Grant Cunningham pointed out this video featuring Rob Pincus and a factory-made Glock Tactical Suppressor. Rob was in South Africa doing some training classes when he came across the suppressor. As Grant notes:
but why in ‘repressed’ South Africa are these things freely available, but here in the ‘free’ United States are they demonized and heavily regulated?
Why indeed.
Salon.com sponsors a social content site for bloggers called OpenSalon. They describe it thusly:
Open Salon is a publishing platform with a built-in audience. It was developed for writers, photographers and artists of any stripe in need of a smart home for their work (and not one of those giant, anonymous blog networks), and who are hoping to be rewarded for it. After a quick, free registration, you can immediately begin posting your words, images or videos to your blog, start building an audience and even earning money.
One such blogger is Alan C. Baird. His biography lists him as a screenwriter, director, and producer now living in Mesa, Arizona. He named his blog Bloguaro presumably after the Saguaro cactus.
In a post entitled “Gunfight At The Shopping-Cart Corral” he details his experience of encountering a person open carrying in a natural-foods grocery store in Arizona. Lest we forget, both open and discrete carry are legal and widely practiced in the state of Arizona. Indeed, discrete or concealed carry now requires no fee and no license after the passage of Constitutional Carry by Arizona.
The blog post is impressive in its ignorance as well in the level of condescension the author exhibits towards gun owners and gun rights. Here is how he describes his reaction after his European-born wife points out a man openly carrying:
“Whaaaat?!” That really captured my attention. Sure enough, some corpulent 80-year-old a**hole was standing in front of the donut peaches, packing a pistol. Rosewood-checkered grip, tooled-leather holster, the whole bit. Not a law enforcement guy, just some retired jerkoff who evidently wanted to enhance the perceived size of his schlong.
And that sets the tone for the rest of the blog post. Mr. Baird then marches off to confront the manager (notice he didn’t have the courage to say anything to the gentleman who was open carrying) about this affront to his sensibilities. He is told by the manager that Arizona is a Right to Carry State and there is nothing that can be done about it. I probably should note here that Baird moved to Arizona from California. During their discussion, this gem came out:
I pulled out the big guns: “Displaying a gun is an implied threat of violence. His threat has spread fear in your customers. Instilling fear is a hallmark of terrorism. Under some definitions, he has already committed a terrorist act.”
He finally slinks back to his wife and tells her its legal and nothing can be done. Baird admits that he won’t confront the elderly gentleman who is openly carrying because he thinks he is psycho.
She was silent for a long time. “You’re afraid of him?”
“Duh.”
“Then I will buy you a gun at Christmas. And you will buy one for me.”
“Huh?” I couldn’t believe my ears. Every now and then, she has trouble with the English language. I was beginning to wonder if this was one of those times.
“We will return here on December 26th, and we will stand in front of that old fasz with our brand-new guns, and we will call him out.” ‘Fasz’ is the Hungarian word for ‘pr*ck.’ When she starts peppering her conversation with Magyar expletives, it’s a pretty good indication she’s having no trouble at all with her English. “And if he tries to walk away, we will laugh at the size of his tiny shriveled-up fasz.”
“He’ll draw. You know he’ll draw.”
“He’s old. We’re faster.”
What is it with these anti-gun types that they have all these fantasies of resorting to violence as well as an unnatural preoccupation with the size of a man’s penis? In reaction to an elderly gentleman going about his own business, they want to engage him in a shoot-out and kill him. The psycho in this story isn’t the elderly man shopping for peaches. It is Baird.
In another post on a blog he shares with his wife, he has this gem which he posted a day later:
National Quick-Draw Contest.
Reality-show pitch:
(1) Require all gun-permit holders to enter the National Quick-Draw Contest.
(2) Pair them up in shootouts.
(3) Survivors move into the next round.
(4) Repeat (2) and (3) until the gun problem is solved.
—
“If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.”
Right. But then you simply declare open season on the people who still have guns, and the cops will mop them up in no time.
In both of these stories, the violent person is Mr. Baird. Oh, how typical.
Sebastian of SnowFlakesInHell has a report on a poll showing Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-Brady Campaign) in a statistical tie with her Republican challenger Fran Becker. McCarthy’s supports seems to be dropping more and more as the election approaches. As would be expected, McCarthy is dismissing the poll results saying it is a private poll and not reliable. They insist Becker is no threat to McCarthy.
