“I Got Shot In The Buttock”

This is what Lakita Owens must be telling her friends now. That is because this is exactly where Mrs. Owens was shot when her husband, Harrisburg (PA) Bureau of Police Officer William Owens, “was showing his gun to family and friends during a get-together at his Harrisburg home…when his city-issued firearm discharged multiple times.”

>(Dauphin County District Attorney Edward) Marsico said investigators do not believe the shooting was intentional, but charges could be brought if they determine the act was reckless. He couldn’t say how many shots were fired, just that there were more than one.

Investigators are also looking into what role, if any, alcohol played in the incident, Marsico said.

William Owens’ family and friends were socializing when they began discussing firearms, Marsico said. That’s when William Owens’ brought out his gun to show the group, Marsico said.

William Owens, who is suspended without pay, declined comment on the incident, citing the ongoing investigation.

Fortunately, Mrs. Owens is recovering and in good condition. I’m not so sure about Officer Owens’ career in law enforcement.

This is not an accidental discharge; it is a negligent discharge. I don’t know the department issue firearm for Harrisburg but pistols don’t fire without a finger on the trigger. Officer Owens violated, at the very least, Rules 2 and 3. The reports do not indicate whether Officer Owens was actually carrying the pistol or not when he brought out his gun. They do say he had been out for the last 18 months on disability.

One of the great fallacies is the “Only Ones” are gun experts. While this may be the case with trainers such as Dave Spaulding, Massad Ayoob, or the late Jim Cirillo, the average cop shoots only enough to qualify. Moreover, given budget cutbacks, this is getting even worse unless the cop buys his own ammo with which to practice.

I’m not here to bash cops but being responsible is being responsible. You and I are held to that standard and so should police officers.

A Mid-Week Tab Clearing

I have been too busy this week to be able to post on some of the stories I’ve been following. Three day weekends are great until you realize you have to cram five days of work into four days.

On the Project Gunwalker front, Mike Vanderboegh reports in a pair of posts that Speaker John Boehner is being lobbied by Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights & The Leadership Conference Education Fund to back off on a contempt citation for Attorney General Eric Holder. He has their letter here. You do have to wonder why a group like the National Association of Social Workers National Center for Transgender Equality is involved in this when their focus should be LGBT issues.

And speaking of “human rights”, the United States was criticized by the People’s Republic of China aka Red China over gun ownership which the ChiComms consider a human rights violation. Other than being worried about armed resistance if they ever tried a Red Dawn II on the US, what business is it of theirs? As Tam says, you’ve got to be kidding me. David Codrea has more on it here.

Over at God, Gals, Guns, Grub, there is a feature on the Ruger SR9 and SR9c. His family standardized on it a while back and he discusses why. I have both the SR9 and SR9c and like them both. I shot both training classes I’ve taken with the SR9 and had nary a misfire. I might mention that if you want some precision parts for your SR9 or SR9c, check out Galloway Precision. They are a local company which makes a number of improvements for the SR9 similar to what Apex Tactical does for the M&P.

Finally, Paul Valone, the Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner and President of GRNC, has a post on the involvement of a Bloomberg supported group in an effort to overturn North Carolina’s Stand Your Ground/Castle Doctrine laws. I outlined the new bill introduced into the NC General Assembly that is intended to do that earlier this week.

HR 5846 – The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act (Updated)

Representatives Ben Quayle (R-AZ) and Denny Rehberg (R-MT) have introduced HR 5846 – the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act – which is intended to counter the UN’s proposed Arms Trade Treaty. During the Bush Administration, the US actively worked against this treaty as they felt it violated the Second Amendment rights of its citizens. The Obama Administration, by contrast, is a willing participant in this effort.

While the text of HR 5846 has not been released yet, Rep. Quayle did have this to say:

WASHINGTON (DC) – Congressman Ben Quayle today proposed the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act of 2012 in order to protect American gun owners from potential regulation from the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The Arms Trade Treaty is to be finalized by the UN this year, and could potentially contain a number of provisions which directly conflict with the constitutional rights of American citizens. This bill blocks funding to negotiate, or implement this treaty.

