You’d Think They Would At Least Get One Thing Right

You’d have to be deaf and blind not to know that the Trayvon Martin shooting has gone big time in the media. As such, it is playing everywhere including a site called The Root. I wasn’t familiar with The Root so I checked its “About Us” page.

The Root is the leading online source of news and commentary from an African-American perspective. Founded in 2008 under the leadership of Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. of Harvard University, The Root offers a unique take on breaking news, provides solid analysis and presents dynamic multimedia content. The Root raises the profile of black voices in mainstream media and engages anyone interested in black culture around the world. The Root is owned by the Washington Post Company.

Prof. Gates you may remember was part of the Rose Garden Beer Summit involving Gates, President Obama, and the Cambridge policeman who had arrested Gates. Nonetheless, given the The Root is owned by the Washington Post Company you would expect that they would employ a fact checker or two. Alas, it is not to be.

In an op-ed by Steven Gray which combined discussion of the Trayvon Martin affair with a call for a discussion of gun policy in the United States, there was this tidbit. It is referring to S. 2188 – the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.

Here’s some contrast: On March 13 a trio of Republican senators, led by Alaska’s Mark Begich, introduced a measure to allow people to carry concealed weapons across state lines — even into states like New York and New Jersey, which don’t recognize out-of-state permits.

It gives the impression that those evil Republicans are cramming concealed carry down America’s throat right after a black teenager was shot by a concealed carry holder. But wait you say, isn’t Alaska’s Mark Begich the Democrat who beat Republican Ted Stevens? And you would be correct. Moreover, that trio of Republican senators is actually one Republican, Sen.Mike Crapo (R-ID), who is no longer a sponsor of the bill. The real sponsors of the bill are actually Democrats Joe Manchin (D-WV), Max Baucus (D-MT), and Jon Tester (D-MT) along with the aforementioned Mark Begich.

If Steven Gray is going to attack gun rights in the United States and is calling upon President Obama to veto S. 2188 if it ever gets to his desk, as a journalist he has the ethical responsibility to get his facts right. The party affiliation of Begich, Manchin, Baucus, and Tester is a fact and not an opinion. Mr. Gray can have whatever misguided opinions he wants and that is his right. However, he has no right to mislead on the facts.

I Think The Tool Is the Assemblywoman

I stumbled across a pro-microstamping op-ed by NY State Assembywoman Michelle Schimel today. She was the primary sponsor of A.01157 which would require any semi-automatic pistol manufactured or delivered to an FFL in the State of New York to be capable microstamping ammunition. This act passed the New York State Assembly in 2011, died in the State Senate, was returned to the Assembly, and has been passed again.

Assemblywoman Schimel wrote on the bill:

Microstamping allows law enforcement to trace firearms through shell casings found at crime scenes, even if the crime gun is never found. In passing microstamping, the Assembly heeded the call of gun violence victims and their families, anti-crime advocates, and law enforcement who have called for microstamping to be enacted in the budget due to be completed by the end of the month.

Microstamping is about public safety and placing criminals behind bars. This technology will save taxpayers’ dollars by enabling law enforcement to solve gun crimes quicker. At a time when government has to save money and be more efficient, microstamping will help reduce the number of man-hours needed to solve gun crimes. I praise my Assembly colleagues for realizing the urgent need for microstamping in New York State, and I strongly urge the State Senate and Governor to join us and include it in the final budget.

 In her official Assembly biography, she calls this her proudest legislative accomplishment. Given her background, I’m guessing she would.

A lifelong community activist, Michelle serves on the board of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence (NYAGV), the largest citizens’ group in New York State dedicated to reducing gun-related violence. In 1995, as Vice President and member of the Executive Board of NYAGV, Michelle and Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy co-founded the Long Island Chapter.

Independent, peer-reviewed research has shown that this so-called tool for law enforcement is unreliable. The University of California-Davis Forensic Science Graduate Group stated in reference to California’s law that “a mandate for implementation of this technology in all semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made. Further testing, analysis and evaluation is required.”

The NSSF has called this “a flawed concept that is being pushed as a backdoor way to ban handguns” and I would agree.

After looking at the research, I would have to conclude that the tool in question is Assemblywoman Schimel and those who have voted in favor of this bill.

Hey, Eric! Did You Really Say “Brainwash”?

