Uncategorized

The Debate Gun Question

October 17, 2012 by

I was a bit surprised that the issue of firearms even came up in the debate last night as I would have thought the Democrats wouldn’t want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. I wasn’t surprised by Obama’s answer but was pleased that Romney did try to bring up Operation Fast and Furious before being cut-off by CNN’s Chief hack Political Correspondent Candy Crowley though he didn’t push it far enough.

The questioner, identified as Nina E. Gonzalez, is probably this woman – Nina Fedirko-Gonzalez, Licensed Clinical Social Worker. The person on Facebook appears to be the same person as in the Media Matters’ picture from the debate. As far as I can tell, she is not a contributor to any candidate in state, local, or national elections. I checked the NY State campaign contribution database, OpenSecrets.org, and the Federal Elections Commission.

If you read the transcript below you will see that both candidates are relatively ignorant about firearms. Romney said automatic weapons are illegal which they aren’t and Obama conflated semi-auto weapons with cosmetic similarities into full-auto/select-fire military-grade firearms. The best I can say about it is that Obama come out in favor of a new AWB and Romney said we don’t need new laws as well as merely mentioned Operation Fast and Furious. As to Romney and gun bills in Massachusetts, here is what the Gun Owners Action League said about it in 2007.

QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in
2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of
criminals. What has your administration done or planned to do to limit
the availability of assault weapons?



OBAMA: We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I
believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting
and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect
themselves.



But there have been too many instances during the course of my
presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody.
Most recently out in Aurora. You know, just a couple of weeks ago,
actually, probably about a month, I saw a mother, who I had met at the
bedside of her son, who had been shot in that theater.



And her son had been shot through the head. And we spent some time, and
we said a prayer and, remarkably, about two months later, this young man
and his mom showed up, and he looked unbelievable, good as new.



But there were a lot of families who didn’t have that good fortune and whose sons or daughters or husbands didn’t survive.



So my belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve already
got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals,
those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of
background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to
enforcement.



But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for
soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m
trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the
violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault
weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other
sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago,
there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re
using cheap hand guns.



And so what can we do to intervene, to make sure that young people have
opportunity; that our schools are working; that if there’s violence on
the streets, that working with faith groups and law enforcement, we can
catch it before it gets out of control.



And so what I want is a — is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is
seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing
numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. But part of
it is also going deeper and seeing if we can get into these communities
and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur.



CROWLEY: Governor Romney, the question is about assault weapons, AK-47s.



ROMNEY: Yeah, I’m not in favor of new pieces of legislation on — on
guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal. We, of course,
don’t want to have automatic weapons, and that’s already illegal in
this country to have automatic weapons. What I believe is we have to do,
as the president mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which
is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have, and to
change the culture of violence that we have.



And you ask how — how are we going to do that? And there are a number
of things. He mentioned good schools. I totally agree. We were able to
drive our schools to be number one in the nation in my state. And I
believe if we do a better job in education, we’ll — we’ll give people
the — the hope and opportunity they deserve and perhaps less violence
from that. But let me mention another thing. And that is parents. We
need moms and dads, helping to raise kids. Wherever possible the — the
benefit of having two parents in the home, and that’s not always
possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh to tell our
kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting
married to someone, that’s a great idea.



Because if there’s a two parent family, the prospect of living in
poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will —
will be able to achieve increase dramatically. So we can make changes
in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence and
give them opportunity, and bring them in the American system. The —
the greatest failure we’ve had with regards to — to gun violence in
some respects is what — what is known as Fast and Furious. Which was a
program under this administration, and how it worked exactly I think we
don’t know precisely, where thousands of automatic, and AK-47 type
weapons were — were given to people that ultimately gave them to — to
drug lords.



They used those weapons against — against their own citizens and killed
Americans with them. And this was a — this was a program of the
government. For what purpose it was put in place, I can’t imagine. But
it’s one of the great tragedies related to violence in our society which
has occurred during this administration. Which I think the American
people would like to understand fully, it’s been investigated to a
degree, but — but the administration has carried out executive
privilege to prevent all of the information from coming out.



I’d like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was
behind it, why it led to the violence, thousands of guns going to
Mexican drug lords.


OBAMA: Candy?



CROWLEY: Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these
assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned.



I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in
Massachusetts, obviously, with this question, you no longer do support
that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with
these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?



ROMNEY: Well, Candy, actually, in my state, the pro-gun folks and the
anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation.
And it’s referred to as an assault weapon ban, but it had, at the
signing of the bill, both the pro-gun and the anti-gun people came
together, because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted.



