This equivocation by Judge Sotomayor is not surprising, given that she was nominated to the Supreme Court by Barack Obama, who has made numerous appointments of persons hostile to the Second Amendment, e.g., Biden, Emmanuel, Clinton, Sebilius, and Napolitano, to name a few.  (If you are a gun owner who voted for Obama, curse yourself and send a large contribution to a pro-gun organization.  Think of your donation as compensatory damages for a really dumb vote.)

If you have not already done so, please call your US Senators and ask them to oppose Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the highest court in the land.  She will almost undoubtedly be confirmed over our objections, but we can at least let the Senate know that Americans are watching their actions and will hold them accountable during the next election and beyond.  (See my post, “Obama picks anti-gun Supreme Court nominee,” 05-28-09, tagged, “Sotomayor.”) 

Def Mech

They are basing their recommendations on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which has been used to extend civil rights protections to minorities.  A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this year that the Second Amendment does not apply to state or local governments.  (See my post, “7th Circuit contradicts Nordyke, rules that 2nd Amendment doesn’t bind states,” 06-05-09, tagged NRA v. City of Chicago.)  (See also “Ninth Circuit ruled on Nordyke-Mainstream Media AWOL,” 04-25-09, tagged Nordyke V. King.)

Thanks to Colorado State Attorney General John Southers for joining the amicus brief signed by thirty-two other attorneys general.  This show of support by a clear majority of the top state-level legal authorities in America is a welcome boost for our fundamental individual rights to self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide.  You can thank Attorney General Suthers at 303-866-4500 or E-mail him at attorney.general@state.co.us

In the same way that it took time for civil rights legislation to come to bear against state and local discrimination against minorities, the battle to secure the rights of gun owners will not be won overnight.  But, as the folks on the other side of the debate are fond of saying, “This is a good step in the right direction.”

Def Mech

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

I recommend that you contact your U.S. Senators and ask them to vote against confirmation of Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice.  It is unlikely that any Obama appointee will have a pro-Second Amendment record, but we need to do everything politically possible to keep him from stacking the courts with anti-gun zealots.

Def Mech

An Internet search of ”Ninth Circuit Court,”" Nordyke,” and “ Second Amendment,” will give you a great sample of blogs and organizational websites concerned with the debate over the fundamental right of American Citizens to armed self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide.  What is missing from this picture?

Out of thirty pages of Internet search results, I could find one mention of the decision by a newspaper or TV source.  The Seattle Post Intelligencer ran the Second Amendment Foundation’s press release.  Where in the name of cowardly chicken feathers were the rest of the Mainstream Media on this story?

There was actually something here that they would have liked to report: the court ruled in favor of Alameda County, California,  in banning gun shows on county property.  This decision is in keeping with some legal scholars’ opinions that Heller will not be enough to prevent massive government infringement of the rights recognized by the Second Amendment.  (More on this issue later.)

My immediate concern is the deafening silence of the national print and electronic media that are supposed to be the bulwarks of our informed discussion on critical issues.  It has become blatantly obvious to anyone who observed the lack of reporting or biased reporting of the “Tea Party” demonstrations that the Mainstream Media is more than ever determined to ignore or marginalize any occurrence that does not further the Socialist Agenda of the hard left radicals who have taken over the Universities, the “Old Media,” and the Democrat Party.

There has been a well-known, long-term Liberal bias in newspapers, television and magazine reporting.  (See my posts under the Category: “Media Bias.”)  The extent to which the Old Media now grovel at the feet of “The Chosen One” in the White House is truly beyond belief.

In any discussion with people who get their news from most newspapers, magazines, or TV outlets, the first painful thing you might want to tell them is, “You have been stonewalled and deceived.”  This is a hard position to come from, because it runs into “cognitive dissonance” issues.  People don’t want to believe that they have been deceived by their trusted sources of information, because this calls into question their personal intelligence and judgement. 

Not only do they not want to admit to past mistakes, an admission of questionable judgement means that they will be afraid to rely on their own cognitive abilities in the future.  A scary prospect, indeed!  Most people won’t make the jump, but will seek refuge in defense mechanisms, such as denial, displacement, projection, reaction formation, etc.  (See my post entitled, “Displacement as a defense mechanism in the irrational fear of guns,” 08-17-08, under the Category: “psychology.”)

Numerous sources have documented that some ordinary German Citizens stated after the war that Adolf Hitler received “bad advice” or was “misunderstood.”  This, after the bloody socialist dictator had engineered the destruction of his country and perpetrated the Holocaust.  Read Mayer’s They Thought They Were Free, excerpt here,  to get a better understanding of how honest people became involved in socialist discrimination and genocide in Nazi Germany.

