A Day That Will Live In Infamy, Year Two

On the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, let us remember those that died in the sneak attack.

We should also remember those veterans that survived the attack on it as well as those who enlisted in response to the attack. My Uncle John Sheridan was a freshman in college. He and a bunch of his friends skipped class on December 8, 1941 and joined the Navy. While most of his war was spent stateside, he finished WWII aboard the USS Bennington CV-20 as an ETM 3rd Class. Unlike many who enlisted that day, he survived the war, eventually got married, raised three sons, and passed away in 2008 at the age of 83.

My father’s draft papers from October 1940 say he was drafted for Army service in the “Hawaiian Department”. This was one of the War Department’s pre-WWII overseas units. As it was, my father never served in Hawaii but was assigned to what became the Caribbean Defense Command.

The generation that actually served in Pearl Harbor on that fateful day are rapidly passing away. The Pearl Harbor Veterans Survivors Associations estimates that only 2,700 veterans who served there that day are still alive out of the original 60,000 sailors, soldiers, and airmen stationed there on December 7th. 100 of these survivors will attend the ceremonies in Hawaii today.

For a good selection of pictures from Japanese and US Naval Archives, go here.

UPDATE: The Pearl Harbor Veterans Survivors Association will shut down at the end of this year according to a story in the New York Times. It is actually rather sad that what the Japanese Navy couldn’t do, the ravages of time will do.

UPDATE II: Bitter at Shall Not Be Questioned has some nice pictures from Pearl Harbor as well as links to actual AP news bulletins from Dec. 7, 1941.

North Carolina Cities Are Deliberately Ignoring The Letter And Spirit Of The Law

When the new omnibus gun laws went into effect on December 1st, one of the major changes was a provision that allowed concealed handgun permit holders to carry concealed in state, county, and municipal parks. An exception was made to allow cities and counties to continue to forbid concealed carry in recreational facilities which the statute defined as “includes only the following: a playground, an athletic field, a swimming pool, and an athletic facility.” The amendment with this weakening provision was proposed by Rep. David Guice (R-Brevard).

Many cities throughout North Carolina have chosen to amend their ordinances which previously had prohibited all firearms in city parks so as to continue to ban firearms in recreational facilities. Those that have not made changes will, for now, allow concealed carry in all parks and all facilities within the park.

Some cities have stayed close to the meaning of the law if they made changes and just as many have not. Probably the most egregious misreading of the law is in the city of Winston-Salem where they defined an athletic facility to include greenways, lakes, and walking trails. According to published reports, City Attorney Angela Carmon “said in public meetings that the state law did not define “athletic facilities.” The resolution approving the ordinance change is explicit in saying that they are defining the law as they saw fit.


Closer to me, the City of Asheville amended their ordinance on November 22nd as part of their consent agenda. While not going as far as Winston-Salem, it is obvious from staff reports that they made it as strict as possible.

This action complies with the City Council Strategic Operating Plan for Asheville to be safe and secure

Pro:
• Continues, to the fullest extent allowed by law, the prohibition of concealed
handguns on City property.

Con:
• Potential difficulty in enforcement.

 Asheville defines recreational facilities to include:

Recreational Facility means a playground, athletic field, swimming pool, or other recreation or athletic facility, owned or operated by the City of Asheville, together with any appurtenant premises including, but not limited to, locker rooms, seating areas, concession areas, enclosed areas, parking areas.

I think adding parking areas to the list of recreational facilities is somewhat problematic and could go beyond what is meant by the law. Nonetheless, state law does allow a concealed carry holder to leave their firearm in a locked car or locked area within the car.

Grass Roots North Carolina which was one of the prime movers behind getting carry in parks is not happy with how municipalities are trying to bend the law. An alert sent out tonight says they will be initiating legal action and are seeking plaintiffs in the cities of Winston-Salem, Kernersville, Greenville, and Smithfield. They will be adding more cities to that list as needed.

Of course, the gun prohibitionists at North Carolinians Against Gun Violence (sic) are pushing cities to go even further in their defiance of state law. According to the Asheville Citizen-Times:

They have been under criticism from North Carolinians Against Gun Violence, which is urging local governments to ban concealed handguns at athletic facilities, a move Asheville has made already.