There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that haven’t previously
been available and so forth, so it was a mutually agreed- upon piece of
legislation. That’s what we need more of, Candy. What we have right now
in Washington is a place that’s gridlocked.



CROWLEY: So I could — if you could get people to agree to it, you would be for it?



ROMNEY: We have —



OBAMA: Candy?



ROMNEY: — we haven’t had the leadership in Washington to work on a
bipartisan basis. I was able to do that in my state and bring these two
together.



CROWLEY: Quickly, Mr. President.



OBAMA: The — first of all, I think Governor Romney was for an assault
weapons ban before he was against it. And he said that the reason he
changed his mind was, in part, because he was seeking the endorsement of
the National Rifle Association. So that’s on the record.



But I think that one area we agree on is the important of parents and
the importance of schools, because I do believe that if our young people
have opportunity, then they are less likely to engage in these kinds of
violent acts. We’re not going to eliminate everybody who is mentally
disturbed and we have got to make sure they don’t get weapons.



OBAMA: because I do believe that if our young people have opportunity,
then they’re less likely to engage in these kind of violent acts.



We’re not going to eliminate everybody who is mentally disturbed, and
we’ve got to make sure they don’t get weapons. But we can make a
difference in terms ensuring that every young person in America,
regardless of where they come from, what they look like, have a chance
to succeed.



And, Candy, we haven’t had a chance to talk about education much, but I
think it is very important to understand that the reforms we’ve put in
place, working with 46 governors around the country, are seeing schools
that are some of the ones that are the toughest for kids starting to
succeed. We’re starting to see gains in math and science.



When it comes to community colleges, we are setting up programs,
including with Nassau Community College, to retrain workers, including
young people who may have dropped out of school but now are getting
another chance, training them for the jobs that exist right now.



And in fact, employers are looking for skilled workers. And so we’re
matching them up. Giving them access to higher education. As I said, we
have made sure that millions of young people are able to get an
education that they weren’t able to get before.



Now…



CROWLEY: Mr. President, I have to — I have to move you along here. You said you wanted to…



(CROSSTALK)



CROWLEY: We need to do it here.



OBAMA: But — but it’ll — it’ll — it’ll be…



(CROSSTALK)



OBAMA: … just one second.



CROWLEY: One…



OBAMA: Because — because this is important. This is part of the choice in this election.



When Governor Romney was asked whether teachers, hiring more teachers
was important to growing our economy, Governor Romney said that doesn’t
grow our economy.



When — when he was asked would class size…



(CROSSTALK)



CROWLEY: The question, Mr. President, was guns here, so I need to move us along.



OBAMA: I understand.



CROWLEY: You know, the question was guns. So let me — let me bring in another…



OBAMA: But this will make a difference in terms of whether or not we can move this economy forward for these young people…



CROWLEY: I understand.


OBAMA: … and reduce our violence.


CROWLEY: OK. Thank you so much.

Uncategorized

This Billboard Should Be Across The Street From The White House

October 17, 2012 by 3 Comments

A group called MurderedMexicans.org is sponsoring a billboard that asks “Who cares about a few hundred” murdered Mexicans. I don’t know if they have other billboards up but the one below is in Clovis, New Mexico on S. Prince Street. This picture comes from a post on CleanUpATF.org.

This website along with its Spanish language version lays out the details of Operation Fast and Furious. It urges people to call their Congressman but especially those on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It says to thank those asking the tough questions of ATF and the Justice Department and to ask those defending Attorney General Eric Holder “why they are defending such a despicable person”.

Not having heard of this group, I checked Network Solutions and their Whois tool and found that the website was registered in March of 2012 to Charles Abernathy.

An Internet search turns up a story from the Portales News-Tribune about Abernathy and the billboard.

Charles Abernathy, 47, said the website is a grassroots effort to
hold those responsible for the Fast and Furious fiasco, in which a
border patrol official was killed.


He said the “murdered Mexicans” refers to the hundreds who were killed by weapons supplied to Mexican Drug Cartel leaders through a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms sting.


Abernathy said he chose the words for their shock value.


“I’m sure some people are offended,” said Abernathy, an oil field truck
driver from Houston. “I think if they use that and end up doing research
over the issues. …. This is what I’m trying to accomplish; people
don’t know about this and now they do.”

The story points out that some in Clovis were offended by the billboard until they went to the website. They do wish he’d chosen his wording a little differently. Abernathy is also paying for digital billboards in Odessa and Lubbock, Texas. He says it is a grassroots effort and he is paying for it out of his own pocket.

 More power to people like Charles Abernathy who put their money behind their convictions.

