Uncategorized

If They Are Going To Call Us Insurrectionists, Might As Well Get The T-Shirt

February 22, 2012 by 3 Comments

The gun prohibitionists love to characterize those of us who care about our Second Amendment rights as “insurrectionists”. This is especially true of Ladd Everitt and Josh Horwitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic).

Frankly, if standing up for one’s Constitutional rights makes one an “insurrectionist” then I wear their epithet proudly. So proudly in fact that I bought the T-shirt.

The quotation on the shirt is from Thomas Jefferson and reads, “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” That works for me.

The T-shirt is available from Gadsden and Culpepper in black and coyote for $12 plus shipping.

And for the FTC bureaucrats who have too much time on their hands, my only relationship with Gadsden and Culpepper is as a customer and I bought my coyote Militia of One T-shirt at retail.

Uncategorized

More On The Budget Cuts For The Federal Flight Deck Officer Program

February 22, 2012 by

Cam Edwards of NRA News interviewed Mike Karn of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Association and Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations on Monday about the budget cuts for the FFDO program. Karn made some interesting points about the program and its cost efficiency.

First, each pilot who enrolls in the program spends approximately $10,000 of their own money to participate.

Second, these cuts would mean no new pilots would be enrolled in the program and it calls into question what happens when they have to requalify.

Third, having multiple layers of defense against terrorists and air pirates works better than the Maginot Line defense that the TSA proposes (my words.)

Finally, it costs about $15 per flight to have a FFDO on board versus about $3,000 to protect the flight with an Air Marshall.

Uncategorized

In California, Much Ado About Nothing

February 22, 2012 by 4 Comments

The Humane Society of the United States’ California branch is all bent out of shape because the President of the California Fish and Game Commission, Dan Richards, went mountain lion hunting in Idaho. While mountain lion hunting has been prohibited in California since 1990, it is perfectly legal in Idaho where Mr. Richards also owns a cabin. Indeed, California is the only state from the Rockies to the Pacific that bans hunting of mountain lions. The prohibition that began in 1990 was not the result of scientific study by wildlife biologists but rather the result of Proposition 117.

Mr. Richards had posted this picture and story in the Western Outdoor News about his hunting trip to Idaho.

NEW COMMISSION PRESIDENT CELEBRATES A SUCCESSFUL HUNT – California Fish and Game commissioner Dan W. Richards travelled deep into the wicked terrain of Idaho’s Flying B Ranch to fulfill a long-held goal. “It was the most physically exhausting hunt of my lifetime. Eight hours of cold weather hiking in very difficult terrain. I told the guides I appreciated the hard work. They were unbelievably professional, first class all the way,” he said. Richards said he took the big cat over iron sights using a Winchester Centennial lever action .45 carbine. Asked about California’s mountain lion moratorium, Richards didn’t hesitate. “I’m glad it’s legal in Idaho.”

Photo courtesy of Dan Richards

This prompted the Humane Society of the US-California chapter to start a campaign to get Mr. Richards removed. They posted this on their Facebook page:

Posing with this dead mountain lion is California’s new Fish and Game commission president Dan Richards. Since mountain lions are protected in our state, he went to Idaho to bag this trophy. As a hunter friend of mine said when he saw this photo, “That’s not right. You don’t kill what you don’t eat.” I agree. If you do too, drop a (polite) email to the folks at the Fish and Game Commission and ask for a new president: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/contact/

Dan Richards is what these so-called environmental and animal rights groups hate – a Republican hunter who is a life member of the NRA who refuses to bend to their will.

A San Bernardino County Republican appointed to the five-member commission by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2008, Richards has been its most outspoken advocate for expanding hunting, often clashing with environmental and animal welfare groups.

As president, Richards can set the commission’s agenda on a range of issues including endangered species protections, ocean fishing rules and all types of hunting regulation from rabbits to black bears. If he were to bring the dead mountain lion back to California from Idaho, he would be in violation of state law.