It is much harder, but probably a better tactic to ask liberals questions about their beliefs and try to identify areas that they are less sure about in their own minds.  Be patient.  It is highly unlikely that you will “convert” someone during a single discussion.  Remember that they have a lifetime of conditioning and what I believe to be misinformation behind their belief systems.  When you directly attack their belief systems, you are attacking them.

You might try the following exercise with a liberal who will actually talk to you, instead of  screaming ”bigot” or ”gun nut.”  Ask them to think about the right-wing politician that they hate the most.  Give them a minute to really feel their self-righteous anger.  Ask them to imagine the object of their animus as President of the US.  Then ask them the question, “Do you really want to ban guns in civilian hands and give that person a total monopoly on the use of armed force in our country?” 

You may then be able to talk about the dangers inherent in gun registration and how the Nazis used lists of previously registered firearms to disarm their political enemies, before exterminating them.  You might be able to plant a seed of doubt that could grow into a political awakening 

Read the book by Horowitz and Poe, The Shadow Party, (here and here) to find out how left-wing moneyed interests set up an interlocking network of non-profits and foundations to elect Hillary Clinton to the Presidency.  Enter Obama.  Hillary out.  Obama in.  Find out how he inherited a “turn-key” political operation that propelled him from obscurity to the White House.

What do we do?  How do we keep from becoming the “little men” described by Mayer, who were swept along in a destructive national socialist movement?  Do just one thing a day to promote freedom!

Promote the “New Media” to your friends and neighbors.  Fight the “Fairness Doctrine” and other Liberal schemes to limit free speech, such as the “Card Check” scam to end secret ballots in union elections.  Join pro-Second Amendment organizations.  Check New Media sources on a daily basis.  (You don’t have to worry about not getting the left-wing side of the news.  It’s almost impossible to escape it.)  Get politically active.  Join a major party.  Become a block worker or precinct leader.  Contact your state and federal elected representatives on issues related to freedom.  Write letters to editors.  Donate, campaign, and stay involved.  Support electable candidates.  Support the Second Amendment as though your life depended on it.  You know, it very well might.

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

Opponents were apparently concerned about the environmental impact of lead that would “undoubtedly” be sprayed around the parks by “kill-crazed” permit holders, as well as the “danger” to visitors, and the “danger” of “opportunistic poaching.”  The rationales would be the stuff of  Marx Brothers’ comedy, in my opinion, if they weren’t put forth as reasoned arguments by supposedly competent people.

Perhaps the most specious argument against concealed carry in the parks, is that the presence of guns would discourage park visitors and potential volunteers by making them feel “unsafe.”  Hoplophobia (fear of weapons) is probably a curable mental issue, but sometimes, I wonder.  (See my post, “Displacement as a defense mechanism in the irrational fear of guns,” 08-17-08, under the Category: “Psychology.”) 

The next time that a female hiker is raped and murdered in a national park, or a hiker gets mauled by a bear or mountain lion, let’s think back on this decision and ponder deeply about what these apparent opponents of common sense could have been thinking.  (These are the people that “don’t want to take your gun,” but who support gun bans, gun registration, ammunition restrictions, ammunition bans, closing down rifle ranges, and hate the whole idea of concealed carry.) 

Let’s then get behind the Mainstream Media blitz to return concealed carry to national parks.  Oh!  Wait!  There won’t be a media blitz.  The Mainstream Media doesn’t like ideas that don’t coincide with the party line. 

I guess the best that we can hope for is that the victims of human and animal predation in national parks will be hoplophobes, and not people who would have defended themselves, if they had been given a chance.  This seems cruel, but unarmed victims are not that high on the food chain.  

Def Mech

First of all, an “Assault Weapon” is a select-fire military gun that can fire more than one bullet with one pull of the trigger.  The guns that Clinton “banned” and Obama wants to ban are not “Assault Weapons,” they are semi-automatic or self-loading firearms that fire one round with one pull of the trigger.

To get some idea of what Obama’s ban might look like, we can review a summary of  Democrat Representative McCarthy’s bill of last year, HR 1022.  Her bill contained the following anti-individual rights provisions.  (This list is not inclusive.)

