (See my posts on HB 1180 under the Category: “Colorado State Issues.”)

On the positive side, the U.S. House and Senate just passed an amendment to a credit card bill that will support the Bush Administration ruling allowing concealed carry permit holders to defend themselves and others in national parks in states that recognize their permits.  We’ll see how this shakes out in Colorado.  Left-wing, Mainstream Media bias shock jocks are working overtime on this one.  Even Fox News aired a misleading, simplified version of the legislation.

Don’t get complacent, because we won this battle.  The above listed bills. the Obama record on guns, and his anti-gun appointments to key positions portend a hard road ahead for the Second Amendment, once the Democrats finish socializing the rest of American Society.

Look for a high profile shooting spree in the near future to boost the Left’s argument for more gun control.  (See my posts under the Category: “Conspiracy Theories.”)

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, “  Thomas Jefferson.

“Nothing in politics happens by chance,” (paraphrase) FDR.

Def Mech

If you have not yet contacted your state senator and representative on this bill, please do so.  Montana, Wyoming, and Utah have similar systems.  The Anti-Individual Rights Lobby, of course, is shrieking that we will have blood in the streets, if we allow citizens to use a more extensive background check than the Colorado Bureau of Investigation instant check to purchase a firearm.  HB 09-1180 will simply save money and reduce the administrative burden on the CBI.

So far, we have been extremely lucky in Colorado.  We have had no anti-gun bills introduced at the state level.  I believe this can be attributed to active lobbying by pro-Second Amendment organizations, such as the NRA and the Firearms Coalition of Colorado.  Stay alert, some of the most devastating skulls are often ”dugged” during the last frenetic days of a legislative session.

Def Mech

Def Mech

On Page One, “Obama takes aim at flow of arms to Mexico,” the Post quoted Mexican President Calderon as saying that, “90% of the weapons seized in Mexico can be traced to the United States.”  You would think that somebody, the President of Mexico, someone on the Associated Press staff, or someone at The Denver Post would have watched the Fox News story that blew the “90%” canard out of the water.  (See my post: “Left overstates US gun impact on Mexican Violence,” tagged: “Mexican gun violence,” done on 04-07-09.)

In actuality, about 17% of the crime guns seized in Mexico came from the US market.  By allowing this “90%” misinformation to stand without comment, both the AP and the Post seemed to demonstrate either ignorance or bias.

On Page 12 B, The Denver Post printed an editorial from the anti-gun rights Washington Post.  In this piece, the writers opined that the Interior Department should reject the Bush Administration rule allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry in national parks in states that honor their permits.  The editorial mischaracterized the rule by saying that the regulation allows “visitors” to carry concealed, loaded guns.  In reality, all CCW permit holders in parks would be visitors, but not all park visitors would be CCW permit holders.

The uninformed reader would naturally believe from this piece that all visitors could legally carry concealed.  The writers go on to emote a “parade of horribles,” including increased poaching, accidental shootings of wildlife and park visitors, and apparently (Gasp!) lead pollution from the tons of bullets that would presumably be sprayed around the parks by red-necked, racist, sexist, one-toothed, beer-swilling, gun-toting barbarians.  (See my posts on the parks under the Category: “Concealed Carry.)

(According to a more recent post on the Volokh Conspiracy, the Washington Post got its wish.  The Obama Administration has apparently decided not to appeal the liberal judge’s injunction against the Bush rule.  The Department of the Interior will reportedly keep the matter under study, but I think that we can conclude that concealed carry in national parks is a dead issue, at least until after the next presidential election.)

The Washington Post editorial reflected its usual animus toward armed self-defense against crime.  The Denver Post, by publishing this piece without comment, either exposed its own indifference to the details of the situation or a tacit agreement with the misinformation contained in the editorial.

David Sirota, in his op-ed piece, “Columbine questions we didn’t ask,” blamed spree killings on our warlike, violent society, that, according to him, has a “winner take all economy,” and “The killing machine…” of our “defense and security” establishments.  Michael Moore said essentially the same thing in his distorted “mocumentary,” Bowling for Columbine. (See David Kopel’s excellent deconstruction of Bowling…here.)

Sirota wasn’t shy about his own bias.  ”…the assault weapons ban expiration is an abomination.”  Never mind the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and the National Academy of the Sciences could find no significant crime prevention benefit from the ban or other gun control laws. (See my posts under the Category: “Research.”)

At least, Sirota rejected the simplistic notion that guns cause crime, although he didn’t bother to explain his animus against semi-automatic firearms, which he misnames, “assault weapons.”  It would be interesting to see his rationale for this dislike of these common guns, which many liberals seem to view as a necessary article of their faith.

Sirota’s opinion that the American defense establishment, journalists who support the military, and “every other suit-and-tie clad industry,” (whoever they are) promote the idea that “…killing is a legitimate form of national ambition and self-expression,” seems to be a bit over the top for my taste.  (See my politically incorrect posts under the Category: “War on Terror.”)

In conclusion, Friday’s Denver post was rife with sentiment against guns and gun owners, without so much as a single, mewling letter to the editor expressing the other side of the argument.  It’s no wonder that people who only get their “news” and opinions from Mainstream Media outlets are misinformed about the costs and benefits of firearms to society.  (See my Category: “Benefits of Guns.”)

“Obviously a man’s judgement cannot be better than the information on which he has based it.  Give him the truth and he may still go wrong when he has the chance to be right, but give him no news or present him only with distorted and incomplete data, with ignorant, sloppy or biased reporting, with propaganda and deliberate falsehood, and you destroy his whole reasoning processes, and make him something less than a man.”  (Address to the New York State Publishers Association, August 30^th, 1948)Bartlett, John, Familiar Quotations, Fourteenth Edition, Brown, Little and Company, Boston and Toronto, 1968, Page 1020 a.)

I would argue that the same concept applies to women and students of all ages.  If more Americans do not get a balanced view of the world from the New Media, (Internet, Talk Radio, and Cable News) I believe that we are headed for a new Dark Age of ignorance and savagery.  The ancient Romans thought that they had grown beyond the reach of history and that their republic would last forever.  (Remember!  Rome is the “Eternal City.”)  Many Americans believe that we have grown beyond the reach of history…

Def Mech

The bill will now go to the House.  If the House does not concur with the Senate version, which it probably won’t, the bill will go to a conference committee to try to work out the differences.  This could be a dangerous situation, since the committee may try to go beyond the scope of the original bill and add dangerous amendments. 

There is an RK gun show at the Crown Plaza Hotel at 1-70 and Chambers just north of Denver on April 18th and 19th.  (This is the old Crossroads Show.)