As such, given our new political climate, he must be destroyed. Unfortunately, they have willing allies in the media and with certain Democratic legislators. The news report below, while it emphasizes the hunt was legal, devotes most of its time to Jennifer Fearing of HSUS-California. Ms. Fearing has compared Richards’ legal hunt to an American drug czar using drugs in a country where it was legal.

And, according to a report in the Mercury News, Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, chairman of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, may introduce a resolution in the California Assembly to have Richards removed. Richards cannot be removed by Gov. Jerry Brown but can be removed from office by a majority vote of both houses of the California legislature.

“He’s thumbing his nose at California law,” Huffman said. “He’s mocking it. Frankly, I think he should face the music and step down. He’s done something that’s a disgrace to his position and to responsible hunters in California.”

The comments by Assemblyman Huffman are a joke. What Mr. Richards did would be the equivalent of me going to the Rockies to hunt elk. While elk have been reintroduced to the Smoky Mountains, they are a protected species.

The mountain lion or cougar is an apex predator. While humans may be above it in the predatory hierarchy, as many reports show, the mountain lion will attack humans. They are not the big kitty that fears man and just wants to be left to live its life in peace as the anti-hunting groups would have you believe.

I, for one, shed no false tears of moral outrage over Dan Richards killing a mountain lion after a long and arduous hunt. Rather I would congratulate him on his successful hunt and nice trophy.

UPDATE: The Outdoor Wire today published an editorial from Bill Karr of the Western Outdoor News in response to the HSUS campaign to remove Dan Richards. It is an excellent read and points out that Jennifer Fearing of the HSUS-California is nothing but a carpetbagger. She arrived in California 3 years ago from the DC headquarters of HSUS. Other animal rights activists are siding with Richards on this one.

This all comes from two people, and an organization, that has had no physical presence in California whatsoever until the past few years. The HSUS headquarters is in Washington, D.C., and that is, in fact, where the California head of HSUS, Jennifer Fearing, came from just 3 years ago to try and influence California politics. And the crying shame is, they found some success with the gullible, left-leaning California majority.

It seems to me, though, that HSUS has gone way out on a limb with this one, though. Even other animal rights activists disagree with HSUS. In comments to the San Jose Mercury News, Eric Mills, Coordinator for Action for Animals out of Oakland had this to say about Richards: “The anger here is misplaced. Commissioner Dan Richards did nothing illegal. Mountain lion hunting is not against the law in Idaho. Nor was this a ‘canned’ hunt, as some have claimed. Dan Richards is not the enemy. He’s an avid outdoorsman, hunter and fisherman, which has been well-known for years. No one has a right to be surprised by this hunt.”

Mills even went so far as to say “I’ve found him to be honest, thoughtful, articulate, fair and outspoken.”

Uncategorized

I’ve Done My Part – Have You?

February 21, 2012 by

The team over at Ammo.net has come up with a great infographic showing the rise in gun and ammo sales for the past few years. It is part of a report called “The Greatest Gun Salesman In America: President Barack Obama.” With this sort of success, you’d think Obama would be touting his contribution to the growth of a $4 billion industry but, of course, he hasn’t.

The Greatest Gun Salesman In America: President Barack Obama [INFOGRAPHIC]
Via: Ammo.net

Uncategorized

A Review Of The Mossberg MVP

February 21, 2012 by 1 Comment

The Mossberg MVP rifle caught my eye at the 2011 NRA Annual Meeting. Like the Ruger Gunsite Scout, it is a bolt-action rifle that uses detachable magazines. Unlike the Ruger, the MVP takes off-the-shelf AR-15 magazines. Later this year, Mossberg is supposed to release a shorter barreled Scout version of the MVP. Not that I need another rifle in .223 or even another varmint rifle but this one intrigues me.

This video review is from the Kentucky Gun Company. I don’t know these folks but they seem to do a good job reviewing the rifle. I just wish they didn’t have their store logo cluttering up the screen so much.

One thing that caught my eye was the difference in the grouping of the Prvi Partisan ammo versus the Remington UMC. I think I’ll be buying some of the Prvi Partisan to test out.