“You’ve got a lot of intensity (at these events), a lot of emotion and anger, and one or more people are carrying a concealed weapon,” Roxane Kolar, the group’s executive director, said Monday. “That’s just a bad recipe.”

Asheville, and at least 19 other local governments, already have responded by passing laws banning concealed handguns at athletic fields, playgrounds and recreation areas, such as swimming pools.

I predict that cities that have played by the rules and are conservative in how they define recreational facilities will be OK and those cities like Winston-Salem who have played fast and loose with state law will be slapped down. In the end, the taxpayers of those cities will be the ones footing the bill and, in the meantime, they will be ones who will be left to the mercy of criminals. The other prediction I will make is that the blood won’t be running in the parks other than for skinned knees and assorted athletic injuries.

Cloture Rejected On Caitlin Halligan (updated)

The Senate rejected cloture on the filibuster of the confirmation of Caitlin Halligan to be a judge on the D.C. Circuit this afternoon. The vote was virtually a party line vote with every Democrat voting to invoke cloture and every Republican except Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voting against it. Hatch voted Present and Murkowski voted to invoke cloture. To invoke cloture would have required 60 votes Yea. The final tally was 54 Yeas, 45 Nays, and 1 Present.

How your senator voted is below.

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs —54
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs —45
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kirk (R-IL)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Present – 1
Hatch (R-UT)

UPDATE: Looking over the list of Democrats listed as voting for cloture, I see a few that have portrayed themselves as friends of the Second Amendment such as Senators Jim Webb (D-VA), Jon Tester (D-MT), and David Pryor (D-AR). I guess for them party is more important than principle.


The White House is not pleased that the filibuster will continue according to this statement. Obama describes his nominees as “distinguished” but a more appropriate description might be anti-gun ideologues.

Statement by the President on Republican Filibuster of Caitlin Halligan

I am deeply disappointed that a minority of the United States Senate has blocked the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Ms. Halligan has the experience, integrity, and judgment to serve with distinction on this court, and she has broad bipartisan support from the legal and law enforcement communities. But today, her nomination fell victim to the Republican pattern of obstructionism that puts party ahead of country. Today’s vote dramatically lowers the bar used to justify a filibuster, which had required “extraordinary circumstances.” The only extraordinary things about Ms. Halligan are her qualifications and her intellect.

Currently, Senate Republicans are blocking 20 other highly qualified judicial nominees, half of whom I have nominated to fill vacancies deemed “judicial emergencies” by the Administrative Office of the Courts. These are distinguished nominees who, historically, would be confirmed without delay. All of them have already been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee – most of them unanimously – only to run into partisan roadblocks on the Senate floor. The American people deserve a fair and functioning judiciary. So I urge Senate Republicans to end this pattern of partisan obstructionism and confirm Ms. Halligan and the other judges they have blocked for purely partisan reasons.

Diversion Of Legally Exported Firearms To The Narco-Terrorists

Sharyl Attkisson has a report this morning on the legal commercial sales of firearms to the Mexican government and specifically the Mexican Army. All of these sales must be (and have been approved) by the U.S. State Department before any manufacturer is allowed to ship the guns to Mexico.

The reported number of AR-15s sold in 2006 was 2,400. By 2009, in the first year of the Obama Administration, the number of semi-automatic firearms sold to Mexico was 17,169 plus another 1,361 full-auto firearms. The 2009 figures come from the Department of State’s Section 665 Report to Congress. As Attkisson notes, the Department of State has stopped disclosing the actual number of firearms sold. Checking the FY 2010 report, I find that she is correct and that the State Department just lumps everything into one category which could include anything from a firearm to its firing pin. I find it illuminating that as the drug war intensifies om Mexico and the Obama Administration is making a push to “stop the iron river of arms” going to Mexico that they now stop reporting just how many legal arms are being sold.