So who is Francis X. “Fran” Becker, Jr.? He is a financial planner who owns a practice, Becker and Associates Planning Services, in Lynbrook, New York. He holds the Certified Financial Planner™ designation. Becker is an eight-term member of the Nassau County Legislature representing District 6.
Becker has been married to his wife Clementine for over 36 years. They have three grown daughters and six grandchildren. He has been active in community affairs ranging from the Knights of Columbus to raising money for the Cerebral Palsy Foundation.
Given that Carolyn McCarthy has always vied with Sarah Brady to be the Queen Bee of Gun Control, Becker’s position on the Second Amendment is, of course, of interest. Would a vote for Becker be just trading one gun controller for another given the proclivities of northeast Republicans? In a word, no. Becker is pro-gun and says this on the issue:
Second Amendment
I am a Constitutional Conservative. While we must keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals, the Second Amendment clearly states that every law-abiding citizen has the Constitutional right to bear arms for their own safety and protection.
In one of those weird quirks of fate, I know Fran Becker. He and I were participants together in the Financial Planning Association’s Residency Program back in 2004. This was an intense, week-long small group training program where we worked with some of the best and most experienced financial planners in the business. I remember Fran as strong in his faith, conservative, well-versed in financial matters, and anxious to get home to his family.
According to OpenSecrets.org, McCarthy holds a huge financial advantage over Becker. She has raised over a half million dollars from PACs such as the Brady Campaign’s PAC and numerous unions including the thugs at SEIU. If you want to help Becker out, you can make a donation here. I did and really encourage you to do so as well for two reasons. Fran is a good guy and Congress would be better off without someone who thinks a barrel shroud is “that shoulder thing that goes up.”
I plain flat out just don’t like Dick Blumenthal of Connecticut.
Reason number one is that Blumenthal lied about serving in South Vietnam so as to burnish his credentials with veterans. He has since said he “misspoke” and has offered a half-hearted apology.
My dad, who would be 91 this year if he was still alive, served two full-year tours of duty in Vietnam. He was old in comparative terms when he went there in 1967 for the first tour and even older the second time. By my estimate, he was 48 when he went over there the first time. While he was not an infantryman humping a ruck in the boonies, he was in a war zone. Moreover, he was there for the Tet Offensive where no place in the whole God forsaken country was safe.
Dad had to take a medical retirement in 1972 because his body was too worn out to effectively serve in the Army. In retrospect, a lot of his ailments like angina were stress related. Not PTSD but just plain old stress which took its toll on his middle-aged body. He died nine years later from congestive heart failure. He had just turned 62 a few days earlier.
I missed out having a father around during much of my childhood and adolescence. My dad was serving overseas and we didn’t or couldn’t accompany him on those tours of duty. It is what it is. Obviously, I don’t blame Blumenthal for this but his lies about serving in Vietnam just infuriate me.
I didn’t know too much about his opponent Linda McMahon except of her connection with pro wrestling. However, reading her campaign bio I found out that she is a native of New Bern, North Carolina and is a a graduate of East Carolina University.
Being from eastern NC and going to ECU puts Linda McMahon a whole lot closer to the average person and their concerns than being a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law like Blumenthal. Call that reverse snobbery, if you will, but I think we as a nation have for too long put too much credence in an Ivy League degree. Just look at the state in which the so-called elites have put this country. Enough is enough.
Jim Shepherd’s The Outdoor Wire is reporting a story this morning involving Warne Scope Mount Company of Oregon, Home Depot, and ultimately Citibank. Charles Lake, the president of the company, had submitted an application for a business line of credit to Home Depot which was approved. He needed wood for work benches plus some small appliances sold at Home Depot.
On September 28th, Warne was informed that the approval was rescinded not because of their credit rating but because of the “industry you are in”. When asked for specifics, he was told it was because he made parts for the gun industry.
Like many companies with private label credit cards, Home Depot doesn’t actually grant the credit or administer the program. It is actually run by a credit card company who sets the policies and who decides who gets or doesn’t get credit. In this case, the company is Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.
The story is now taken up by Rich Grassi, editor of the Tactical Wire. After finding out from Stephen Holmes, Senior Manager of Corporate Communications for Home Depot, that Home Depot had no policy against approval for companies in the gun industry and that Citibank handled all the details, he went to Citibank for an explanation.