Uncategorized

Cutting The Federal Flight Deck Officer Program Because TSA Is So Good?

February 20, 2012 by 7 Comments

In the FY 2013 Federal Budget, the Obama Administration proposes to cut $13 million from the Federal Flight Deck Officer program. This is the program which trains those airline pilots that volunteer and qualify to be armed in the cockpit. The current funding for FY 2012 is $25 million.

The justification for this cut is that improvements in TSA procedures have “enhanced” airline security to the point where the FFDO program is barely needed.

Justification

The Administration proposes to reduce funding for the FFDO program (i.e., deputized, armed pilots) in 2013. As the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) focuses its aviation security activities on programs that mitigate the highest amount of risk at the lowest cost, the Budget has prioritized funding in the same manner. The voluntary FFDO program was created as a “last defense” layer of security at a time when comprehensive aviation screening and other physical security measures were not fully developed or deployed on a system-wide basis. Since 2001, however, there have been a number of enhancements to aviation security. TSA now conducts 100 percent screening of all passengers and their carryon items, has overseen installation of reinforced and locking cockpit doors on aircraft that operate in U.S. airspace, and has increased passenger and flight crew awareness to address security risks. Combined, these improvements have greatly lowered the chances of unauthorized cockpit access and represent a comprehensive and redundant risk-mitigation strategy that begins well before passengers board the aircraft.

Are we talking about the same TSA? The one that engages in security kabuki theater while a number of its agents have been found to have been stealing from checked luggage including firearms. If they are corrupt enough to steal, they are corrupt enough to be able to be bribed by terrorists.

If TSA has really made flying so safe, then why not go the whole distance and discontinue the FFDO program entirely? Either the program is needed or it isn’t. I, for one, think having armed flight crew is an excellent idea and more cost effective than many of the procedures currently used by TSA.

Uncategorized

Taking Liberties With The Law

February 20, 2012 by 2 Comments

When the North Carolina General Assembly passed the omnibus HB 650 which contained many changes in the state’s gun laws, they included a provision that would allow concealed carry in state, municipal, and county parks. However, thanks to an amendment by former Rep. David Guice (R-Transylvania) they allowed cities and counties to continue to ban concealed carry at recreational facilities if they so chose. Guice justified the exemption for recreational facilities by saying “I’ve seen firsthand the violence on the Little League field.”

From Section 21.b.:

A unit of local government may adopt an ordinance to prohibit, by posting, the carrying of a concealed handgun on municipal and county recreational facilities that are specifically identified by the unit of local government. If a unit of local government adopts such an ordinance with regard to recreational facilities, then the concealed handgun permittee may, nevertheless, secure the handgun in a locked vehicle within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within or on the motor vehicle. For purposes of this section, the term “recreational facilities” includes only the following: a playground, an athletic field, a swimming pool, and an athletic facility.“

As can be seen above, the law was very specific as to what constituted a “recreational facility”. Moreover, the prohibition applies only to that facility and not to the park within it resides.

Unfortunately, certain cities within North Carolina have started to take liberties with this exemption.The latest to do so is the City of Greensboro. The Greensboro City Council will consider an ordinance amending their law on Tuesday. According to the supporting memoranda from city staff, they are construing the exemption to include the entire park in which the recreational facility is located. The ordinance itself is somewhat vague though given how it is presented by city staff I think it may be reasonable to expect they mean the whole park.

Grass Roots North Carolina has issued an alert on the changes in Greensboro.

Like some others, Greensboro is being rather creative in their reading of a clearly laid out law. The ordinance they will be considering Tuesday night takes the following interesting liberties with the new law:

  1. It bans whole parks which *contain* recreational facilities;
  2. Tries to say the legislature “changed” the word “parks” to “recreational facilities;” and
  3. It fails to specifically name the “recreational facilities” where guns are banned.