2008 Semi-auto Ban Bill HR 1022                

• Bill is not clearly written
• Allows Attorney General to ban any semiauto ever used by police or military
• Presumes that gun used by military or police is not suitable for civilian “sporting purpose,” even if gun is used in sporting event-Orwellian language-really scary!
• Bans any semi-auto with a magazine well
• Bans by name: AR-15, Mini 14, Uzi, M-1 Carbine, Galil, Mac 10, AK, SKS, AR-10 and others
• Bans transfers by persons of magazines of over ten rounds with semi-automatic firearms (Bans magazine transfers?)
• Grandfathers guns currently owned, but registers all future transfers of semi-autos (Sets up confiscation)
• Bans importation of magazines of over ten rounds
• Bans semi-autos with pistol grips, threaded barrels, folding stocks, bayonet lugs, and barrel shrouds
• Definition of “grip” may be used to include any semi-auto firearm in the ban
• Ban includes semi-auto shotguns with magazine wells and “Street Sweepers”
• Bans semi-auto .22s with magazine wells
• Exempts .22s with tubular magazines of over ten rounds
• Annual report by Attorney General to Congress on use of semi-autos in crime (Sets stage for further restriction)
• Dealer or manufacturer must certify to Attorney General within 60 days that any high capacity magazine sold was made before the date of the ban

Remember that registration is a necessary precursor to confiscation.  Semi-automatic firearms were confiscated in New York  after the owners were “promised” that the registration lists would never be used to take away their guns.

“Conservative” pundit Charles Krauthammer said of the Clinton semi-auto ban, “The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of ‘assault weapons’ will reduce the crime rate is laughable…  Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic…move…  Its only real justification is not crime, but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.  De-escalation begins with a change in mentality.  And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons.”  (Charles Krauthammer, syndicated Columnist, The Washington Post, 1996.)

Please contact your gun owning friends and neighbors and anyone you know that loves freedom.  Ask them to call, E-mail and write their elected federal representatives and senators in opposition to this deceptive scheme.

If you are a hunter, shotgunner, small bore target shooter,  or a collector of antique firearms, don’t think that you are immune from the gun-grabbing tendencies of this administration.  The Socialists pushing this dangerous agenda are using England as a model.  (See my posts on England under the Category: “Foreign Gun Laws,” on this site.)

If you have visited this blog in the past you already know that the British Olympic Pistol Team is forced to train in Switzerland, because their guns are banned in their home country.  That is the end game envisioned by the enemies of our individual right to armed self-defense against crime, tyranny, and genocide.

“Ask not for whom the bell tolls…”  Get politically active or lose your birthright of freedom forever.

Def Mech

This month, I had two experiences not uncommon for citizens of the United States, but rare in the rest of the world.  I answered a summons for jury duty and attended a hearing at the state legislature.

In the course of my experience with the jury, I sat through the voir dire process.  The judge and the attorneys in the case asked questions of potential jurors to determine our prejudices and our ability to render a “fair” decision.  The attorneys then used peremptory challenges to reduce the jury pool.  Each attorney could eliminate five jurors with no questions asked.  The lawyers also could have challenged for cause, if they felt that someone would be hostile or unfair to their side of the argument.  I’m sure they used their peremptory challenges to eliminate ”problem” jurors, although the judge denied that those challenges were used for that purpose.  (Voir dire means, “to see to say,” in French.  During the process, the attorneys and the judge get to see what you will say.)

(Notice that I’m not making my usual snarky comments about President Obama’s patronizing, patrician desire that all American Citizens speak another language.  Well, OK.  You caught me.)

As I understand it, the jury system came to us from English law.  The first juries were composed of prominent subjects who knew about a case.  This created problems, because the people who knew the most about the case probably had a vested interest in the outcome.  The system evolved to select people who “know nothing” about a case, so they can make a decision based on the evidence presented to them.  The judge rules on what evidence may be presented to the jury.  (Read further down the article for thoughts on “Jury Nulification” in English law.)

In the hearing at the state legislature, I was struck by the lack of a voir dire process for the legislators sitting in judgement of a bill that would benefit gun owners.  You could tell by the body language of the legislators which way they would vote, as they listened to citizens testifying before them.  You could have checked party affiliation in a legislative directory and come up with almost the same result.  Most Democrats were going to vote to kill or gut the bill.  Most Republicans were going to vote to move the bill out of committee with a favorable recommendation.  The testimony seemed largely irrelevant to the outcome.  In the Colorado Legislature, the Democrats have a majority.  Pro-individual rights bills typically die.

HB 09-1180 would have allowed concealed carry permit holders to use their permits and another valid picture ID to purchase firearms from licensed dealers and at gun shows in Colorado without going through an often time-consuming background check.  Hostile testimony revolved around the possibility of fraudulent documentation and the “need” to make sure that permit holders are currently “worthy” to own a gun, even though their permits are subject to immediate revocation if they commit a crime or become the subject of a restraining order.