The following was a prepared statement that he received from Elizabeth Fogarty, Citi Public Affairs:
“Citi does not prohibit the financing of firearms purchases by individuals nor the financing of businesses that manufacture and sell them to individuals for recreational use. However, we do prohibit financing merchants in the non-ancillary military equipment industry, including the financing of businesses that manufacture and or sell firearms for military use. While we do not discuss individual credit applications, we are always open to reviewing particular decisions when appropriate to ensure the policy is applied correctly.”
Non-ancillary military equipment industry? When asked to clarify the meaning of that description, Ms. Fogarty came back with “the policy prohibits financing businesses that manufacture and/or sell firearms for military use.” Grassi and The Outdoor Wire promise updates if they come along.
One wonders how long that Citibank has had this policy and, more importantly, why. Are they afraid of getting caught up in a Pentagon procurement scandal or does it have something to do with the fact that it is 36% owned by the Federal government? Or none of the above? I hope Rich Grassi finds out more on this.
UPDATE: Rich Grassi will be a guest on Tom Gresham’s GunTalk Radio this Sunday to discuss the issue. I’m sure Citibank never thought they’d get this amount of negative publicity for shafting a little 50 employee company in Tualatin, Oregon. Heck, I bet they don’t even know where Tualatin is. I sure didn’t and had to look it up on the map – it’s in the Metro Portland area.
UPDATE II: From the NRA-ILA on the issue:
NRA-ILA Investigates Citibank Issue
Friday, October 08, 2010
This week, NRA-ILA and NRA’s Publications Division learned of an issue regarding the disapproval of credit by Citibank South Dakota for a respected manufacturer of scope mounts for firearms. Upon investigation with Citibank, it appears that the initial disapproval was based on the type of business the company is engaged in. Citibank applies an industry code to every business that seeks credit and it appears that the company was assigned a code that Citibank does not lend to. However, we believe this code was misapplied in this case.
At this time, it does not appear that Citibank is actively denying banking services or credit in an attempt to discriminate against firearm-related businesses. Rather, we believe that there was a misunderstanding as to the nature of this particular company’s business.
NRA-ILA staff will continue to work with Citibank to resolve this situation and to help prevent similar problems in the future.
Illinois is one of two states that do not have any form of concealed carry whatsoever. Bills have been introduced on an annual basis for a number of years now and have always failed. The voting strength of legislators from the Chicago Metro area has been enough to overcome those Downstate Illinois legislators in favor of it.
According to a story in the Springfield State Register-Journal, the tide against concealed carry may be changing.
“The climate is changing,” said Todd Vandermyde, an Illinois lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. “I think we are closer than we have ever been. We will probably have the most aggressive year you’ve ever seen.”
The agrees with what Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said at the 2010 Gun Rights Policy Conference. He said that they are going to go “full bore” on concealed carry in the legislature this year along with state pre-emption of municipal gun laws so that they won’t have cities like Chicago interfering with concealed carry laws. He noted that they had gotten the Illinois Sheriffs Association to be supportive of concealed carry and the Illinois Police Chiefs Association and the State Police have been neutralized on the issue. Pearson said “those are big steps in Illinois. If you can get some of the people to back out of the fight and others to join you, it is a big deal.”
This brings us to the gubernatorial race. The unelected Democratic incumbent, Gov. Pat Quinn, is anti-gun, anti-concealed carry, and has been endorsed by the Brady Campaign. Conversely, his opponent, State Senator Bill Brady is both pro-gun and pro-concealed carry. Indeed, Brady has been criticized in ads by Quinn for not supporting more gun control.
Brady was quoted in the same Springfield State Register-Journal story regarding concealed carry:
“Carrying to protect yourself is a right that is afforded to citizens in 48 other states, not Illinois,” Brady said in a written statement issued through his campaign. “With the proper safeguards — including training, education and background checks — it should be legalized in Illinois.”
I don’t if Brady supports “may issue” or “shall issue” concealed carry but this is a definite improvement over Gov. Quinn whose spokesperson, Mica Matsoff, said ““He is not in favor of legalizing conceal and carry.” The spokesperson then adds this non sequitur, “Gov. Quinn believes in keeping the most dangerous guns, such as assault weapons, off of our streets.”
The latest Rasmussen polls show Brady leading Quinn 48% to 36% with 8% undecided and 9% backing other minor candidates. Brady’s support has dropped slightly and Quinn’s rose by 1%.