“The second amendment is an individual constitutional right and we must never allow that right to be trampled on by an international treaty” Quayle said. “This UN treaty is a direct threat to American sovereignty and the constitutional rights of all Americans.

Among other faulty provisions, the Arms Trade Treaty might require participating nations to establish national gun registries to ensure that domestically produced weapons aren’t exported. The treaty also requires that nations that allow the production of firearms within their borders set up a compensation fund to pay for violence that occurs in other nations.

Quayle continued, “law abiding American gun owners should never have to pay compensation or damages for violence in foreign countries that they had absolutely nothing to do with. This is typical United Nations overreach, and the United States should not allow it under any circumstances.”

Congressman Quayle has been an ardent proponent of the right of Americans to bear arms. “Congress needs to put its foot down, and make clear that it, not the United Nations, is the only body with the constitutional right to impose laws in the United States” Quayle concluded.

In addition, Rep. Rehberg successfully proposed an amendment last week to the FY2013 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that would cut off funding for any effort to advocate or agree to any of the provisions of the Arms Trade Treaty. His amendment passed on a 30-20 vote in committee.

From Rehberg’s release:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, today successfully added an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2013 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill to block funding to advocate for or agree to any provision of a United Nations (UN) small arms treaty that would restrict the Second Amendment rights of American citizens or further regulate U.S. firearms users or manufacturers. The amendment was adopted in committee by a vote of 30-20.

“The Bill of Rights are simply not subject to the authority of the United Nations or any other international body,” said Rehberg, a member of the Second Amendment Task Force with an A+ Rating from the National Rifle Association. “President Obama and his Senate allies have waged a proxy war on gun rights, appointing anti-gun Supreme Court justices and deferring to international laws. But the Second Amendment is crystal clear, and I’m going to do everything I can to protect law abiding gun owners from President Obama’s dangerous agenda.”

The UN is currently planning on entering into negotiations over an international Arms Trade Treaty that would provide a standard for regulating arms sales internationally. For advocates of the Second Amendment, this poses a number of problems from actual gun rights to a question of sovereignty.

While the previous administration was reliably opposed to entering into talks on a UN Arms Trade Treaty, the anti-gun Obama Administration reversed that position and on October 30, 2009, the US voted in the General Assembly to support UN-sponsored talks on a treaty to regulate the $55 billion-a-year trade in conventional weapons.

While a treaty would require Senate ratification, the Senate has lately been eager to rubber stamp President Obama’s treaty agenda, including most notably, New START which requires unilateral US nuclear disarmament.

“Taxpayer funds should not be used to lobby against our constitutional rights. Law-abiding Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. The scope of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty could drastically undermine this constitutional right. The NRA firmly believes that the U.N. should never be allowed to be the arbiter of American freedom,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director for NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The NRA would like to thank Congressman Rehberg for his leadership and for offering this vital amendment in support of the Second Amendment.”

Of course, we are portrayed as being part of the Tin-Foil Hat Brigade by Think Progress which holds that there is no treaty and even if there were one, it wouldn’t impinge upon our Second Amendment rights.

I hate to tell the journalists at Think Progress but reliance upon Snopes is not the be-all and end-all that they portray it to be. There is an Arms Trade Treaty being drafted at the United Nations, the Obama Administration has been a willing participant, and groups such as SAF and the NRA have sent NGO representatives to these meetings.

UPDATE: The text of HR 5846 has been released.


To prohibit funding to negotiate a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that restricts the Second Amendment rights of United States citizens.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the `Second Amendment Sovereignty Act of 2012′.


(a) Findings- Congress makes the following findings:

(1) In October 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced the United States support and participation in negotiating the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, to be finalized in 2012, signaling a shift in United States policy.