A subtext of the hostile testimony and the questioning by Democrat committee members was the idea that they want to make it as hard as possible for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms.  Testimony from a domestic violence prevention group seemed especially confused.  About half of the gun attacks against victims of domestic violence are perpetrated by persons who are already prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, according to the group’s own statistics.

In the event, the bill did pass out of committee, stripped of its essential benefit to gun owners.  We may have gotten some groundwork laid for future beneficial legislation. 

The point of the above information is that our decisions are influenced by our worldview and the perceptions that we bring to a decision making process.  Most of the Democrats believed that guns are inherently bad in civilian hands.  Most of the Republicans believed that civilian ownership of firearms is helpful in a free society.

Any testimony that challenged preconceptions ran into what psychologists call cognitive consonance and cognitive dissonance.  This simply means that persons are likely to accept ideas that conform to their worldview and likely to reject, or at least question information that contradicts their preconceptions.  We all do it. In moderation, it is not a bad thing.

In the political process, it means that who you elect is related to the kind of laws that you will get.  The merits of an individual bill will probably not be debated or decided upon outside the preconceived perceptions of the legislators.  On a rare occasion, a legislator may be swayed by a persuasive logical or emotional argument.

The Left/Liberal/Progressive Side in the gun debate is long on emotion and short on science, in my opinion.  (See my posts under the Category: “Research.”)  Keep in mind that I’m subject to all the psychological processes mentioned above.  I bring my own preconceptions to the debate.  The difference, I believe, is that I am aware of the possibility of my own fallibility.  I know that I could be wrong.  Most of the people on the other side do not seem to realize that they could be mistaken.

One thing that I wish I had pointed out in the hearing was the presence of guns in the hearing room.  Four county sheriffs testified on an earlier bill.  Three of them were uniformed and carrying semi-automatic handguns, “assault weapons,” with high capacity magazines on their belts.  They were likely carrying backup guns in concealed holsters, to protect themselves in the event of a malfunction of their government-issued firearms.  The fourth sheriff wore a suit, but I would bet money that he was armed.  The “ordinary, common citizens” in the hearing were prohibited by law from being armed on the property of the State Legislature.  I wish I had asked the legislators if they felt safer or more threatened in the presence of those firearms.

You might say, “Oh the Sheriffs had a reason to be armed.”  Indeed! But when those sheriffs go home, they will still be armed.  The sheriffs and their families will have the benefit of that protection.  (Colorado Law Enforcement Officers are on duty 24 hours a day and have responsibilities in or out of uniform.)  When the Sheriffs retire they will have no problem keeping their privilege of self-defense.  No gun control scheme that I could imagine would deny them and their families protection.

For the Liberal legislators, England and Japan are ideal societies.  The British Olympic Pistol Team practices in Switzerland, because their guns are illegal on their native soil.  In Japan, guns are banned and the police drop in at your home a few times a year to be sure that you are OK and not breaking any laws.  (See my posts under the Category: “Foreign Gun Laws.”) (Read The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy, by David Kopel for a detailed description of how other countries deal with guns and crime.)

Be careful who you vote for and question your assumptions.  As Oliver Cromwell famously said, “I beseech you, …, think it possible you may be mistaken.”  I may be wrong, but I don’t think so.  I believe the other side is mistaken.  I don’t believe they ever entertain the possibility that they could be in error.

Def Mech

According to the Brady Campaign, the new regulation was to go into effect on January 9th, allowing almost two weeks of unbridled carnage in the national parks, before the incoming administration kills the rule change forever.  My previous post on the subject was apparently incorrect in that the new regulations have not yet, and probably will never take effect.  (See the post, “Look for five weeks of legal concealed carry in national parks,” under the Category “Concealed Carry.”)

I had previously predicted that there would be five weeks of concealed carry before “The Chosen One” and his minions again infringed on the natural, fundamental rights of American Citizens to armed self-defense against crime and tyranny.

According to the Brady press release referenced above, concerned school teachers were “canceling or curtailing school trips,” to national parks, because of rampant hoplophobia, i.e. the fear of legally armed citizens in those areas.  If the Brady Campaign and its supporters were not incredibly well-funded and as serious as a heart attack about disarming American Citizens, their actions would be simply unbelievable to the point of absurdity, in my humble opinion.

Please see my posts under the Category “Psychology” to gain additional information about how seemingly rational people can come to believe that disarming honest citizens reduces crime.  The Brady press release refers to “numerous studies” that purport to show that concealed carry increases crime. Naturally, they fail to cite any such “studies.”

“The Chosen One” has promised everything to everybody.  I think some people are going to be disappointed.  Hopefully the Brady Campaign and its supporters will be among the crestfallen.

Def Mech