Of course, this bill might have kept Danielle Watson from being murdered at the Flying Biscuit Cafe, just a few blocks from my daughters’ school.
Do please call your senators and ask them to move this along.
A great sign, found here:
Hat tip to Micheal Bane.
Sean has made up a T-Shirt in homage to the Fast and Furious scandal.
I’m already in. Get them while they are hot!
Grass Roots North Carolina has sent out the following call to support a General Assembly mobilization day on February 1st. I’ve reproduced it here.
Update: February 1st, not 2nd. Stupid Newbie.
|Mobilization Day at the G.A.
|You have waited for this day and it has come. The time is now to let the politicians know where you stand. In this interest, GRNC is holding a Grass Roots Mobilization Day at the General Assembly Tuesday February 1 and we want you there. Legislative Director, Jeff Rau is assembling his team and he needs extra hands. For this day, no experience is required. You see, it is imperative to let the new folks in the General Assembly know that they will be held accountable. Will you help send this message?
BUT THIS IS DURING THE WEEK!
We know, Tuesday is a work day for most of you, but please ask yourself a question: Is your freedom worthy of taking a vacation day? Politicians count on your not paying attention so they can continue with business as usual. Will you allow this, or are you going to show up to put them on notice?
|Paul Valone’s Response to News and Record
|Whistling past the graveyard, gun control activists like Roxane Kolar of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence (NCAGV) insist Tucson’s tragedy couldn’t happen here. Unlike Arizona, they contend, our handgun purchase permit law requires background checks and gives sheriffs discretion in denying permits to unstable applicants. Unfortunately, Kolar is wrong about both the law and the possibility of mass homicide.
Inaccuracies in a recent News & Record article notwithstanding, gun laws in Arizona and North Carolina are more alike than different. In both states (and throughout the U.S.), purchases from gun dealers require federal background checks via the computerized National Instant Check System (NICS) which, since 2007, has included involuntary commitments for psychiatric treatment.(1)
Although NC sheriffs may deny purchase permits to whomever they decide isn’t of “good moral character” (whatever that means), purchase permits are not universally required. Beyond the fact that rifles and shotguns are exempt, since 2003 anyone who passes the FBI background check and takes the training for a concealed handgun permit – over which sheriffs have no discretion – bypasses the purchase permit requirement.
Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC) shepherded passage of that exemption(2) because sheriffs’ “discretion” results in arbitrary, even malicious denials. The purchase permit law celebrated by NCAGV, for example, is a Jim Crow law passed in 1919 amid southern racial tension. It was apparently modeled after a 1918 law adopted by Missouri which was itself a reaction to St. Louis race riots in 1917(3). While application of our law remains undocumented, in Missouri the ACLU and others complained for decades that blacks were being unfairly targeted. Missouri’s permit law was finally repealed in
Depending on county, North Carolina sheriffs’ whims include inconsistent residency requirements, arbitrary limits on the number of permits issued(5) (each gun purchase requires a separate permit); requiring applicants to produce notarized character affidavits from acquaintances(6); even checking traffic citations(7). I routinely field complaints about permits denied over personal conflicts. A sheriff could even decide you aren’t of “good moral character” if you oppose his reelection. Having been rendered redundant by
NICS, we will seek repeal of the archaic permit law in the upcoming legislative session.
While some blame the Tucson shootings on Arizona’s law allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns without permits, their argument rests on the bizarre notion that a schizophrenic nihilist capable of murdering a nine-year-old girl would somehow be deterred by laws prohibiting him from carrying concealed firearms.
Nothing in either state or federal law would have prohibited Jared Loughner from buying guns here. Despite being ejected from college for dangerous instability, despite increasing paranoia toward acquaintances, and despite being a clear threat to himself and others, he had committed no disqualifying offense and nobody had him involuntarily committed – even in Arizona, where commitment is actually easier than in most states.(8)
After Virginia Tech, Congress rushed through the “NICS Improvement Act of 2007″ to include mental health data in background checks. But it failed in Tucson because like Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho and Fort Hood killer Nidal Malik Hasan, Loughner remained free despite being a known menace.