(2) An Arms Trade Treaty that regulates the domestic manufacturer, possession, or purchase of civilian firearms and ammunition would infringe on the rights of United States citizens protected under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that the sovereignty of the United States and the constitutionally protected freedoms of American gun owners must be upheld and not be undermined by the Arms Trade Treaty.


No funds may be obligated or expended to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States, in connection with negotiations for a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, to restrict in any way the rights of United States citizens under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or to otherwise regulate domestic manufacture, assembly, possession, use, transfer, or purchase of firearms, ammunition, or related items, including small arms, light weapons, or related materials.

Counter-Attack On NC’s Castle Doctrine Law

The attack on North Carolina’s Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground law has begun. Today, a group of Democratic legislators introduced HB 1192 – Amend Castle Doctrine/Repeal Stand Ground. This bill would remove many of the hard-won protections that finally passed in 2011 (SL2011-268) especially those related to the workplace and in motor vehicles.

The text of the bill is below:


The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. G.S. 14-51.2 is repealed.
SECTION 2. G.S. 14-51.3 is repealed.
SECTION 3. G.S. 14-51.4 is repealed.
SECTION 4. Article 14 of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:
Ҥ 14-51.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder’s unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
(c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law.”
SECTION 5. This act becomes effective December 1, 2012, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.

The primary sponsors of this bill are Rep. Alma Adams (D-Guilford), Rep. William Wainwright (D-Craven), Rep. Mickey Michaux (D-Durham), and Rep. Rodney Moore (D-Mecklenburg). Rep. Rosa Gill (D-Wake), and Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford) are co-sponsors of the bill. All of the legislators with the exception of Pricey Harrison are African-American. Harrison, an heir to the Jefferson Standard Insurance fortune, has sponsored gun control bills in the past including a proposal to create a centralized database of those denied pistol permits in North Carolina. Pistol purchase permits it should be remembered are a remnant of the Jim Crow era and was a way to deny blacks their Second Amendment rights.

The first section removed established the presumption of a reasonable fear of death or severe bodily harm for which deadly force could be used in the home, workplace, or motor vehicle if a person had unlawfully and forcibly entered (or was in the process of doing it) the home, car, or workplace. It also protected the lawful use of defensive force from civil liability.

The second section being removed deals with the defense of person and the use of force to protect oneself if you believe you are in danger of death or severe bodily injury. The current law also removed the duty to retreat as well a protected someone defending him or herself in accordance with the law from civil liability.

Finally, the third part of the Castle Doctrine removed, GS 14-51.4, states that the justification for use of defensive force is not available to anyone in the commission of a felony as well as to anyone who provoked an encounter. However, the person provoking the encounter can regain justification for the use of defensive force if they have explicitly backed off or if they have no possible way to retreat and the provoked person is about to kill them.

Frankly, HB 1192 is about making a political statement and not about changing the existing Castle Doctrine and Duty to Retreat. It has no chance of passing in this General Assembly and the sponsors know it. I’m just surprised that they haven’t named it the “Trayvon(TM) Martin Memorial Act”. I guess that would be even a bit much for this group of legislators.

Military Bureaucracy

With Memorial Day still fresh in our memories, I thought it a good time to discuss a couple of stories concerning the military that I read recently.

The first deals with an order sent out by TACOM Life Cycle Management Command. TACOM stands for Tanks-automotive and Armaments Command. They are responsible for a lot of the military’s weapons system research and development as well as managing the existing inventory.

In mid-April they sent out a directive concerning magazines for the M4 and M16. The directive stated that only the military issue aluminum magazines were authorized for use and that commercial polymer magazines such as the Magpul PMAGs were not authorized.

2. Issue: TACOM has become aware of units ordering 30 rd. commercial (i.e. polymer, etc.) magazines for their M4/M16 family of weapons. The M4/M16 Army authorized magazines are the following: NSN 1005-00-561-7200 (improved magazine) and NSN 1005-00-921-5004 (older magazine; use until exhaustion).