The problem as Attkisson points out is not the legal sales of firearms to the Mexican Army, it is the diversion of these weapons from the Army to the narco-terrorists. When a poorly paid Private deserts from the Mexican Army, it has become commonplace for his issued weapon to desert with him. Unfortunately, it doesn’t then become stashed under the floorboards in his home for defending the wife and kids but rather goes to the cartels for a significant sum of money.

Ed Head made this same point in an interview with Cam Edwards of NRA News last week. The Obama Administration would have you believe that the arms going to the cartels are coming from border-state gun dealers. They want you to ignore the man behind the curtain or, in this case, the legal sales of firearms that are being diverted from the Mexican Army.

Attkisson reports that the State Department audits a very small percentage of the sales. Of those that it audited, it found that 26% of the firearms had been diverted or some other unfavorable result. Larry Keane of NSSF agrees that the State Department and the Mexican government need to provide better oversight of these firearms once they are in the hands of the Mexican Army. He is correct when he asserts that this is beyond the scope of what the American firearms industry can do.

Only Caitlin Halligan Could Unite The NRA-ILA And The GOA In Opposition

Caitlin Halligan is Obama’s nominee for a seat on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She formerly served as Solicitor General for the State of New York from 2001 until 2007 under then-NY Attorney General Elliot Spitzer. Her nomination is being filibustered in the Senate due to her leftist views on abortion and gun rights. Tomorrow, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is calling for a cloture (end of debate) vote on Halligan’s confirmation.

Pravda on the Potomac aka the Washington Post has endorsed her. Meanwhile, the Joyce-funded Media Matters for America is trying to say that Halligan’s anti-gun rights actions were in the past and now she supports the Second Amendment. I seem to remember that the “Wise Latina” Justice Sonya Sotomayor made similar comments during her confirmation battle and then dissented on the McDonald case.

Accordingly, the NRA-ILA released this letter that was sent today to every senator.

December 5, 2011

Dear Senator:

I am writing to express the National Rifle Association’s opposition to the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Our opposition is based on Ms. Halligan’s attacks on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Specifically, she worked to undermine the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), enacted in 2005 with strong bipartisan support. This legislation was critically important in ending a wave of lawsuits sponsored by anti-gun organizations and governments, which sought to blame firearms manufacturers and dealers for the criminal misuse of their products by third parties. This bill was an essential protection both for the Second Amendment rights of honest Americans and for the continued existence of the domestic firearms industry as a supplier of arms for our nation’s defense.

Among the governments that sued the industry was the state of New York. This case was pending while Ms. Halligan was New York’s solicitor general, and she strongly supported the litigation both inside and outside the courtroom.

Ms. Halligan represented the state in its 2001 lawsuit against numerous gun manufacturers, in which the state argued that the legal sale of handguns created a “public nuisance” under state law. In a 2003 speech while that case was pending, Ms. Halligan claimed that the PLCAA “would likely cut off at the pass any attempt by States to find solutions—through the legal system or their own state legislatures—that might reduce gun crimes or promote greater responsibility among gun dealers.” That statement was simply wrong. The legislation then under debate—like the version that finally passed two years later—only prohibited lawsuits “resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse” of firearms or ammunition by third parties. It exempted traditional tort actions against gun makers. The bill most certainly did not restrict the actions of state legislatures, as the introduction of numerous anti-gun bills in the New York legislature proves each year.

Ms. Halligan also claimed the PLCAA “would make the gun industry the only industry in the country to be so broadly shielded from lawsuits.” In fact, Congress had previously passed targeted liability protection for many industries and other enterprises, ranging from aircraft manufacturers to food banks to makers of medical implants.

After passage of the PLCAA, Ms. Halligan participated in the legal attack on the PLCAA. The state filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit supporting New York City’s attack on the law’s constitutionality. The arguments in that brief were ultimately rejected by the Second Circuit, as they have been by every other appellate court (and every federal court at any level) that has considered the issue.

Given Ms. Halligan’s clear opposition to a major federal law that was essential to protecting law-abiding Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, as well as an important industry that equips our military and law enforcement personnel, we must respectfully oppose her confirmation, including the vote on cloture.