Until we reverse the trend toward “deinstitutionalizing” dangerous psychotics begun in the 1960s,(9) no gun control law will prevent mass killings from happening anywhere, including here.
|Footnotes to Valone Article
Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? Prometheus Books, 1992, page 337. Attorney David Kopel is Research Director at the Independence Institute.
experts say,” Arizona Republic, January 14, 2011:
Failure to Treat the Seriously Mentally Ill Endangers Its Citizens, New York, W.W. Norton, 2008. Review available at:
|IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED
|Help Out At G.A.|
|Contact Legislative Director Jeff Rau and let him know you care about your rights and will be there:
Sign up for the Legislative Calendar (Please note: They have recently purged old emails, so even if you have been signed up, do so again):
My travel back from Berlin made sure I got this out late.
The Second Amendment Foundation, who brought you such goodies as the Heller decision and the McDonald decision, are running a membership drive. They are offering some good discounts off the usual rates, good through midnight tonight.
I just joined as a life member. SAF is the organization that is pushing the envelope of gun rights right now. If you can spare some bucks, go help them out!
H/T to Days of our Trailers
I sent email a few weeks ago to the Second Amendment Foundation looking for a link to add to Ye Olde Sidebar. They just sent me the icon. Click the link and send money!
Catherine has responded to my post “Arguing gun rights…a primer for antis”
While the original post was indeed inspired partially by Catherine, it is part of a much larger trend. the same pattern repeats itself over and over again in the blogoshpere. But Catherine was kind enough to reply, so allow me to retort.
You are wrong on many accounts:
1. I was not spouting. I have an opinion and I am entitled to it.
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. The point of my post, as I believe the points of my confederates, was to point out that your opinion was based on ignorance. Your augment is literally of the variety “The sky is green. It’s my opinion and I am entitled to it.” Certainly, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. If you disagree with our facts, then refute them with your own.
2. I have suggested that the approach be far different. If you want a discourse on the topic and really want to educate as you say you do, I think it would be better to do it in a manner that actually indicates that you would like a discourse rather than lecturing and indicating that you think someone who wants gun control is just dumb. That goes nowhere.
I have never called you dumb, Catherine. And I will state again, now, for the record: I do not think you are dumb. I think your arguments are ill-informed and made from ignorance. And I think your case is weak. I have historical precedent, statistics, and yes, a bit of snark to support my case. You have feelings and your opinion. I believe my case is stronger.
3. Statistics can be skewed either way.
Really? The CDC and the FBI skew their own statistics? My numbers come from the source. I don’t filter; I don’t have to. If you disagree with my interpretation, then by all means let’s discuss it.
4. I was not arguing. It was my opinion. The pr-gum(sic) bloggers went on my blog and argued. I only questioned and refuted some of the arguments that did not seem well supported. Others were never backed up with anything.
Horsepucky. You made a political statement in a public forum stating that you believed that MY civil rights should be abrogated. That’s a mighty serious thing. Understand, it is the semantic equivalent to standing on a street corner and saying “I don’t think women should have the right to vote because some of them vote for stupid things.” Then, when you are understandably challenged, you respond with “Well, that’s just my opinion.” It may be your opinion, but it is an ignorant, bigoted opinion, and I am going to call you out on it.
If you feel that any of my assertions, or those of my fellow bloggers are incorrect or poorly supported, I would welcome the opportunity to debate you on the merits of the argument.
5. There is no “appeal to emotion.” It was my opinion and how I feel about the topic. My blog is a forum for expressing my opinions.
From your blog:
When you watch this video think about those who needlessly died yet again because of America’s obsession with guns. Seven people wounded, two dead. The largest mass shooting in the history of Miami. The National Rifle Association (NRA) should be so proud today. More dead and they and their members are to blame.
The bloodbath in Liberty City was the result of an assault rifle-wielding murderer who unleashed a spree of bullets on people playing an exceedingly dangerous game of street dice.
Yep, no appeal to emotion there. Catherine, words and phrases like “bloodbath” and “obsession with guns” tend to…um…appeal to emotion. Q.E.D. (A little lawyer lingo, there.)