Yes, he did.

Thanks to Breitbart.com and their “Vetting” project, we have video proof that then-U.S. Attorney (and current Attorney General) Eric Holder actually did say that there needs to be a campaign to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” He made these comments in 1995 during a speech to the Woman’s National Democratic Club.

Holder was calling upon the media and advertising community to help build a campaign to treat firearms like cigarettes.

“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.”

Holder added that he had asked advertising agencies in the nation’s capital to assist by making anti-gun ads rather than commercials “that make me buy things that I don’t really need.” He had also approached local newspapers and television stations, he said, asking them to devote prime space and time, respectively, to his anti-gun campaign.

Local political leaders and celebrities, Holder said, including Mayor Marion Barry and Jesse Jackson, had been asked to help. In addition, he reported, he had asked the local school board to make the anti-gun message a part of “every day, every school, and every level.”

Frankly, I found his call to indoctrinate children by bombarding them with this message rather chilling. It is reminiscent of efforts by every totalitarian regime – from Hitler to Stalin to Mao – to use the educational system as a means for control.

Why Do I Not Trust This?

The George Mason University Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy is holding what a “Congressional Briefing” today in the Rayburn House Office Building on the topic of “Reducing Gun Violence” (sic).

Our upcoming Congressional Briefing, Reducing Gun Violence: Lessons from Research and Practice, will be held on Wednesday, February 22, 2012 and led by Dr. Christopher Koper, Associate Professor in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society.

Briefing Summary: This event will feature several leading firearms experts from criminology, economics, and public health who will discuss the findings and policy implications of current research on gun violence patterns, illegal gun markets, and the effects of policies and practices to prevent gun violence. The briefing will also address needs and future directions for research that can inform efforts to address this costly problem.

 Maybe the reason I am so skeptical of the whole thing is because of their speakers. When you see the names Jens Ludwig, Garen Wintemute, and Daniel Webster of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, red flags appear immediately. Add to this a series of Tweets by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic) about the research being presented and you know that those red flags are justified.

Their agenda lists such presentations as Daniel Webster’s “Firearm Seller Accountability Measures and the Diversion of Guns to Criminals” and Jens Ludwig’s “Underground Gun Markets”.

The Center presenting this is headed by Dr. Christopher Koper, formerly of U. Penn’s Firearm and Injury Center, who lists among his current research a study being funded by the Joyce Foundation.

Need I say anything more?

The Seven Varieties Of Gun Control Advocate

Gus Cotey, Jr. in an article posted on the JPFO website has classified gun control advocates into seven categories. He goes into detail about the characteristics of each category. The seven varieties are:

  1. Elitists
  2. Authoritarians
  3. Criminals
  4. The Fearful
  5. Ideological Chameleons
  6. Security Monopolists
  7. The Dysfunctionally Unworldly

 As he notes about these classifications:

Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.

In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.

I think Cotey’s post is well worth a read since it is essential to know our opposition if we are to preserve our gun rights.

BUYcott Day

The Complementary Spouse and I intend to celebrate both Valentine’s Day and gun rights by meeting at Starbucks after work for a nice coffee drink as part of Starbucks Appreciation Day. I also plan to stop by the bank to get some $2 bills to leave in the tip jar.

Those calling for the boycott aren’t exactly happy that their attempt at publicity has been turned back on them. The National Gun Victims (sic) Action Council released a letter yesterday from a group of professional “peace activists.” They freely acknowledge that those of us who believe in our rights will be sipping our coffees, teas, and hot chocolates today at Starbucks and that we will be creating a bump in sales for Starbucks.

We also hope to say “thank you” soon for leadership on the legislative front¬–the kind of leadership you are exercising with respect to marriage equality. So far, your publicized rationale in defense of welcoming guns in your stores has (been) simple: you state that Starbucks is just following the law, state by state. That means that in 43 states you welcome openly carried guns and other firearms, while saying ‘yes’ to concealed carry in 49 states. But the law in all 50 states allows you to ban guns from your stores. Starbucks can do more than choose between competing laws. Starbucks can help change the law! Starbucks can use its corporate clout, in cooperation with others to challenge the powerful gun lobby, end the impasse in Washington that has blocked any meaningful gun violence prevention legislation in the 18 years since the Brady Bill was passed.