We greatly appreciate your attention to our concerns. If you have any questions, please contact NRA Federal Affairs at (202) 651-XXXX.

Sincerely,

Chris W. Cox
Executive Director
NRA Institute for Legislative Action

The Gun Owners of American is also standing strong against the confirmation of Halligan and has issued an alert to their members that says in part:

As New York’s solicitor general, Halligan was one of the chief lawyers responsible for New York’s baseless and politically motivated efforts to bankrupt gun manufacturers using frivolous litigation. In so doing, Halligan proved that she places liberal political activism above fealty to the law.

Halligan’s public hatred for firearms was only matched by her zealotry inside the courtroom. In a speech on May 5, 2003, Halligan called for “handgun manufacturers [to be held] liable for criminal acts committed with handguns.”

Certainly, no other manufacturer of another item — whether it be cars, baseball bats, or anything else — would be held liable for the criminal misuse of its product. And, as Halligan well knows, the application of that principle to firearms would surely eliminate the manufacture of firearms in America.

After attempts of legal extortion of the firearms industry were repudiated by a bipartisan vote in Congress, Halligan’s office did not let up on attacking gun rights, signing a brief calling for New York courts to declare the federal Gun Makers’ Protection Act unconstitutional.

Finally, Halligan, in written testimony submitted to the Senate in connection with her nomination, attempted to conceal the extent of her anti-gun animus.

Halligan’s failure to provide information that would clarify her statements, thus keeping her testimony from being misleading, constitutes “fraud” against the Senate. As such, the only role she should play in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is the role of a defendant.

But, of course, none of this matter to Harry Reid. He already did his part getting two strident anti-gun Obama judges onto the Supreme Court, and now he’s doing what he can to pack the Appeals Courts with radical leftists as well.

We have to stop this Reid/Obama court-packing scheme. Please act now, as the vote is scheduled for this Tuesday.

To facilitate contacting your state’s senators, GOA has set up a CapWiz letter generator that will send either an email or printed letter to them. It can be found here and I would urge you to select “by email” as the vote is tomorrow.

In an interesting coincidence, Halligan graduated in the same law school class (Georgetown University Law Center, 1995) as Alan Gura. I would have to say that Gura was more successful in his advocacy for the Second Amendment than Halligan was in her attempt to sue the firearms industry out of business and we can all be thankful for that.

Eighteen Months And Counting

November marked the 18th straight month in which the year over year FBI-run NICS checks increased according to the adjusted statistics provided by the NSSF.  The numbers from NSSF show that 1,101,076 National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) checks were run during the month. This figure is an increase of 16.5 percent over the NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 945,463 in November 2010. Undoubtedly, this was pushed along by the almost 130,000 checks run on Black Friday, November 25th, alone.

The NSSF research staff has to adjust these figures because a number of states use the NICS checks for concealed carry permit approval purposes and for checking on active CCW permit holders. The states include Kentucky, Iowa, and Utah.

Moreover, this November had the second highest number of NICS checks for the month of November in the last 10 years. Only November 2008 had more. I believe that we can reasonably say that November 2008’s sales can be explained by the election of Barack Obama and the feeling that he would seek to implement new gun control measures once in office. He did after all says that we gun owners were bitterly clinging to our guns and religion.

November is also an auspicious month as it marks the 18th anniversary of the signing of the Brady Act on November 30, 1993 by President Clinton. I can’t think of a better way to mark the 18th anniversary than to have 18 straight months of year over year increases in NICS checks. It somehow seems fitting.

In Dealing With The TSA, It’s Time To Look To The Amish

In Amish society, those who have sinned against the community and its values are excommunicated and then shunned. Shunning is the practice of social avoidance or rejection. The offending person is avoided socially and members of the Amish community have nothing to do with this person. The goal of shunning is to show the person the error of their ways in hopes that they will reform, seek repentence, and become a member of the community again.

From AmishAmerica.com on the practice of shunning and the thinking behind it:

As this Amishman explains, shunning is done out of concern for the deviant member. Shunning is also done to protect the body of the church. Shunning in some ways is a fence that keeps the wolves away from the flock. Amish often point out that an individual can’t sit on the fence. Were Amish to accept any practice or belief that came along, the body of the church would be in danger of being corrupted and members led astray spiritually.