With a pro-gun governor, concealed carry, and a whole host of legal challenges to gun control laws in the state, Illinois may become a free state again. Or at least a semi-free state.
Aaron at the Guns and Ammo Blog has his monthly listing of contests offering free guns and accessories up. Free is good! You can link to it here.
This is a good video on some of the things to consider while carrying concealed and using a public restroom. It is full of good tips. I really like the suggestions to use the “family” bathroom in a restaurant or store as you will the only one in there and the door can be locked. The video is 18 minutes long but worth it. You can always fast forward if you want or need to.
H/T Cowboy Blob
Grass Roots North Carolina and its GRNC Political Victory Fund have published their 2010 Remember in November Voters Guide. One of the key things to point out about this guide is that it does not endorse any candidate. Rather it surveys candidates and analyzes their voting records to see how they stand on gun rights.
As Paul Valone notes in his Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner column:
GRNC’s “Remember in November” candidate evaluation system factors survey scores, gun-related voting records, bill sponsorship and other measures into a spreadsheet which estimates the percentage of the time a given candidate can be expected to concur with a control group of GRNC’s Life and Benefactor members.
A candidate who agrees at least 90% of the time gets four stars (****), 80% gets three stars (***), 70% gets two stars (**), 60% gets one star (*), and an estimated agreement of less than 60% gets zero stars (0).
This system does not give an automatic advantage to incumbents like the NRA’s ranking system. They don’t make any deals with candidates for better ratings nor will they give a candidate a better rating in exchange for a donation.
The following is a key to reading their ratings from the GRNC website:
PAR/DIS: Candidate’s party and district. “D”=Democrat, “L”=Libertarian, “R”=Republican. Number is district number.
SURVEY: The percentages listed depict agreement between a given candidate and our control group (e.g. an “80” under the “Survey” section means 80% of the candidate’s answers agreed with the Conservative Gun Owners). “NR”means the candidate failed to return the survey.
VOTE: Votes are more accurate than surveys and should be given more attention in determining candidate stance. Where available, this column indicates how often candidates’ votes agree with the control group of gun owners (e.g. a “90” under “Voting Record” indicates candidate’s voting record agrees 90% of the time with what was desired by control group).
OTHER: Derived from evaluations by other gun groups, bill sponsorship, etc.
EVAL: The evaluation is not a rating. It estimates percentage of time candidate is expected to agree with the Conservative Gun Owners.
Attorney Jim Manley and the Mountain States Legal Foundation are taking on the US Postal Service’s ban on any firearm on USPS property. The challenge is on behalf of Debbie and Tab Bonidy of Avon, Colorado and the National Association for Gun Rights. A lawsuit, Bonidy et al v. USPS et al, was filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
The Bonidys live in a rural area of Colorado that doesn’t have home mail delivery. Because of that, the local post office in Avon, Colorado provides the residents of the area with a post office box at no charge. While they both have Colorado concealed carry permits and regularly carry, the Bonidys cannot carry concealed or openly when picking up their mail. They even can’t leave their firearms locked in their car as this would violate 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l). This regulation reads:
(l) Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.
Violation of this regulation could subject them to a fine or imprisonment or both. Rather than risk this, they, through their attorney, requested that the USPS amend or repeal this provision as it was broader than other firearms restrictions on Federal property and because it went beyond what was allowed under the Heller decision.
In response to their letter, Mary Anne Gibbons, General Counsel for the USPS, informed the Bonidys that the USPS believed that it was on firm legal ground and that bringing firearms on Postal Service grounds would indeed violate 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l). She said the Postal Service would be seeking the advice of the Justice Department on the issues raised on behalf of the Bonidys.
The lawsuit is seeking a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the Postal Service regulations on the grounds that:
By prohibiting Plaintiffs from possessing a functional firearm on real property under the charge and control of the USPS, Defendants currently maintain and actively enforce a set of laws, customs, practices, and policies that deprive Plaintiffs of the right to keep and bear arms, in violation of the Second Amendment.
In addition to the injunction, the plaintiffs are seeking costs, attorney fees, and any further relief that the Court may award.
In a parenthetical note, this is the first time that I am aware that the National Association for Gun Rights has been a party to any post-McDonald litigation. Due to their sensationalist “alerts” on Rep. Bobby Rush’s HR 45 as a means of fund-raising, they have not been taken too seriously in the past. If this lawsuit marks a change in their direction, so much the better.
by