3. User Actions: TM 9-1005-319-10, the Additional Authorized List (AAL),
states that NSN 1005-00-921-5004 is authorized, as well as NSN 1005-00-561-7200. Units may use the older magazine NSN 1005-00-921-5004 with the green follower until exhausted. The improved magazine is available in stock, NSN 1005-00-561-7200, and has a tan follower. The improved magazine features an improved follower and follower spring. These new features help to reduce the risk of magazine-related stoppages. Units are only authorized to use the Army authorized magazines listed in the technical manuals. Remember; “tan-is the plan, green-start to lean, black-take it back.” Magazines with the black follower are the oldest and should be turned in to your unit supply sergeant or local supply point.

While this directive attracted some attention on military-oriented forums such as Lightfighter.net, it was not until a feature story in Military.com that the issue picked up steam. What makes this directive even more puzzling is that the Magpul PMAG not only has a NSN (National Stock Number) assigned to it but millions of them have been purchased for use by troops in the field. Moreover, anecdotal evidence from the field indicates that the PMAG is more reliable.

The decision has left combat troops puzzled, since the PMAG has an Army-approved national stock number, which allows units to order them through the Army supply system.

“This just follows a long line of the Army, and military in general, not listening to the troops about equipment and weaponry,” said one Army infantryman serving in Southwest Afghanistan, who asked not to be identified.

“The PMAG is a great product … lightweight and durable. I have seen numerous special ops teams from all services pass through here, and they all use PMAGs. Also, a large amount of Marine infantry here use PMAGS, including their Force Recon elements.”

TACOM officials said the message was issued because of “numerous reports that Army units are using unauthorized magazines,” TACOM spokesman Eric Emerton said in a written response to questions from Military.com. Emerton added that only “authorized NSNs have ever been included in the technical manuals. Just because an item has an NSN, does not mean the Army is an authorized user.”

This seems to be a complete policy reversal, since PMAGs are standard issue with the Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment and they have been routinely issued to infantry units before war-zone deployments.

It sounds to me like TACOM Life Cycle Management Command has a serious case of “not invented here” going on. While the thought of being able to pick up a bunch of surplus PMAGs cheap is appealing, I most certainly don’t want to do it at the expense of soldiers and Marines serving in the front lines. For me to have a mag misfeed is an inconvenience; for a soldier in combat it is a matter of life and death.

I would hate to see a decade of actual combat experience with weapons and other equipment tossed as the military cuts back and begins to adopt the bureaucratic garrison mentality of yesteryear. Or as SoldierSystems.net said about this story “In case you had any doubt that the Army considers the war over and is circling its wagons to recreate the peacetime Army..”

For more extended discussions on the magazine directive, read the comments at the KitUp Blog, Lightfighter.net, the Firearm Blog, and SoldierSystems.

The second article was by Brig. General Mark Arnold in the Armed Forces Journal. Arnold is the commander of the Army Reserve’s 100th Division and is the President and CEO of GSE Environmental which makes geosynthetic lining products for a variety of industries. The article by General Arnold is entitled “Don’t Promote Mediocrity.”

The article argues that the current system for promoting officers and NCOs is outdated. Not only is it outdated but it serves to promote mediocrity by promoting based upon the person’s time in the service and not their abilities.

Largely unchanged since 1947, military human resources policies reward compliance, not performance or innovation. The HR bureaucracies are quantity-driven, not talent-focused. They are narrowly focused on assigning officers to jobs that align with their branch or specialty, with little consideration given to individual inclinations for assignments and almost none to past performance for O-2s through O-4s.

Yet the employment expectations of highly talented people changed a generation ago. The desire for lifetime employment has been replaced by a desire for lifetime employability. That means they vote with their feet when employers fail to reward performance, fail to give people a voice in their work and fail to fire bad bosses.

Indeed, a 2010 study by the Army Research Institute found that the main reason talented people leave is not the lure of a lucrative civilian career, but because mediocre people stay in and get promoted.