What they are having trouble comprehending is that support for marriage equality and gay rights doesn’t automatically correlate into support for gun control. Indeed, if they had looked at the plaintiffs in a number of important gun rights cases, they might have understood that many gay men and women have rejected being kept defenseless. That the right to self-defense and self-protection is a human right seems to have eluded the gun prohibitionists and the professional peace activist groups.

About That Seminal Event In Dan Gross’ Life

Dan Gross, the newly hired president of the Brady Campaign, counts the shooting of his brother Matt in 1997 at the Empire State Building as a seminal event in in his life. He may not call it that but he left a high paying partnership at JWT (formerly known as J. Walter Thompson Advertising) to start what eventually became the Center to Prevent Youth Violence.

From his bio at the Brady Campaign:

Dan founded CPYV after his brother was severely wounded in a shooting at the Empire State Building in February 1997.

Prior to co-founding and directing the Center to Prevent Youth Violence, Dan was the youngest-ever partner at the JWT advertising agency, managing accounts such as Kodak, Lipton, and Warner Lambert.

In an article that Gross wrote for the Huffington Post in the days after the shootings in Tucson in January 2011:

I know about headline-grabbing tragedies. My younger brother was shot in the head on the observation deck of the Empire State Building in 1997. The incident inspired me to resign as an advertising executive to start PAX, an organization dedicated to preventing gun violence.

From an article two months after the shooting in the New York Times:

Calling the violence wrought by guns a public health epidemic and identifying stricter gun control laws as the cure to its spread, the brother of a young musician who was shot and critically wounded atop the Empire State Building lashed out yesterday at politicians and lobbyists who stand in the way of such measures.

”Could you imagine if there were actually a cure for AIDS or cancer or, at the time, polio, and there were people so motivated by politics that they were trying to prevent it?” said Daniel Gross, the older brother of Matthew Gross, one of six people injured in the shootings on Feb. 23. A seventh, Chris Burmeister, a friend and bandmate of Matthew Gross, was killed.

”Our government is essentially doing nothing to prevent a deadly epidemic, even while they hold the cure in their hands,” Daniel Gross told hundreds of people who gathered in a church on the Upper West Side of Manhattan for an annual remembrance of victims of crime. ”As an American, I find it embarrassing and sobering, and as a victim of the epidemic, I find it heartbreaking.”

 In that same article, Gross goes on to call the NRA “immoral”:

Daniel Gross, 30, homed in on the National Rifle Association and called the politicians who accept its support and do its bidding ”immoral.”

”There is an element to the gun violence epidemic that is far more insidious than any medical epidemic,” Mr. Gross an advertising executive, said. ”It may sound like a bad movie, but there are actually evil people working to spread the virus, including people in our government.

”They generate a smokescreen of flawed and deceptive arguments to hide their true concern, which is not the physical health of the American people but the financial health of the gun and ammunition industry.”

So lets look at what actually happened that day on the Observation Deck of the Empire State Building.

On February 23, 1997, Ali Hassan Abu Kamal, a 69 year-old Palestinian and former English teacher from Gaza, killed one man and wounded six others including Matthew Gross before taking his own life. He was armed with a Beretta .380 pistol that he had purchased in Florida. According to stories at the time, he had two identical letters – one in Arabic and one in English – in a pouch around his neck that blamed the U.S., England, and France for oppressing the Palestinians, expressed his hatred for Zionism, and against two business partners.

The pistol that Abu Kamal used was purchased at Oaks Trading Post in Florida. It should be remembered that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act had already been enacted by this time and Abu Kamal’s purchase went through a NICS check. Of course, this didn’t stop either Dan Gross or then New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani from blaming Florida’s gun laws.

The story put out at the time was that Abu Kamal had been ruined financially and was depressed over it. From CNN:

In the Gaza Strip, relatives of Kamal prepared Monday for a wake at the home of his daughter and son-in-law. His family said he had come to he United States for a business opportunity, and had been cheated out of his savings.

His son-in-law, Marwan Abu Samra, said Kamal was despondent after losing his life savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars. And his daughter, Marfat Abu Kamal, suggested that he was unable to return home after losing his money. We don’t know until now, she said.