Uncategorized

CCRKBA Says Justice Steven’s Comments Illustrate Importance Of This Election

October 16, 2012 by 2 Comments

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens was the speaker at a luncheon sponsored by the Brady Campaign on Monday. In his speech, he said he was astounded that Congress hadn’t taken steps to address “gun violence” (sic).

In reaction and to illustrate the importance of this election for both the Second Amendment and the future direction of the Supreme Court, Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms released this statement:

BELLEVUE, WA – Monday’s high-profile prodding by retired Supreme
Court Justice John Paul Stevens for Congress to do something, and for
presidential candidates to say something, about gun control proves the
importance of who is in the White House and the U.S. Senate to make and
confirm high court nominations, the Citizens Committee for the Right to
Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Reuters reported that the retired justice was the speaker at Monday’s
luncheon hosted by the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Stevens wrote dissenting opinions on both the 2008 Heller ruling and
the 2010 McDonald decision, both of which affirmed that the Second
Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms.

“In both of his dissents,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb,
“Justice Stevens contended that the right to keep and bear arms was
limited to state militia service. It was, and remains, an astonishing
position on a fundamental civil right.

“What Justice Stevens’ speech clearly underscores,” he continued, “is
the critical importance of who is president, not just for the next four
years, but whenever a vacancy occurs on the high court. Imagine if
Justice Stevens’ opinion had prevailed.”

Stevens’ dissent in the Heller case was heavily criticized by the
majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia. The majority ruling
described Stevens’ arguments as “simply wrong,” and at one point – when
addressing Stevens’ history of the Second Amendment – said that he
“flatly misreads the historical record.”

“Stevens’ replacement on the Supreme Court was liberal Elena Kagan,”
Gottlieb noted. “A liberal, anti-gun majority could easily narrow,
rather than expand, the scope of our Second Amendment. That’s why it is,
and always will be, important for gun owners to have a pro-gun-rights
president and pro-gun majority in the Senate, especially on the
Judiciary Committee.”

To see more on Steven’s speech, Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned has video of the event.

Uncategorized

Quote Of The Day

October 16, 2012 by

Today’s quote of the day comes from historian and classicist Victor Davis Hanson. To my mind, Hanson is one of the most astute observers in America.

From his post in the National Review Online entitled “A Presidency Squandered” in which he discusses all the advantages and goodwill that Barack Obama had going for him when he entered office in 2009.


And what happened?


Barack Obama chose to ram down the nation’s throat a polarizing,
statist agenda, energized by the sort of hardball politics he had
learned in Chicago. Rather than bring the races, classes, and genders
together, he gave us an us-versus-them crusade against the “1
percenters” and the job creators who had not “paid their fair share,”
accusations of a Republican “war on women,” and the worst racial
polarization in modern memory. Statesmanship degenerated into chronic
blame-gaming and “Bush did it,” as he piled up over $5 trillion in new
debt.  Financial sobriety was abandoned in favor of creating new
entitlement constituencies, and job creation was deemed far less
important than nationalizing the health-care system.


And so here we are, three weeks before the election, with a
squandered presidency and a president desperately seeking reelection not
by defending his record, but by demonizing his predecessor, his
opponent — and half of the country.


What, then, was Obama’s first term?


Jimmy Carter’s ends justifying Richard Nixon’s means.

That is indeed a bad combination – Carter’s ineffectiveness combined with Nixon’s paranoia and viciousness. God help us if he is returned for a second term.

Uncategorized

Understand Flash Sight Picture

October 16, 2012 by

In another of the National Shooting Sports Foundation short training videos, Bob Whaley of Gunsite Academy discusses flash sight picture and the importance of using your sights at all times (except shooting from retention).

The flash sight picture is part of the Modern Technique promulgated by Col. Jeff Cooper. It is simply a glance at the front sight which confirms your aim as set up by your grip and stance. Whaley emphasizes that in stressful situations people revert to their training. If you train to always use your sights – even just a flash sight picture – you will use them in stressful situations. The flash sight picture is the final confirmation that you are on target before you press the trigger.

As Whaley makes clear at the beginning of the video every bullet that leaves your gun will have a 100% hit ratio. It is up to you whether it hits the intended target or something you’d rather not hit.

Uncategorized

Fauxcahontas Isn’t Paying Her Fair Share

October 15, 2012 by 4 Comments

Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren, the Democratic nominee for the US Senate from Massachusetts, has a high six-figure income and a net worth in the neighborhood of $14 million or so. She is said to have created the “intellectual foundation” such as it is for the Occupy Wall Street movement. She also claims based upon family lore to be 1/32 Cherokee Indian.

Thus, when I read this morning in Professor William Jacobson’s Legal Insurrection blog that she had obtained fee waivers from at least 50 judicial districts for the use of the federal Pacer system, I was pissed.