And, while we are on the topic, American’s “obsession with guns” didn’t kill anyone. A maniac with a rifle did. Punish him, not me.
6. You are definitely wrong on this one. If you look at the sequence, I never called Rustmeister a name. One day after our conversation was over i received a pingback from his blog. On his blog he said in essence that I was stupid, crazy and delusional. So who called who a name?
After that, I wrote a post calling it the way that i see it. He’s an NRA shill as I see it based on the badges on his blogs. I also personally think he’s a right wingnut since I do not believe that the Second Amendment stands for the proposition that you need guns to overthrow the government, as gun bloggers were saying on my blog.
*Sigh*….where to begin here? First, I have gone through the tracks, and I can’t find any place where Rustmeister called you a name. I disagree with your characterization that he said that you are stupid, crazy, and delusional. I did note that one commenter called you delusional. I certainly have never called you a name. I have characterized your arguments as weak and being made from ignorance.
As far as the “propaganda corps” badges…you can read the origin here. I’ll summarize: We are all the unorganized milita. You are an attorney…look up the original citation. Not in any way related to the NRA. Rust may, in fact, be a shill for the NRA. But the propaganda corps doesn’t prove that. And calling him a wingnut is an ad-hominem.
7. I received threatening emails and some very not nice comments from people. I decided to shut down comments and delete because I felt that it was harassment. That’s my choice. When I am getting threatened, I choose to shut down and not post anymore comments form anyone and to delete comments. I reserve that right. It was also based on advice from the authorities.
You may or may not have received threatening emails, I have no way to know that. You are certainly entitled to shut down comments on your blog. I certainly have never threatened anyone, and that hasn’t been the behavior that I have exhibited from the vast and overwhelming majority of the pro-gun folks that I know.
If you felt the need to contact the authorities, perhaps you wouldn’t mind posting a copy of the complaint?
The bottom line is that i may not agree with your arguments, mostly because they are obviously canned,
See, here we go again with the ad-hominems. In what way are they obviously canned? If you disagree with my facts, then produce some of your own. If you disagree with my reasoning, then attack that.
but you can score a lot of points with people by first asking them why they favor gun control and then not making fun of them because they place human life over an assault weapon.
Believe it or not, Catherine, I place much, much more value on human life than an assault weapon. If we could save a single human life by banning all guns, I would be the first one in line to turn them in. But the sad reality (not opinion, fact) is that is has never happened in the history of the world. Ever. This is the spirit embodied in Joe Huffman’s Just One Question. If you (or anyone, for that matter) can answer it, then I will be convinced.
I never want all guns banned. My father and brother own / have owned guns. I would never want them taken away from them or anyone else, but I do not see the point of having assault weapons.
So you don’t want theirs taken away, but you want mine taken away? Am I missing something?
Catherine, you have sated many times that you have an opinion, and are entitled to it. And I agree, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But, when you present an opinion based on emotion rather than reason, delete comments of people who disagree with you, and ignore facts that don’t fit your world view, you make your opinions look silly and bigoted.
Armed Schoolteacher reports a neutral, even fair report on a pro-CCW poll in Illinois, of all places.
Concealed carry permits in NC are at an all time high. You simply can’t get on the range without a wait, sometimes up to an hour.
The dynamic duo report fantastic success getting NRA sign-ups in PA, over 600.
And Ride Fast reports signing up 442 new NRA members, almost double the usual average, in..wait for it…California. San Francisco, for goodness sake.
The worm is turning, folks. The battle isn’t won, yet, but we are getting close to a tipping point.
Tom Gresham, of Guntalk fame has announced Operation Magazine Drop. The premise is simple…take your old gun magazines, and leave them in places where there are piles of magazines waiting to be read. Doctor’s offices, hair dressers, and barber shops come to mind.
Remember…the goal is to make gun ownership unremarkable. That is to say, owning a gun should be no more odd then owning a pair of sneakers. Exposing more people to the gun culture is part of that effort.
Grass Roots North Carolina’s president Paul Valone has joined the ranks of those writing for the Examiner on gun rights. His column is available here. It’s great to see a local voice for gun rights.
Oh, and you can join GRNC here.