Year-group systems promote high talent at nearly the same pace as mediocre and below-average officers during their first 20 years of service. For instance, the active-duty Army promoted 99 percent of lieutenants to captain and 95 percent of captains to major during its 2011 boards. In 2010, selection rates for Army O-5s were 94 percent and above 85 percent in all other services. This is unheard of in the private sector. It rings loudly of institutionalizing mediocrity at best, and poisoning the pool of future senior leaders at worst.

Arnold proposes a number of changes including the elimination of the “up or out” promotion culture and the mentoring of rising talent by senior officers much like GE does with their up and coming executives. This latter proposal is much the same way that Gen. George Marshall operated throughout his career. He kept tabs on those he considered to be promising officers and he put this to use at the beginning of WWII. Marshall’s list of promising officers reads like a who’s who of WWII generals: Eisenhower, Bradley, Maxwell Taylor, and Matthew Ridgeway.

The military is in the process of undergoing force reductions. They have a war-tested officer corps as well as a tested mid-level group of NCOs. They know who is a leader, who performs, and who doesn’t. If we are to have drastic force reductions, we need the cream of the crop running the leaner and, hopefully, meaner military at the company and battalion levels. We as a nation cannot afford to have the military run at the operational level by those who have reached the level of their own incompetence aka the Peter Principle.

Oh, Just Like A Sex Offender Registry

CBS ran a story this weekend on the growth in concealed carry permits in El Paso County, Colorado. Sheriff Terry Maketa says he believes in them and signs an average of 85 permits a week. El Paso County has the highest percentage of CCWs per capita in the state of Colorado.

Of course in the interest of providing balance, CBS’s Jeff Glor had to interview Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign. Gross’s comments were interesting.

Forty nine states, every one except Illinois, have some form of concealed carry but not all require permits, including Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming. There is no national database on who has the weapons, something Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, thinks needs to change.

“I am willing to accept that the majority of concealed carry permit holders are law-abiding citizens,” said Gross. “That’s not where this debate or conversation needs to be. It needs to be on the percentage that are not.”

So Dan Gross believes that there should be a national database of concealed carry holders which is publicly accessible. Hmm, that sounds just like the databases of convicted sex offenders. Will CCW holders be required to notify their neighbors that they hold a permit? Will you be able to go online and pull up all CCW holders within a certain distance from your home? Will permit holders need to get the permission of authorities if they want to change their residences? Will permit holders by banned through zoning of residing in certain areas of a town because it is too close to a school?

I’m sure the Brady Campaign would deny that they want concealed carry permit holders to be treated just the same as convicted sex offenders. Nonetheless, a public, national registry would have a similar impact and that would make the gun prohibitionists very happy.

On This Memorial Day

In going through some of my Dad’s old papers, I found this from his second tour of duty in South Vietnam in 1970. He was serving as the First Sergeant for Co. A of the 554th Engineer Battalion (Construction). It is an inventory of equipment that was assigned to him as First Sergeant. What’s cool about it is that it lists the Pistol, Caliber .45, (Automatic, M1911A1) that was assigned to him including its serial number. As I know he didn’t get to keep it, I wonder what ever became of it.

He was originally drafted into the Army in October 1940 and served during WWII. He rejoined the Army in 1953 and continued serving until he was medically retired in April 1972. I should clarify that his medical retirement was not due to wounds received in Vietnam but other health issues. At the time he was in South Vietnam with the 554th Engineer Battalion, he was 51 years old. He passed away in 1981 almost nine years to the day from when he retired.

So on this Memorial Day, I’d like to remember the service of my father and all the men and women who have served and are serving in our Armed Forces.

NRA Responds To VPC’s Misleading Research

While it may be giving the Violence Policy Center more attention than it deserves, I think the NRA-ILA had to respond to the misleading research regarding “gun deaths” versus deaths by motor vehicle. As Tom Gresham continually points out about his Truth Squad project, a lie left unchallenged becomes the truth for many people. The NRA-ILA’s post on the subject entitled “Dust Off the Old Stuff–VPC Tries to Revive ‘Guns and Cars’ and ‘Consumer Products’ Nonsense” was published on Friday.