How is shunning practiced in reality? With the Amish community of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, there is a recognition that all social contact with the shunned person is not feasible:

Actually, shunning does not mean total avoidance. Restricted interaction is permitted. For instance, spouses may continue to live together but they may not engage in sexual intercourse.

Also, shunned members may attend family gatherings. However, on such occasions they are required to sit at a separate table to symbolize their exclusion.

Usually, active members can not engage in business transactions with shunned members. However, if such a transaction is unavoidable, a third party must handle the exchange of money.

The word shun comes from the Middle English shunnen and the Old English scunian meaning to abhor. To abhor is quite appropriate.

How does this relate to the Transportation Security Administration, its agents, security officers, and employees? Hardly a week goes by without another story of an elderly person humiliated, an attractive woman felt up, an amputee belittled, a parent made to feel helpless, a child molested, privacy invaded, or some other event evidencing stupidity, malice, and abuse by a TSA security officer all in the name of “security”.

Everytime it occurs, you get a spokesperson for TSA saying procedures were followed or that no abuse occured. Or now that TSA security officers are allowed to be unionized, a spokesman for the union who insists “the TSA are comprised of workers just like you.” There is also “Blogger Bob” on the TSA Blog who rivals Baghdad Bob in his propensity for denial.

Admittedly, there are good TSA officers and bad TSA officers. There are those who abuse their authority as well as passengers and those who don’t. That said, so long as the TSA officers who perform their job in a just and nonabusive manner countenance those who don’t, then they all will be tarred with the same brush and deservedly so. As the quote attributed to the British statesman Edmund Burke goes, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

What made me think of the practice of shunning and the TSA was seeing a TSA security officer in uniform one day at a local Walmart. This sighting was just after another of their egregious acts was reported in the news. I wondered at the time what would be the best way to make my displeasure known about the behavior of TSA agents as they go about their security kabuki dance.

While a violent or confrontational response to their abusive behavior might feel good for all of a minute, it would be counter-productive as you would have the full weight of the government and the law come down upon you. Moreover, it might even engender sympathy towards TSA.

Likewise, forcing delays on busy travel days by requesting a pat-down would fail because it requires enough people to make the request for it to work, it requires one to actually be flying, and it would cause resentment among those delayed along with some amount of sympathy towards TSA.

Shunning has many advantages and one major disadvantage. First, it is non-violent. Not speaking to or associating with a person is not against the law and you can’t be forced to do it. It is an act of omission rather than an act of commission.

Second, it can be practiced by anyone regardless of whether they are a traveler or not.

Third, social avoidance and social ostraticism are very powerful forces.

Fourth, shunning hits the TSA employee outside of the workplace. While they may be mentally prepared to deal with confrontation on the job as well as having their agency’s resources behind them, being avoided socially while off the job is unexpected.

Fifth, their agency and the government can do nothing to stop it.

Finally, my guess is that TSA employees will begin to have a bunker mentality which may well cause them to either quit or become more outlandish in their abuse. The more outlandish the abuse, the greater the pressure for the agency to be abolished or, at the least, be reined in by Congress.

The major downside is that shunning requires the buy-in of the public. Unlike the Amish community where those who don’t shun the outcast are themselves subject to excommunication and shunning, there is nothing to force you to shun the TSA employee. It is a voluntary action with no adverse consequences if one doesn’t shun the TSA employee. Frankly, the only way that shunning will work is if enough people are angry enough to do it and to continue doing it.

I am not saying that shunning will work but that it has the potential to work. I plan on doing it and would call on all those who are outraged by the continued assault on our civil liberties by the TSA and its agents to say enough is enough and to social ostracize those who are a part of that agency.