Because of this story, the police in 1997 attributed the shooting to a deranged individual working alone. We later come to find out the story of Abu Kamal being suicidal over the loss of money was a cover story that the family put out at the insistence of the Palestinian Authority.

But in a stunning admission, Kamal’s 48-year-old daughter Linda told the Daily News that her dad wanted to punish the U.S. for supporting Israel – and revealed her mom’s 1997 account was a cover story crafted by the Palestinian Authority. “A Palestinian Authority official advised us to say the attack was not for political reasons because that would harm the peace agreement with Israel,” she told The News on Friday. “We didn’t know that he was martyred for patriotic motivations, so we repeated what we were told to do.”

But three days after the shootings, Kamal’s family got a copy of a letter that was found on his body, they said. The letter said he planned the violence as a political statement, his daughter said. “When we wanted to clarify that to the media, nobody listened to us,” she said. “His goal was patriotic. He wanted to take revenge from the Americans, the British, the French and the Israelis.”

She said the family became certain that he carried out the attack for political reasons after reading his diary. “He wrote that after he raised his children and made sure that his family was all right he decided to avenge in the highest building in America to make sure they get his message,” said Linda, who works for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. She said her mom burned the diary, fearing that it would cause the family trouble.

If one re-reads the story from 1997 about Abu Kamal in the New York Times, you get inklings that he was more than just a suicidal investor despondent over his losses. While he was in Florida, the story says,

Ms. Gregory said that he was polite and stayed in his room a lot, occasionally going for a walk down the street, except when a young foreigner periodically came and picked him up. At night, he sometimes went to pray at a nearby religious center, the Islamic Society of Brevard.

He was also in contact with an old friend who worked for the Saudi Arabian Mission to the United Nations which may mean nothing but with the number of contacts between Saudis and jihadis I find it interesting.

To sum up, you have an angry Palestinian intent on jihad who had friends in both New York and Florida that committed a terrorist act in New York City. It is incredibly naive to believe that someone like Abu Kamal could not have obtained a firearm, legally or illegally, given his intent and resources. His young Islamic friend in Florida or his connected Saudi friend in NYC could have helped him obtain a gun one way or another. To blame gun laws is to ignore the reality of the situation which is that it is hard to stop any “lone wolf” terrorist intent on killing, who has allies, and who doesn’t care if he lives or not.

Unfortunately, the reality of these shootings will be continued to be ignored while the media pays homage to the new head of the Brady Campaign.

Linoge On NGVAC

Linoge at Walls of the City does an excellent job at dissecting and then eviscerating the “new” gun control group National Gun Victims Action Council. He looks at its leaders and then their overview of what they want to do.

As with all gun control groups, they will eventually tell you the truth about their aims. In this case, NGVAC says “Any sane gun law will lead to the government being able to take your guns away.”

Linoge calls this “a seven-inch, ivory-handled KA-BAR shoved between the third and fourth ribs of the dorsal side of “gun control” (which is a wonderful image in and of itself) and then continues:

Why? Simple: one of the favorite talking points of “gun control” extremists – especially when someone accurately observes that registration leads to confiscation – is that no modern “gun control” organization wants to take your guns away.

ORLY?

Well, then, thank you Elliot and thank you Andrew and thank you to the rest of the National Gun Victims Action Council for providing us such an easy counterpoint to that claim – after all, why would people so viciously obsessed with firearms and the demonization of them want the government to have the ability to take our firearms away if they did not actually want the government to do exactly that?

As one of Linoge’s commenters says that one would expect NGVAC “to at least obfuscate the message in a way that doesn’t offend anyone with two brain cells to rub together.”

Indeed.

Read Linoge’s whole post. It provides a logical antidote to the pablum put out by the gun prohibitionists.

The Stasi Comes To Newark

The German Democratic Republic or East Germany was ruled by the Communist Party with an iron hand until things began to break apart with glasnost and the fall of the Berlin Wall. To enforce the will of the Party was the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit aka the Stasi.

The longest tenured head of the Stasi was Erich Mielke who ran the state police from 1957 until 1989.

His network of 85,000 full-time domestic spies and 170,000 ‘voluntary’ informers kept tabs on millions of people. So many people collaborated with the Stasi that when the records were opened, it was discovered that in every public building, at least one of its members kept the Stasi informed about everything that happened within it.

