“Mistakes were made,” as the North Vietnamese general said after the war, when referring to the communist massacre of almost 3,000 civilians in Hue, South Vietnam during the 1968 Tet Offensive.  The Republicans in the 23^rd District nominated a RINO who was, of all things, in favor of the card check option that would kill the secret ballot in company elections on unionization.  The GOP candidate in question had other left-wing positions that rankled many conservatives.

That said, the split in the Republican vote between the Conservative Party candidate and the turncoat RINO, who dropped out of the race and threw her support behind the Democrat, gave the left-wing party of big government and restricted individual freedom the win in the congressional election.  The lesson could not be clearer. If you want the party that you oppose to gain election victories, you vote for a third party candidate.  It happened with Ross Perot.  Clinton won.  It happened with Ralph Nadar. Bush won.  It happened with Ron Paul.  Obama won.

Vote for ELECTABLE pro-Second Amendment candidates from major parties that most closely adhere to your views.  If possible, vote GOP.  The party in power controls the political process.  Voting third party throws your vote away.  As if we needed another reminder!

Def Mech

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

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

(No credible causal relationship between gun ownership and violence)

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was created by Abraham Lincoln to “examine, experiment, and report” on “science and art” when asked to do so by any government department. A panel of NAS scientists began formal hearings on “Improving Research Information and Data on Firearms” during the summer of 2001. The study was funded in part by the virulently anti-gun Joyce Foundation and the anti-gun David and Lucille Packard Foundation.  (President Obama served on the board of the Joyce Foundation.)

David Kopel, Colorado author and expert on Second Amendment issues, and co-author Glenn Reynolds criticized the study at its inception for the anti-gun bias of most of its members and the bias of its funding sources. Surprisingly, given the prejudiced atmosphere of the NAS study, the results, like those of the CDC Study, do not support the premise that gun ownership promotes crime or increases the overall risk of suicide.

The panel reviewed 253 scientific journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some of its own research. The committee found that they could not determine if there was a cause and effect relationship between guns and violence. The below quotation comes from the panel’s Executive Summary, which was published in 2004.

“In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.”

The NAS panel predictably recommended more research. The committee also concluded that there is no definitive information regarding defensive uses of firearms or the positive or negative effects on crime of concealed carry laws. James Q. Wilson, the only relatively neutral member of the panel, according to Kopel and Reynolds, issued a minority report in which he argued that John R. Lott’s extensive research does establish that “shall issue” concealed carry laws reduce homicide rates.

Like the CDC Study, the Swiss-based Small Arms Survey, and the Kates and Mauser Study of international gun ownership and crime, the NAS exhaustive review of the literature in the gun control field does not find a credible cause and effect relationship between honest gun owners and violence. You would think that if there were causation, nearly 400 scientific studies, books, and government reports would have found one example.

The committee also looked at possible methods of government intervention into the “problem” of guns, crime, and suicide. Restricting access to guns? Needs more research. (Keep in mind that Prohibition didn’t work. It fostered the rise of criminal gangs, corrupted police, and promoted general lawlessness.) Prevention programs? Don’t seem to work and seem to increase children’s interest in guns. (What does this say about sexual education programs?) Criminal justice system solutions, such as policing, sentencing, and Project Exile? Need more research. Keep in mind that murders occur in prison.

If restricting access to firearms has had an effect on U.S. gun crime, the anti-gun NAS panel was apparently not able to find it in almost 400 sources. If firearms cause crime, or if gun control laws work, why did this massive review of research fail to find credible evidence? The variables are complex, but if the proof were there, would not one study out of almost 400 have discovered it? Will the NAS continue to review literature in the gun control field until they find even a single study that gives them the results they seek?

Def Mech

Def Mech

Steve Schreiner is the President of the Firearms Coalition of Colorado and is the only full-time lobbyist at the state capitol on gun-rights issues.  Steve played a huge role in blocking many anti-gun bills in the legislature.  He was a key player in Colorado’s CCW Law and in Statewide preemption of strict local gun ordinances.  Under Steve’s leadership, the Firearms Coalition of Colorado received the NRA Grassroots Organization of the Year Award.  Steve attends every major gun show in Colorado and supervises the distribution of pro-gun rights literature.

He is not afraid to get his hands dirty in defense of your Second Amendment rights.  He develops pro-gun handouts on both state and federal issues and passes them out, himself, at gun shows and other venues, when other volunteers are not available.

Steve has been endorsed by the 800-member Golden Gun Club and Robert K. Brown, Editor of Soldier of Fortune Magazine.  Steve is a tireless campaigner for gun rights and has been a strong addition to the NRA Board during his short tenure.

Steve is a current member by appointment to the NRA Board.  He needs your vote to win a regular seat.  It is well worth your time and expense to support Steve Schreiner for the board.  Remember!  Fed Ex is the only way to insure that the ballot reaches the NRA by the April 26th deadline.  Do it now!

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.) 

There is a slight chance that gun show checks on private sales could be ended.  Please contact members of the Joint Budget Committee to voice polite support for ending checks or shifting them to the NICS.

The elaborate metal detector security system at the State Capitol is also possibly on the chopping block.  NRA information indicates that Colorado is virtually the only state with such elaborate protection for “The People’s House.”  Please ask Committee Members to “take down this wall” between the public and the state leadership.

A unanimous vote would be required for any action on the above issues.  The committee members and their numbers are:

Senator Keller: 303-866-2585

Senator Tapia: 303-866-2581

Senator White: 303-866-2586

Representative Pommer: 303-866-2780

Representative Ferrandino: 303-866-2911

Representative Marostica: 303-866-2947

You can E-mail the legislators and find their mailing addresses by going to the state legislature’s web site here.  Please also contact your state senator and representative to urge them to support the above cost cutting proposals.

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