But Warren, who berates factory owners, obtained fee waivers for access to the bankruptcy docket maintained by the federal PACER system, for which others have to pay.
.
Warren took advantage of a policy at PACER which provides for fee waivers for academic research based on her standing as a law professor….
.
It is easy to surmise that Warren saved thousands of dollars, maybe even more, over the course of her research, by not having to pay the PACER fees that all other users have to pay.
.
The savings were a result of her representations that the research was being done for academic purposes. 

Why am I pissed? Because I have been using the Pacer system to download court records, filings, opinions, etc. since I started this blog. I have paid my fair share of fees to use this system and there have been quarters where the amount ran over $100. I like to think that my posts on the various Second Amendment cases serve to educate readers. However, unlike Warren I don’t make close to $900K a year or have assets of over $14 million. Moreover, I don’t get grant funding which pays the fees as well as the cost of law clerks to assist in the research. I do this because it is fun and because it helps to advance, in a small way, our rights.

As to Warren’s claim of being a Cherokee Indian, I have clients who are enrolled members of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and her supposed 1/32nd wouldn’t cut it with them. The Eastern Band are those Cherokee who lived so deep in the mountains that they were able to avoid the forced removal. I find it insulting that someone who’s ancester is more likely to have helped in the removal of the Cherokee from the mountains around me and put them on The Trail of Tears dares to claim kinship with them.

Uncategorized

Gun Shows In Chicago?

October 15, 2012 by 7 Comments

A posting in today’s The Shooting Wire announcing the Chicagoland Gun Show caught my eye.

Outdoor Sports Group (OSG) is proud to announce the first ever Chicagoland Gun Show January 23-27, 2013 at the Donald E. Stephens Convention Center in Rosemont Illinois.

The Chicagoland Gun Show will be co-located with the Chicago Outdoor Sports Show which continues a 30 + year tradition of sports shows gracing the shores of Lake Michigan and providing the Greater Chicagoland area a break from cabin fever.

While there are other shows in the vicinity of Chicago, for example shows in Wheaton and Lakemoor, I couldn’t find any that were actually being held in Cook County unlike this show. Rosemont is outside the city limits of Chicago near O’Hare Airport.

I like the fact that they are co-locating the gun show with the outdoor sports show as it should bring higher traffic to the gun show. Given the onerous restrictions on gun ownership and even gun stores in Chicago, I’m guessing there might be some pent-up demand to go someplace where you can actually “touch and feel” a firearm and, with the proper documentation, buy a firearm.

I know the promoters are calling this the “first ever Chicagoland Gun Show” but I wonder if this is hyperbole. If any readers in the Chicago area know of gun shows in Cook County, either current or in the distant past, I’d love to know about it. You can post the info in the comments section.

Uncategorized

A Weekend Tab Clearing

October 15, 2012 by 3 Comments

The attendance of Bitter and Sebastian at the NRA’s legal seminar in Philadelphia has attracted protesters from Heeding God’s Call. Or maybe it is just because the organization doesn’t like the Second Amendment. Whatever.  Sebastian has pictures of the massive number of gun prohibitionists protesting at the event.

DVDs, magazines, and internet gun forums are not a substitute for actual firearms training. Intuitively we know this but most of us procrastinate and/or make excuses. Trainer Rob Tackett in a post entitled “Less than 1/110 of a %” examines the excuses and issues this challenge:

Save.  Don’t work on instant gratification and move forward with training instead of buying.


Stop Using Excuses


Its time folks.  Its time for all the internet time to be turned into
training time.  Everyone is releasing their 2013 schedules this month
and next.  I challenge you to take the first step to better yourself.
 Take a class. Find out more about yourself and your true capability.


Stop living as a Tactical Teddy and become a shooter.

 Tam has her usual trenchant observations about the Glock factory sights and the process to replace them.

Linoge has now created a table of contents to the uber-post about TTAG. It makes it much easier to read the individual sections.

Thirdpower has a good post up about those who claim that Obama really hasn’t moved against gun rights in his first term.

Ron Larimer at When the Balloon Goes Up opens his store tomorrow which will carry EDC gear, preparedness items, and range gear. The store is meant to complement the stuff he has been writing about on his blog.

Speaking of stores, Average Joe has posted his suggestions for newbies (and not so newbies) with regard to gun shop and range etiquette. It puts on paper what he discussed with Doc Wesson on a recent Gun Nation Podcast.

Finally, keep Mike Vanderboegh in your prayers. David Codrea has an update here and Mike reported he entered the hospital on Friday due to minor strokes in his cerebellum as well as brain stem. At the link David provides an address where you can send Mike a get well card.