In a move aimed at emulating Erich Mielke and the Stasi, Newark Mayor Cory Booker is now trying to build a network of spies in that New Jersey city to turn in their neighbors who have guns.

I guess it comes as no surprise that a mayor intent on emulating one of the worst features of the Stasi has won the 2009 Sarah Brady Visionary Award from the Brady Center.

Your Laws Mean Nothing To Me

When candidate Barack Obama was running for President in 2008 he was highly critical of then-President George W. Bush’s use of what are called signing statements. These are written pronouncements by a president when he signs a bill into law. From Wikipedia.org:

A study released by then-Assistant Attorney General, 1993–1996, Walter Dellinger[3] grouped signing statements into three categories:

Constitutional: asserts that the law is constitutionally defective in order to guide executive agencies in limiting its implementation;
Political: defines vague terms in the law to guide executive agencies in its implementation as written;
Rhetorical: uses the signing of the bill to mobilize political constituencies.

In recent usage, the phrase “signing statement” has referred mostly to statements relating to constitutional matters that direct executive agencies to apply the law according to the president’s interpretation of the Constitution.

Here is candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail in 2008 responding to a question about signing statements.

That was then and this is now.

Two days before Christmas, President Obama was presented with HR 2055 – the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 – and he signed it. He also concurrently released a presidential memoranda or signing statement saying he objected to parts of it. From the political newspaper The Hill:

President Obama said Friday he will not be bound by at least 20 policy riders in the 2012 omnibus bill funding the government, including provisions pertaining to Guantanamo Bay and gun control.

After he signed the omnibus into law Friday, the White House released a concurrent signing statement saying Obama will object to portions of the legislation on constitutional grounds.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 is a 486 page document that contained Congressional appropriations for most agencies and departments of the Executive Branch. Contained within it were three provisions that are considered wins for gun owners. The NRA-ILA released a statement on these provisions that said in part:

Stopping Your Tax Dollars From Funding Anti-Gun Studies

One of the protections expanded and strengthened can be found in Sec. 218 of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education (Labor-H) division of the bill. This section prevents the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from using taxpayer dollars to promulgate junk science designed to paint legal gun ownership as a public health hazard. Since 2002, the NIH has spent nearly $5 million on this “research” even though their counterparts at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have been prevented from funding similar studies since being blocked in 1996 by a NRA-backed provision.

No Tax Dollars to Lobby and Promote Gun Control

The second is a new NRA-backed provision that is found in Sec. 503 of the Labor-H division. This section prevents federal funds from being used for lobbying efforts designed to support or defeat the passage of legislation being considered by Congress, or any state or local legislative body. Too often, community action groups are utilizing federal money to lobby for increased regulation of firearms including trigger locks, bans on semi-automatic rifles, regulated magazine capacity, etc. This funding subverts the Second Amendment and allows anti-gun Administrations to fund grassroots gun control efforts using taxpayer dollars. We are grateful that H.R. 2055 prohibits further use of this gun control scheme.

Protecting Historic Firearms and Spent Brass Casings from Destruction

Finally, a long-standing provision, found in Department of Defense (DOD) Sec. 8017 division A, preserves the opportunity for American gun owners to purchase surplus firearms that are no longer of use to the U.S. military. This includes M-1 Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles and M-1911 pistols. Starting in 1979, different versions of this language have prevented these firearms from being needlessly destroyed. In 2009, Congress amended this language at the urging of the NRA to prevent the destruction of spent brass casings, a boon for gun owners and reloaders concerned about the rising price of ammunition.

According to the signing statement, Obama specifically said he would not be bound by the first of these provisions:

Additional provisions in this bill, including section 8013 of Division A and section 218 of Division F, purport to restrict the use of funds to advance certain legislative positions. I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient.

Section 218 which relates to the funding of the National Institutes of Health says:

SEC. 218. None of the funds made available in this title may
be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.

So again we see now-President Obama doing things which then-candidate Obama criticized President George W. Bush for doing. In this case, using signing statements to modify implementation of Congressional actions. Moreover, he appears to be making good on his earlier promise to Sarah Brady to conduct gun control policies under the radar.

UPDATE: Here are a couple of more takes on Obama’s contentions in his signing statement.

From Dave Hardy: Obama Discovers the Constitution

From Sebastian: Not Reading the Same Constitution