In the 1990s, it was common for anti-gun activists to predict that firearm-related deaths–suicides, murders, self-defense shootings by private citizens, shootings by law enforcement officers, and accidents combined–would soon outnumber motor vehicle accident deaths.

It was also common for them to demand that the design and manufacture of firearms be subject to the Consumer Products Safety Commission or the Bureu (sic) of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Their goal was to get handguns banned by setting standards higher than any handgun manufacturer could achieve, at least at a price the market would bear. For example, in 2000, the Violence Policy Center said “Congress should vest the Department of the Treasury [to which BATF belonged at the time] with strong authority to regulate the design, manufacture, and distribution of firearms. Such authority should include the ability to remove from the market firearms that pose a serious threat to public health and safety. . . . Products such as three-wheel ATVs and lawn darts had related death rates microscopic in comparison to handguns, but were nevertheless banned.”

To anti-gun activists’ dismay, the closest that motor vehicle accidents came to accounting for fewer deaths than all five categories of firearm-related deaths combined was in 1993, when firearm-related deaths hit an all-time high, one year after motor vehicle accident deaths fell to their lowest point since 1962. But even then, motor vehicle accidents accounted for 2,298 more deaths than all categories of firearm-related deaths combined.

Fast forward to the present. This week, the VPC claimed that in 2009, firearm-related deaths outnumbered motor vehicle accident deaths in 10 states. It said, “Motor vehicle deaths are on the decline as the result of a successful decades-long public health-based injury prevention strategy that includes safety-related changes to vehicles and highway design informed by comprehensive data collection and analysis. Meanwhile, firearms are the only consumer product not regulated by the federal government for health and safety.”

That’s baloney, of course. The reason that anti-gun activists dropped their “cars and guns” propaganda more than a decade ago is that after 1993, motor vehicle accident deaths began increasing sharply, despite massive government regulation of vehicles, drivers and roads, while deaths involving firearms began decreasing. So great did the disparity between the two trends eventually become, that by 2004 there were 15,364 more motor vehicle accident deaths than all firearm-related deaths combined.

VPC knows that, but it brought up “cars and guns” this week anyway, for a couple of reasons.

First, cranking out “analyses” that insult the intelligence of a fence post is what the Joyce Foundation pays the VPC to do.

Second, with people driving less–due in large part to the lack of jobs and high gasoline prices–deaths from motor vehicle accidents dropped from 43,945 in 2007 (the year before the economic recession began) to 36,216 in 2009 (the last year for which national data have been reported). In the 10 states on VPC’s list, decreases ranged from 6.1 percent in Colorado to 37.6 percent in Nevada.

Nationally, firearm-related deaths remained fairly steady, at 31,224 in 2007 and 31,347 in 2009, with decreases in homicides and accidents. But firearm and non-firearm suicides, each of which accounts for half of suicides, both increased from 2007 to 2009. Suicides account for nearly 60 percent of firearm-related deaths, and between 2007 and 2009 firearm suicides increased in nine of the 10 states on VPC’s list.

Of course, it’s pointless to compare vehicle accident statistics to those for the aggregate of five categories of firearm-related deaths. There’s little similarity between motor vehicle accidents and firearm accidents, and none whatsoever between vehicle accidents and firearm suicides and homicides. For example, more than 90 percent of people who commit suicide suffer from depression, other mental disorders, and/or a substance-abuse disorder. Other risk factors for suicide include a prior suicide attempt or a family history of mental disorder, substance abuse, suicide or family violence. There is also evidence suggesting that suicides can be instigated by news media coverage of suicides and by exposure to suicide themes in literature and entertainment. By contrast, risk factors for motor vehicle accidents include excessive speed, fatigue, poor eyesight and ambient conditions limiting visibility, travelling in darkness and bad weather, mechanically unsound vehicles, and defects in road design and maintenance.