If we were too polite with the above, let us be clearer. These are the ways they will be BREAKING THE LAW if allowed to go forward with this plan. Now in the creative logic they are applying in reaching these conclusions, they may not even be aware that they will be breaking the law. It is up to you to make them aware of this.

They are asking for people to contact Greensboro City Council to make their displeasure known and the link above has a pre-written message.

I can’t say I’m surprised by the actions of the Greensboro City Council. I grew up in the city and it has changed significantly since I left it after college. Though I still own the house I grew up in, the author Thomas Wolfe was right when he said you can’t go home again.

Uncategorized

Breitbart On The Media Ignoring Operation Fast And Furious

February 19, 2012 by 2 Comments

Andrew Breitbart was interviewed by Ginni Thomas (Mrs. Clarence Thomas) for the Daily Caller regarding Operation Fast and Furious.

Fast and Furious happened, Breitbart explained, “for the purposes of creating a narrative that they could use in America to try and thwart our Second Amendment constitutional rights. I don’t think the most sinister screenwriter could imagine a government that would abide by that, let alone the media to cover that up.”

A teaser for the full interview is below. The article notes the full interview will be available on Monday.

Uncategorized

NRA-ILA On Obama’s FY2013 Budget

February 18, 2012 by 1 Comment

When President Obama told Sarah Brady that he planned to fly under the radar on gun control, he wasn’t kidding. Having looked at the Federal Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 for the last couple of days, I can assure you that the average person would have a hard time finding what is buried in it.

However, the NRA-ILA has people on staff that have the expertise to muddle through the budget. Below is their response posted yesterday:

Barack Obama’s careful effort to hide his anti-Second Amendment agenda is starting to come undone. The latest evidence is found in the budget he sent to Congress this past week.

As we reported last fall, NRA was very successful in having a number of provisions included in the annual spending bills that are important protections for our rights. Obama grudgingly signed the Fiscal Year 2012 spending bills that contained those “riders,” although in his signing statement, he announced his intent to defy some. Now, in Obama’s FY 2013 budget, he proposes eliminating many of them outright.

One of the most egregious is the deletion of a provision first added for FY 2012 that prohibits any future “Fast & Furious” style operations. In an official summary, the administration says the restriction is “not necessary.”

“Not necessary”? Obama may trust Eric Holder and the senior officials at the Department of Justice, but Congress and the American people certainly should not. Holder’s refusal to fully cooperate with congressional investigations is proof enough that this sort of reckless operation should be specifically banned.

Two other provisions first passed for FY 2012 were also put on the chopping block. One prohibits a ban on the importation of shotguns deemed by the BATFE to be non-“sporting.” Congress passed this to block an Obama administration plan to expand the use of the “sporting purposes” test once again, this time to ban the importation of many popular defensive, target shooting and hunting shotguns. Removing this provision is clearly a first step toward implementing a new import ban.

The other new provision for 2012 was a ban on the use of tax dollars to lobby for new gun laws. Obama signaled that he would take this step when he announced at the bill signing for the 2012 legislation that he and his administration would not be bound by that provision. And in his budget, Obama would get rid of that restriction entirely.

Another provision deleted was a prohibition on the use of funds for anti-gun research at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control. These prohibitions have been passed by Congress to stop these groups from funding junk science “studies” in support of new restrictions on gun rights.

Obama also wants to get rid of the provision that stops the Department of Defense from destroying surplus M1 Garands and M1 carbines—a provision that has been in place for over 30 years. And he wants to drop a provision that stops the destruction of spent military brass. Without these protections, thousands of surplus rifles could be destroyed instead of being sold to law-abiding Americans through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and millions of recyclable brass cases will be melted down as scrap rather than being made available to reloaders.

There is good news for gun owners, though. No one—not even Obama or his closest allies—believe this budget will be passed, and it may not even be brought up for a vote.

So why oppose these provisions now? Is it an election-year signal to his anti-gun base voters? Or is he finally showing his true beliefs and giving up his pretense of support for the Second Amendment? Whatever the answer may be, gun owners should expect nothing but more anti-gun action on the part of the Obama Administration.