Helping Those Who Put Their Lives On The Line For Us

There is an organization called Soldiers’ Angels which exists to provide aid and comfort to the men and women of our Armed Forces, their families, and veterans. Their motto is “May No Soldier Go Unloved.” To date, they have:

  • Sent hundreds of thousands of care packages and letters to deployed troops
  • Provided over 6,000 voice-controlled, adaptive laptops to severely wounded soldiers as they recover
  • Provided wounded soldiers with over 25,000 First Response backpacks
  • Provided emergency aid to veteran’s families
  • Provide Level III Kevlar blankets to soldiers in Iraq to help protect them in the early days of IEDs before up-armoring.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Linoge at Walls of the City – a veteran of service in the US Navy – is spearheading a fundraising drive for Soldiers’ Angels and has asked other bloggers to help get the word out. In an effort to encourage donations, he has organized a giveaway which can be entered by donating to Soldiers’ Angels. A number of people and companies have donated gifts and prizes including a Dragon Leatherworks holster, a Best Belt from Michael’s Custom Holsters, Gunwalker T-shirts from Sean Sorrentino, Crimson Trace Lightguards, and a copy of Stephen Hunter’s newest book. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Thinking back over my childhood, my father was deployed with the US Army for at least five Christmases when I was growing up. While we sent him gifts and care packages, I imagine that there were many soldiers in his units who were not so fortunate. I know from personal experience just how much these letters and care packages mean to deployed servicemen and women. I would ask you to participate in the fundraising drive for Soldiers’ Angels as it is for those who protect our freedoms here at home.

Here are the rules for Linoge’s giveaway:

How to Earn a Ticket:

1. Every five dollars you donate directly to Soldiers’ Angels nets you one numbered ticket.
2. Every five dollars you spend in their Dollar Days or Amazon shops (where the products are shipped directly to them) gets you one ticket.
3. Every five dollars you spend in the Angels’ Store for any product that is shipped to “ANY Hero”, “ANY Wounded Soldier”, or “A SPECIFIC Soldier” earns you one ticket.
4. DO NOT SEND ME MONEY. All money and goods should go directly to Soldiers’ Angels.
5. DO SEND ME THE RECEIPT. Anonymize it however you like, and use the actual receipt or a screencap, but email from an address I can reach you back at. Send the receipt/proof to “linoge (at) wallsofthecity (dot) net”.
6. Within 24 hours, you should receive an email from me indicating your ticket numbers. If you do not, feel free to email me again or comment here.

To get more information on Linoge’s fundraising drive, go here. His original announcement of the program is here.

I have sent a donation to Soldiers’ Angels. Now it is your turn and I hope you will be generous.

The Ranks Of Gun Owners Swelled On Black Friday In Illinois

While Illinois may be the only state that does not have some form of concealed carry, it was not left out of the rise in sales of firearms on Black Friday. According to WLS-TV in Chicago, the Illinois State Police reported a 42% increase in the number of applications for Firearms Owner ID (FOID) cards on Black Friday compared to last year. Almost 2,900 new applications were received for FOID cards this year. Bear in mind that these are NEW (would-be) gun owners because once you have a FOID card it covers all your guns and is good for 10 years.

However, and I think the reporter for WLS-TV doesn’t quite get Illinois firearms law, an application for a FOID card is not approved immediately. The State Police have up to 30 days to approve it and return it to you. Until you have a valid FOID card in hand, you can’t buy a firearm, ammunition, or a Taser.

This is from an email this evening from Thirdpower of Days of Our Trailers blog:

You can apply for your FOID through most FFL’s if they’re smart. It normally takes 3-4 weeks to get it through the ISP so while you could ‘purchase’ your firearm by perhaps putting down a down payment, you cannot actually fill out the 4473/NICS check until you have the FOID in your possession. Then there’s a 24hr waiting period for long guns and 72 hour for handguns.

We will have to wait until the NICS stats are out to get a better idea of just how much actual gun sales rose in Illinois during this period. Nonetheless, this many applications for FOID cards means another 2,900 gun owners are added to the rolls of gunowners in the Land of Lincoln. And THAT is a good thing.

Note: A big thanks to Kurt Hofmann, the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, and Thirdpower for answering my questions so quickly about Illinois gun law and FOID cards. I really appreciate their help!

Thirdpower put together this primer on Illinois gun laws a couple of years ago. It is a good starting place.