Since we’re on the subject of motor vehicle accidents, let’s all remember to be especially safe on the roads over the Memorial Day Weekend. Next week, with the holiday behind us, there will be plenty of time to remember how full of beans anti-gun activists can be.

Citizens Committee On HB 489

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms just released an alert on North Carolina’s HB 489 and the attempt to overturn the Bateman ruling.

The alert:

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is alerting North Carolina gun owners that state lawmakers are attempting to pass a new “emergency powers” law that may be more restrictive than the one a federal judge just struck down.

House Bill 489, according to Grass Roots North Carolina, would enable cities to restrict firearms rights in the home in emergencies, something they never had the authority to do. Attorney Alan Gura, who represented GRNC and the Second Amendment Foundation in the recently-won federal lawsuit striking down the state’s emergency power to regulate firearms in a declared emergency, says that anyone who tries to enforce a ban on guns under this new legislation would lose qualified immunity.

The legislation, now in the Senate Judiciary I committee, establishes “dangerous weapons restrictions in emergencies.”

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said the new proposal suggests that North Carolina lawmakers responsible for this bill “either simply don’t get it or they are determined to undermine a constitutionally-protected civil right no matter what a judge says.”

“The federal court ruled against this sort of emergency regulation, but the legislature is turning around and trying to pass an even more restrictive law,” he observed.

CCRKBA is urging firearms owners to contact their state senator to oppose the measure.

“Try to adopt bad legislation in an effort to replace a bad law that was struck down by a federal judge is not just bad policy,” Gottlieb said, “it is an egregious abuse of legislative power.”

I Just Love (Southern) Politicians

I thought the days of the old-time Southern politician in the mold of Huey Long or any of the other rascals like him were long gone. The type of politician who would portray himself in public as a God-fearing, tea-drinking, gun-owning, pro-American family man with a pretty wife and cute kids while in private he wasn’t above having a nip or two and consorting with college co-eds.

SC State Rep. Ted Vick (Chesterfield Cty) has restored my faith in Southern politicians. He is was running for Congress in the new 7th District of South Carolina. On his campaign website, he notes that he is “a businessman, a farmer, a pastor, a sportsman, a soldier and a state representative” who is seeking to return values like “hard work, common sense, and bipartisanship” to Washington. Vick is also a Lt. Col. in the SC National Guard.

He was considered one of the leading candidates in the race. He was even mentioned in an article in the Washington Post about possibly being one of the surprises of this election cycle. However, that was before his little escapade early Thursday morning.

Rep. Vick was stopped in Columbia for doing 44 mph in a 30 zone. A little over the limit but nothing major except:

  • He had been bar hopping.
  • He refused the sobriety test and was charged with DUI.
  • He was carrying a Kel-Tec .380 pistol in his pocket.
  • His concealed carry license expired in 2007.
  • He had a woman in the car with him.
  • The woman was not his wife but a 21-year old recent graduate of USC whom he met in a bar.

Ooops! Rep. Vick has been charged with DUI, speeding, and for the unlawful carrying of a firearm without a permit. He also spent the night in the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center and was released on his own recognizance.

Vick announced just a litle while ago that he is ending his campaign for Congress.

“After spending time with my family, my pastor and my friends, I have decided to end my campaign for the United States Congress.

While I have full confidence that the legal system will clear much of this up, it will not change the fact that I made some serious mistakes that I alone am responsible for. I realize that I have caused pain to those who love and support me and it’s my responsibility to make this right.

Now is the time to allow the legal system to work, time for me to concentrate on my family and time for me to focus on the needs of my State House constituents.

I look forward to spending more time at home with my family and constituents. I will humbly seek re-election to the State House in November. If re-elected I will continue to work across party aisles to seek consensus and progress.”

Now have I left anything out? Hmm. The 21-year old not-his-wife woman was blond (his wife has brown hair) and Mr. Vick is a Democrat who recently made news when he quit the American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC.