Beretta Pistols

Glock Pistols

Mayor defends gun law with bayonet?

NOTE: This article was written before our historic victory in the McDonald V. Chicago case.

Shotgun News

By Vin Suprynowicz

Mayor defends gun law with bayonet? As an 80-year-old Korean War veteran, his wife and great-grandson slept in their home in the Humboldt Park neighborhood of Chicago just before dawn on May 26, a would-be burglar broke in a basement window, crawled over some discarded paint buckets, and made his way up winding stairs to an enclosed porch.

The intruder tried the knob of the locked door that led to the first-floor apartment. He then turned to the oversized glass window of the 80-year-old's bedroom, pulled out his gun and fired, police and family say.

But just as the man got off a second round, the homeowner, who had a handgun of his own, fired a single shot, killing the intruder.

"He missed, (but) my daddy didn't," said the 80-year-old's son, Butch Gant, who lives upstairs.

"My father had no choice. It was him or the other guy."

The shooting came as the U.S. Supreme Court was expected to rule by the end of June on Chicago's decades-old ban on possessing handguns. During oral arguments in March, the court's majority appeared to lean toward striking down the city ordinance. That means they're expected to rule—again—that residents have a constitutional right to keep a handgun at home.

(How many times do they have to issue the same ruling before it's assumed to apply in every American city? Don't ask me.)

Chicago police have long aggressively tried to disarm the law-abiding public, saying firearms are the principal weapons used in murders and gang violence.

But the Chicago Tribune reported many in that city echoed the feelings of the victim's family that if he hadn't been armed, the encounter could have ended in their deaths.

"He saved our lives," the man's wife, 83, who had been asleep with her husband when the window shattered, told the Tribune.

Police let the Korean War veteran, who walks with the aid of a cane, go without filing immediate charges because it appeared he acted in self-defense, according to police sources.

But they took away his handgun, which he had bought after being robbed just six months earlier, vowing not to be a victim again, his family said.

The dead intruder was later identified by his family as Anthony "Big Ant" Nelson, 29, on parole since December following a three-year prison sentence for a drug conviction. Nelson had a 13-page rap sheet that includes a number of drug and weapons convictions dating to 1998, according to police and court records. He lived less than a mile from where he died.

If gun laws could do any good at all, surely they'd block ex-cons with 13-page rap sheets from going armed.

"They did the right thing," said neighbor Audrey Williams, 75, of the shooting. "If anyone tried to come in on me, I'd do the same thing." Ms. Williams described the assaulted family—whose names were withheld by police as crime victims—as "sweet people who don't bother anyone."

"How are we going to protect our homes without guns?" asked Gant, the son. "That gun law should be abolished."

Fortunately, thanks to the Illinois legislature's override of indicted Gov. Rod Blagojevich's veto of state Senate Bill 2165 in November, 2004, the Army veteran should not face prosecution, report Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman of the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation.

That was the "Hale DeMar" act, which protects homeowners who shoot in self-defense even if there's a local ordinance against handgun possession.

DeMar shot a burglar in his Wilmette home and was initially charged for violating that community's handgun ban, but public outrage forced the Cook County prosecutor to drop the charge.

"The question remains in this case whether the old gentleman will get his gun back from the police when the investigation is completed," Gottlieb and Workman note.

Shortly before this latest incident of righteous self-defense, at a May press conference, Mick Dumke, a reporter from the alternative weekly Chicago Reader, asked Chicago Mayor Richard Daley what should have been an obvious question, reports our friend John Lott at the National Review Online.

"Since guns are readily available in Chicago even with a ban in place, do you really think it's been effective?" the reporter asked.

Daley's response "wasn't very helpful," Lott, an economist, reports. "Picking up a very old rifle with a bayonet that had been turned in during one of Chicago's numerous gun buybacks, Daley blustered: 'Oh, it's been very effective. If I put this up your butt, you'll find out how effective it is. ... This gun saved many lives—it could save your life.'"

Reporters greeted Daley's outburst with a moment of stunned silence. But it wasn't Daley's answer that was important, Lott points out. "The novelty is that a reporter actually questioned Daley on whether the gun ban had failed."

Even mainstream television news is questioning the gun ban. A broadcast on Chicago's CBS-TV in May noted:

"They are law-abiding citizens in Chicago, but they are so worried about their own safety, they say they might have to break the law. The last straw was the death of Chicago Police officer Thomas Wortham IV last week. That has some African-American families in Chicago considering doing something they never would have done before: carry a pistol. CBS 2's Jim Williams reports he grew up among those families and he's never (seen) anything like it. Many Chicagoans have been upset for some time about violence here, but Wortham's murder has touched a raw nerve in the black community. Now some want to do more than simply call 911 or march for peace in the streets. They want their own gun...."

Gun ban supporters often argue their city-by-city efforts have failed to reduce crime because of the ease of getting guns in nearby jurisdictions,. Lott pointed out in a separate piece for FoxNews.com on May 25.

"Yet, even in island nations such as Ireland, the U.K., and Jamaica-all of which have imposed bans-their easily defendable borders and lack of obvious neighbors haven't stopped drug gangs from getting either drugs or the guns that they use to protect their valuable product.

"Do gun bans really stop criminals from getting guns? Americans need not look no further than the massive gun battle with armed gangs fighting police and soldiers that took place in Kingston, Jamaica today,î Lott noted. "At least 30 people were killed in the fighting. It is a huge number for a small island nation of fewer than 3 million people, but unfortunately murder is so common in Jamaica that these murders won't even be noticed in the annual crime numbers."

Jamaica wasn't always such an extremely violent country. Jamaica experienced large increases in murder rates after enacting a handgun ban in 1974. In fact, Jamaica's murder rate hasn't sunk below 10 murders per 100,000 people since the gun ban went into effect.

Taxi driver Derrick Bird drove his vehicle on a shooting spree across a tranquil stretch of northwest England on June 2, methodically killing 12 people and wounding 25 others by shooting each of them in the face with a shotgun, before turning the gun on himself, officials said.

The rampage in the county of Cumbria was Britain's deadliest mass shooting since 1996.

None of the victims had any chance to defend themselves, because England has banned the possession of handguns for self-defense. (Even rural farmers need to state a "reason" to be allowed to keep a shotgun.)

Maybe the cantankerous cabbie's victims were supposed to dash home to grab a bow and arrow (or have those been banned, too?)

The body of the suspected gunman, 52-year-old Derrick "Birdie" Bird, was found in a wooded area near Boot, in England's scenic Lake District. Police said two weapons were recovered.

Eight of the wounded were in hospitals, three in critical condition, as of the next day. Home Secretary Theresa May told the House of Commons on June 3 the British government would wait until police had finished investigating the deadly attacks before debating whether UK gun laws needed to be..."

Wait for it...

"needed to be tightened," the Home Secretary said.

What are they going to take away from law-abiding prospective English murder victims next ... scissors?

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the daily Las Vegas Review-Journal, and author of Send in the Waco Killers and the novel The Black Arrow. See www.vinsuprynowicz.com/.

New Suit Against Mayor Richard Daley and the City of Chicago

NRA-ILA

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association is supporting a lawsuit against Mayor Richard Daley and the City of Chicago's newly adopted gun control ordinance, which violates the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Last Friday, the City Council rushed through passage of this ordinance in response to the Court's June 28th decision rendering Chicago’s draconian handgun ban unconstitutional.

“The Supreme Court has now said the Second Amendment is an individual freedom for all. And that must have meaning,” said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. “This decision cannot lead to different measures of freedom, depending on what part of the country you live in. City by city, person by person, this decision must be more than a philosophical victory. An individual right is no right at all if individuals can’t access it.”

Just four days after the Court struck down the nearly 30 year-long handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park, Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago enacted the most restrictive anti-gun ordinance in the United States. In the words of Corporation Counsel Mara Georges, the top attorney for the City: “We've gone farther than anyone else ever has.” The so-called “Responsible Gun Ownership Ordinance” provisions include: a prohibition on all gun sales inside the City; a prohibition on possession of firearms for self-defense outside the “home” -- even on a patio or in an attached garage; a prohibition on more than one assembled and operable firearm in the home; and a training requirement to obtain a Chicago Firearm Permit. However, range training would be impossible since it will now be unlawful to operate a shooting range inside city limits.

“The Supreme Court told Mayor Daley and the City of Chicago that it has to respect the Second Amendment. By enacting this ordinance, their response is 'Make Us',” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “The NRA will not rest until Chicago's law-abiding residents can exercise the same freedoms that our Founding Fathers intended all Americans to have.”

Recent statements from some of Chicago's city officials reflect their complete lack of respect for the Supreme Court decision. Alderman Daniel Solis stated, “the decision made by the Supreme Court is not really in the best interests of our citizens.” Alderman Sharon Denise Dixon denounced what she called the Court’s “blatant… misreading of the law.” And another city council member even went so far as to say, “[w]e’re here today because of their poor judgment."

The case is Benson v. City of Chicago.

Robocop's Comment:

I HOPE this case can be determined BEFORE those two communists are confirmed for the Supreme Court.

3 Glocks In One

Gun Websites

Smart Kid!

Royal Douche 07.15.10

The Winner: Chicago City Council

The Reason: Illegally circumventing McDonald v. Chicago by passing outrageous regulations, ignoring the fact that possessing a handgun is a RIGHT before and after this historic Supreme Court ruling.

These regulations include:

-- Limits the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

-- Requires residents in homes with children to keep handguns in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

-- Requires prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.-- Prohibits people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.

-- Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Court's Gun Decision An Important Win for Americans Who Want to Defend Themselves

By John Lott

With another closely decided 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that state governments are not able to ban most Americans from owning most types of handguns. The court ruled that firearms are "essential for self-defense." The court found that if the Second Amendment indeed protects an individual right to own a gun, the notion that the government can't ban all handguns is the minimum protection the Constitution can offer.

Yet, just as with abortion, this is the first of what is likely to be a long string of court decisions.

The decision is an important win for Americans who want the right to self-defense, but the decision also indicates how many questions still must be answered.

When the “Heller” decision was handed down in 2008 striking down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and gunlock regulations, Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley predicted disaster. He said that overturning the gun ban was "a very frightening decision" and predicted more deaths along with Wild West-style shootouts and that people "are going to take a gun and they are going to end their lives in a family dispute." Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty similarly warned: "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence."

Yet, Armageddon never arrived.

Washington’s murder rate has plummeted -- falling by 25 percent in 2009 alone. This compares with a national drop of only 7 percent last year. And D.C.'s drop has continued this year.

Comparing Washington’s crime rates from January 1 to June 17 of this year to the same period in 2008, shows a 34 percent drop in murder. This drop puts D.C.'s murder rate back to where it was before the 1977 handgun ban. Indeed, the murder rate is as low as was before 1967.

Other gun crimes have also fallen in Washington. While robberies without guns fell by 7 percent, robberies with gun fell by over 14 percent. Assaults with weapons other than guns fell by 7, but assaults using guns fell by over 20 percent.

The expected narrowness of the court's decision today had already encouraged Mayor Richard Daley and the city of Chicago to threaten last week to effectively undo the Supreme Court decision with new regulations.

Daley promised to quickly adopt all the regulations that Washington adopted in 2008 after its gun ban was struck down, as well as some additional ones. To get a handgun permit in Washington, applicants must pay fees over $550, make four trips to the police station, and take two different tests.

Taking the court's 2008 decision that all handguns can't be banned, Washington went so far as to still ban all semi-automatic handguns that can hold a clip. Chicago plans on doing the same but adding a requirement that gun owners buy insurance that covers any incidents that might arise from the weapon.

Obviously, if Chicago were to impose any tax on newspapers, the courts would strike it down as an infringement on free speech.

But the new Chicago and Washington gun "fees" will be allowed until the Supreme Court revisits that issue.

Where that line will be drawn on this closely divided court will be influenced by its newest member and the potential new member whose confirmation hearings get underway today.

Neither the latest justice, Sonia Sotomayor nor the next potential justice, Elena Kagan are sympathetic to an individual's right to self-defense.

In Washington, about 1,000 people now have permits to own handguns. With the gunlock law that made it illegal to have a loaded gun now struck down, over 70,000 people have permits for long guns that can now be used protect victims.

Yet, if over 70,000 armed citizens can produce 26 fewer murders and 375 violent crimes, imagine what can be accomplished if even more citizens are allowed to defend themselves.

We can only hope that Chicago will not adopt such high fees and stiff regulations that only allow the wealthiest will have the opportunity to defend themselves.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime " the third edition of which was published by the University of Chicago Press in May.

Gun Grabbers Treat Criminals As Victims

Washington Times

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Violence Policy Center (VPC) are peddling the notion that concealed-handgun permit holders are a danger to society. Last month, the center released a report claiming that in the past three years, 166 people were killed by holders of concealed-weapon permits. A closer look at the evidence suggests that many of the so-called victims of gun violence were criminals. Because more than 6 million Americans hold permits, it is important to set the record straight.

As one of the most populous states with a right-to-carry law, Florida has the most concealed-handgun permits. Between Oct. 1, 1987, and May 31, the state issued them to 1.8 million individuals. So far, just 167 permits have been revoked over any type of firearms-related violation. Most of those involved trivial, nonviolent infractions. To put that figure into perspective, the annual revocation rate is a minuscule 0.00017 percent, with just three revocations since January 2008. More people are killed every year by falling vending machines than by holders of a concealed-weapon permit.

You wouldn't know that from the rhetoric of the gun-control groups, which portray Florida as a dangerous place to live because of its laws. According to the VPC report, the Sunshine State accounted for 17 of the 96 "killer" permit holders nationwide, far more than any other state.

A recent Fox News investigation shot holes in the study. No charges were ever brought in seven of the Florida cases. One case clearly did not involve a permit holder - the person was, in fact, charged with illegally carrying a concealed handgun. Two cases that are still pending apparently involved self-defense, with one local newspaper account suggesting that the permit holder had a "strong case" to show that he had acted properly. Another case involved the accidental discharge of a firearm. The gun grabbers score all of these incidents as kills, but at least nine of them are examples of right-to-carry laws being used by permit holders to protect themselves and their families.

Three cases did result in "convictions," but they hardly represent clear-cut examples. One involved an accidental discharge and a conviction for involuntary manslaughter. In another case, a convicted felon sparked the incident by confronting the permit holder. According to the prosecutor, the permit holder "was in some way defending himself during an escalating altercation between the men caught on the security video" and that, "People can look at that tape and interpret it two or three different ways." His conviction rested on the question of whether he had done enough to avoid the confrontation.

The Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center show their desperation by twisting legitimate examples of self-defense into crimes. The simple fact is that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens. Suggesting that burglars, rapists and other hardened criminals are "victims" of permit holders is a stretch, even for these groups. The real statistics show that America is a safer place thanks to more of its citizens having a right to protect themselves and their families.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.

McDonald v. Chicago

Why Guns Are Good

By John Stossel

You know what the mainstream media think about guns and our freedom to carry them.

Pierre Thomas of ABC: "When someone gets angry or when they snap, they are going to be able to have access to weapons."

Chris Matthews of MSNBC: "I wonder if in a free society violence is always going to be a part of it if guns are available."

Keith Olbermann, also of MSNBC, who usually can't be topped for absurdity: "Organizations like the NRA ... are trying to increase deaths by gun in this country."

"Trying to?" Well, I admit that I bought that nonsense for years. Living in Manhattan, working at ABC, everyone agreed that guns are evil. And that the NRA is evil. (Now that the NRA has agreed to a sleazy deal with congressional Democrats on political speech censorship, maybe some of its leaders areevil, but that's for another column.)

Now I know that I was totally wrong about guns. Now I know that more guns means -- hold onto your seat -- lesscrime.

(This will be the topic, by the way, tomorrow night on my Fox Business News show.)

How can that be, when guns kill almost 30,000 Americans a year?

Because while we hear about the murders and accidents, we don't often hear about the crimes stopped because would-be victims showed a gun and scared criminals away.

Those thwarted crimes and lives saved usually aren't reported to police (sometimes for fear the gun will be confiscated), and when they are reported, the media tend to ignore them. No bang, no news.

This state of affairs produces a distorted public impression of guns. If you only hear about the crimes and accidents, and never about lives saved, you might think gun ownership is folly.

But, hey, if guns save lives, it logically follows that gun laws cost lives.

Suzanna Hupp and her parents were having lunch at Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, when a man began shooting diners with his handgun, even stopping to reload. Suzanna's parents were two of the 23 people killed. (20 more were wounded.)

Suzanna owned a handgun, but because Texas law, at the time, did not permit her to carry it with her, she left it in her car. She's confident that she could have stopped the shooting spree if she had her gun. (Texas has since changed its law.)

Today, 40 states issue permits to competent, law-abiding adults to carry concealed handguns (Vermont and Alaska have the most libertarian approach: no permit needed. Arizona is about to join that exclusive club.) Every time a carry law was debated, anti-gun activists predicted outbreaks of gun violence after fender-benders, card games and domestic quarrels.

What happened?

John Lott, in his book "More Guns, Less Crime," explains that crime fell by 10 percent in the year after the laws were passed . A reason for the drop in crime may have been that criminals suddenly worried that their next victim might be armed.

Indeed, criminals in states with high civilian gun ownership were the most worried about encountering armed victims.

In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, almost half of all burglaries occur when residents are home. But in the United States, where many households contain guns, only 13 percent of burglaries happen when someone's at home.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case that Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership was unconstitutional. District politicians then loosened the law but still have so many restrictions that there are no gun shops in the city and just 800 people have received permits. Nevertheless, contrary to the mayor's prediction, robbery and other violent crime are down.

Because Heller applied only to Washington, that case was not the big one. "McDonald v. Chicago" is the big one, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on that next week. Otis McDonald is a 76-year-old man who lives in a dangerous neighborhood on Chicago's South Side. He wants to buy a handgun, but Chicago forbids it.

If the Supremes say McDonald has that right, then restrictive gun laws will fall throughout America.

Despite my earlier bias, I now understand that striking down those laws will probably save lives.

National Rifle Association Hails Historic Victory on Second Amendment Freedom in McDonald v. City of Chicago

NRA-ILA

Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association of America today praised the U.S. Supreme Court's historic decision in another landmark Second Amendment case. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies not just to Washington, D.C. and other federal enclaves, but protects the rights of all Americans throughout the country. The opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago brings an end to the nearly 30 year-long handgun ban that the city has imposed on its law-abiding citizens.

“This is a landmark decision,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “The Second Amendment -- as every citizen's constitutional right -- is now a real part of American constitutional law. The NRA will work to ensure this constitutional victory is not transformed into a practical defeat by activist judges defiant city councils or cynical politicians who seek to pervert, reverse or nullify the Supreme Court's McDonald decision through Byzantine labyrinths of restrictions and regulations that render the Second Amendment inaccessible, unaffordable or otherwise impossible to experience in a practical, reasonable way.”

As a party to the case, the NRA participated in oral arguments before the Court in March. The NRA persuasively argued that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment and that handgun bans, like those in the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park, are unconstitutional under any standard of judicial review. This same view was shared in friend of the court briefs by a bipartisan group of 309 members of Congress from both chambers, 38 state attorneys general, and hundreds of state legislators. Public opinion polls show that it is also shared by the overwhelming majority of the American people.

“This decision makes absolutely clear that the Second Amendment protects the God-given right of self-defense for all law-abiding Americans, period,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “Ironically, while crime in Chicago runs rampant and lawmakers there call on the National Guard for help, Mayor Daley has insisted on leaving the residents of his city defenseless. Today's opinion puts the law back on the side of the law-abiding. We will be watching closely to make sure that Chicago abides by both the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court's decision.”

Open-carry gun activists laud N.C.

The Sun News

Randy Dye will sometimes carry a gun on his hip, right out in the open, no jacket pulled over it, no inside-the-belt holster. It draws funny looks, and Dye doesn't much care.

One time, Dye explains, he was standing in line for a money order when the guy behind him asked, "Are you a police officer?" Dye said no, and the guy kept staring, so Dye stared back. "We good?" Dye asked, and the conversation stopped.

"I wasn't trying to intimidate," says Dye, a retired trauma nurse in Chatham County. "He approached me. If you don't understand your constitutional rights, you need to go read them."

In North Carolina, a grass-roots segment of gun rights advocates increasingly calls for firearms displayed as blatantly as a ballpoint pen in a shirt pocket. A national pro-gun Internet group, opencarry.org, ranks the state among the friendliest to those who wear a weapon for all the world to see. The state, like Montana, Arizona and Kentucky, gets a gold star.

Unlike concealed weapons, plain-sight guns are almost totally unregulated in North Carolina, where only a misdemeanor "going armed to the terror of the public" speaks to the issue. In contrast, gun-friendly states such as Texas and South Carolina are rated as relatively hostile to carrying unconcealed handguns in public even though they, like North Carolina, are among at least 48 states that have concealed handgun carry permit laws.

In the Triangle, more than 100 people have joined an Internet "meetup" group dedicated to open-carry firearms, getting together at a Raleigh Five Guys and a Cary Chik-Fil-A, encouraging even the skittish to attend. A similar group has formed in the Triad, and backers, including Dye, will hold a rally in Greensboro in August.

"It's gaining momentum," said Paul Valone, president of nonprofit firearms group Grass Roots North Carolina. "These are perfectly normal people. These are not gun nuts."

1995 restrictions

Before 1995, firearms advocates note, it was legal to carry a gun openly almost anywhere in public. But when the state's concealed weapons law passed that year, ending a 116-year-old ban on hidden guns, it also set up restrictions for guns of any kind - concealed or otherwise. Firearms are not permitted inside schools or government buildings, for example, and private businesses have the right to post prohibitions on their premises.

A recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows that 47 percent of Americans oppose open-carry laws, citing safety concerns, compared to 41 percent who are in favor. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has lobbied against overt firearms display. Even among gun owners, the question of open versus concealed carry creates a division, with varying degrees of eagerness or dismay about wearing a loaded pistol on the hip.

"I think a lot of people would have problems with that," said Hilton Cancel, a retired police detective who has a concealed carry permit and sits on the board of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence.

In arguing against openly packing a handgun in public, Cancel echoes one of the Old West lines used during the debate about North Carolina's concealed handgun permit law: "Parents with children, and seeing folks carrying guns out in the open, just kind of gives you the feeling you're in Dodge City."

Still, there is nothing on the books that outlaws overt weaponry, short of that misdemeanor that bans going armed "to the terror of the public," which generally doesn't apply to simple gun display.

For some gun rights advocates, carrying an unconcealed gun is an opportunity to vigorously exercise their 2nd Amendment guarantees and for self-defense. In May, Harris Teeter grocery stores faced a huge backlash from gun-carrying customers when the company posted signs banning guns, concealed or otherwise. The signs came down quickly. In 2005, Charlotte contemplated an open-carry ban, but later balked. Nationwide, Starbucks has won plaudits from gun owners for refusing to ban firearms in its stores within open-carry states, unlike stores such as California Pizza Kitchen, which allows only uniformed officers with open guns.

"The Constitution doesn't say I have the right to keep and bear arms if I keep them concealed," said Eric Shuford, an instructor at the Wake County gun range, who reports seeing more interest in open carry. "It says I have the right to keep and bear arms."

Armed, not ordinary

For Bubba McDowell, a blogger in Zebulon who considers the 2nd Amendment the most important part of the Bill of Rights, owning a gun is both a right and a serious responsibility.

He started open carrying 33 years ago and only got a concealed permit last year. People ask him about his gun every day, he said. When a Best Buy employee asked whether he was a police officer, a military man or an ordinary civilian, he replied, "I'm not an ordinary civilian. I'm an armed civilian."

"The usual question is 'Are you an undercover police officer?' because I have long hair and a beard," he said. "It's part of my wardrobe. As I put my belt in the loop. The pistol holster is part of the loop."

There is nervousness about open-carry, even among lifelong gun folks. Shuford will wear a gun in a grocery store, especially in the summer when it's harder to conceal. But the possibility of someone reacting badly to the sight of a gun is always there, so he limits the habit.

At Perry's Gun Shop in Wendell, Barry Perry reports heavy interest in concealed handguns, showing off rows of pistols designed for that purpose in his display case. Most gun owners don't want people to feel intimidated by a weapon out in the open, he said. Others worry that open carry is too extreme and likely to generate a backlash that cuts into other firearms laws. More, even passionate gun advocates, doubt open carry's effectiveness as a crime deterrent.

Even Valone, who advocates removing many of the restrictions attached to North Carolina's concealed carry law, has doubts. If somebody were robbing a convenience store in which he were buying a soda, Valone said, he'd rather they not know he was carrying a gun. It takes away the element of surprise.

Regardless, he advised, an open carrier needs to know the law. You can't take a gun anyplace where admission is charged or alcohol is served.

And when Dye led a protest last week outside Rep. Bob Etheridge's office in downtown Raleigh, he carried no piece on his hip - verboten at a public demonstration.

"We do our best to follow the law," Dye said. "We don't always agree with it.

"

Gun Control and Mass Murders

Washington Times

It wasn’t supposed to happen in England, with its very strict gun-control laws. And yet last week, Derrick Bird shot twelve people to death and wounded eleven others in the northwestern county of Cumbria. A headline in the London Times read: “Toughest laws in the world could not stop Cumbria tragedy.”

But surely this was an aberration. Because America has the most guns, multiple-victim public shootings are an American thing, right? No, not at all. Contrary to public perception, Western Europe, most of whose countries have much tougher gun laws than the United States, has experienced many of the worst multiple-victim public shootings. Particularly telling, all the multiple-victim public shootings in Western Europe have occurred in places where civilians are not permitted to carry guns. The same is true in the United States: All the public shootings in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where civilians may not legally bring guns.

Look at recent history. Where have the worst K–12 school shootings occurred? Nearly all of them in Europe. The very worst one occurred in a high school in Erfurt, Germany, in 2002, where 18 were killed. The second-worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, where 16 kindergartners and their teacher were killed. The third-worst, with 15 dead, happened in Winnenden, Germany. The fourth-worst was in the U.S. — Columbine High School in 1999, leaving 13 dead. The fifth-worst, with eleven murdered, occurred in Emsdetten, Germany.

It may be a surprise to those who believe in gun control that Germany was home to three of the five worst attacks. Though not quite as tight as the U.K.’s regulations, Germany’s gun-control laws are some of the most restrictive in Europe. German gun licenses are valid for only three years, and to obtain one, the person must demonstrate such hard-to-define characteristics as trustworthiness, and must also convince authorities that he needs a gun. This is on top of prohibitions on gun ownership for those with mental disorders, drug or alcohol addictions, violent or aggressive tendencies, or felony convictions.

The phenomenon is not limited to school attacks. Multiple-victim public shootings in general appear to be at least as common in Western Europe as they are here. The following is a partial list of attacks since 2001. As mentioned, all of them occurred in gun-free zones — places where guns in the hands of civilians are outlawed.

-Zug, Switzerland, Sept. 27, 2001: A man whose lawsuits had been denied murdered 14 members of a cantonal parliament.

-Tours, France, Oct. 29, 2001: Four people were killed and ten wounded when a French railway worker started shooting at a busy intersection.

-Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: A man killed eight city-council members after a council meeting.

-Erfurt, Germany, April 26, 2002: A former student killed 18 at a secondary school.

-Freising, Germany, Feb. 19, 2002: Three people killed and one wounded.

-Turin, Italy, Oct. 15, 2002: Seven people killed on a hillside overlooking the city.

-Madrid, Spain, Oct. 1, 2006: A man killed two employees and wounded another at a company that had fired him.

-Emsdetten, Germany, Nov. 20, 2006: A former student murdered eleven people at a high school.

-Tuusula, Finland, Nov. 7, 2007: Seven students and the principal killed at a high school.

-Naples, Italy, Sept. 18, 2008: Seven dead and two seriously wounded in a public meeting hall. (This incident is not included in the totals given below because it may have involved the Mafia.)

-Kauhajoki, Finland, Sept. 23, 2008: Ten people shot to death at a college.

-Winnenden, Germany, March 11, 2009: A 17-year-old former student killed 15 people, including nine students and three teachers.

-Lyon, France, March 19, 2009: Ten people injured when a man opened fire on a nursery school.

-Athens, Greece, April 10, 2009: Three people killed and two injured by a student at a vocational college.

-Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: Three people killed and one injured at a crowded café.

-Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2009: One dead and 15 wounded in an attack on a Sikh temple.

-Espoo, Finland, Dec. 31, 2009: Four people shot to death at a mall.

-Cumbria, England, June 2, 2010: Twelve killed by a British taxi driver.

So how does this compare with the United States? Bill Landes at the University of Chicago and I have collected data on all the multiple-victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 (for a discussion of that information, see the just-released updated third edition of More Guns, Less Crime). If one looks at just those cases where four or more people have been killed in an attack, on average 10.6 people died in such attacks each year; the worst attack was the Luby’s Cafeteria shooting in Killeen, Texas, in 1991, in which 23 people died.

I don’t have exactly comparable data for Europe; however, the data I have been able to collect for the nine and a half years from 2001 through now indicate that on average some 12.5 people per year have died in such attacks. To be sure, Western Europe has a lower per capita rate, since its population over the last decade has been about 48 percent larger than the U.S. population over the earlier period (about 387 million to 262 million). Still, the fact that there are such attacks at all belies the conventional wisdom.

Large multiple-victim public shootings are exceedingly rare events, but they garner massive news attention, and the misperceptions they produce are hard to erase. When I have been interviewed by foreign journalists, even German ones, they usually start off by asking why multiple-victim public shootings are such an American problem. And of course, they are astonished when I remind them of the attacks in their own countries and point out that this is not an American problem, it is a universal problem, but with a common factor: The attacks occur in public places where civilians are banned from carrying guns.

Ambushed Florida Father in Shootout with Robbers

The U.N. Gun Grabber

Global Small Arms Treaty threatens your right to self defense

Washington Times

American gun owners might not feel besieged, but they should. This week, the Obama administration announced its support for the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. This international agreement poses real risks for freedom both in the United States and around the world by making it more difficult - if not outright illegal - for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

The U.N. claims that guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year, an inordinate number of which are the result of internal civil strife within individual nations. The solution proposed by transnationalists to keep rebels from getting guns is to make the global pool of weapons smaller through government action. According to recent deliberations regarding the treaty, signatory countries would be required to "prevent, combat and eradicate" various classes of guns to undermine "the illicit trade in small arms." Such a plan would necessarily lead to confiscation of personal firearms.

This may seem like a reasonable solution to governments that don't trust their citizens, but it represents a dangerous disregard for the safety and freedom of everybody. First of all, not all insurgencies are bad. As U.S. history shows, one way to get rid of a despotic regime is to rise up against it. That threat is why authoritarian regimes such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone endorse gun control.

Political scientist Rudy Rummel estimates that the 15 worst regimes during the 20th century killed 151 million of their own citizens, which works out to 1.5 million victims per year. Even if all 300,000 annual deaths from armed conflicts can be blamed on the small-arms trade (which they cannot), governments are a bigger threat to most people than their neighbors.

This U.N. treaty will lead to more gun control in America. "After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms," former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton warns. "The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. ... They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn't otherwise."

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty opens a back door for the Obama administration to force through gun control regulations. Threats to the Second Amendment are as real today as ever.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times

Open Carry Push In Texas

Star Telegram

Gun-rights advocates pushing for open carry law in Texas

Posted Saturday, May. 22, 2010

By ANNA M. TINSLEY

atinsley@star-telegram.com

Texas is considered to have some of the most permissive gun laws in the nation, but gun-rights advocates are making it one of their top political targets because it is one of a handful of states that don't allow handguns to be carried openly.

"It's shocking that Texas, with its history of rugged individualism that the state symbolizes, doesn't allow open carry," said John Pierce, a co-founder of and spokesman for www.OpenCarry.org. If the Legislature doesn't approve an open-carry bill when it convenes in January, "then we'll see them in 2013," Pierce said, referring to that session of the Legislature.

Texans have been able to get licenses to carry concealed handguns in most places since 1995. Gun-rights advocates say it's time to let Texans pack their pistols in full public view as well.

Texas -- where it's still not unusual in some areas to see shotguns and rifles on gun racks in pickups -- is one of seven states -- the others are Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma and South Carolina, plus Washington, D.C. -- without an open-carry law.

This month, Oklahoma lawmakers overwhelmingly approved an open-carry bill, only to have it vetoed by Democratic Gov. Brad Henry. The battle there continues as the House fell just short Thursday in a vote to override the veto. Legislators say they may try another override in the closing days of their session this week.

To Marsha McCartney, it doesn't matter what other states do. She doesn't want Texas to expand its gun laws.

"If you see someone with a holster on, are you just to assume this is a law-abiding person?" said McCartney, state president of the North Texas Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Are you to assume this person is safe to be around your family? People don't know this.

"It's common sense thrown out a window."

The idea of open carry was discussed in the Texas Capitol in 2009 and is expected -- along with other measures to expand Texans' gun rights -- to come up again when lawmakers get back to work in January.

Days gone by?



In Texas, more than 65,000 people have signed an online petition asking Gov. Rick Perry and the Legislature to make Texas an open-carry state. Perry says he won't rule it out.

"The governor believes our concealed-carry law works for Texas and that a person ought to be able to carry their weapon with them anywhere in the state if they are licensed and have gone through the training," Perry's spokeswoman Allison Castle said. "He would be open to looking at any proposals lawmakers bring to the table regarding open carry. I suppose we've got what you could call a Texas open carry since you can hang your rifle in the window of your pickup truck."

More than a dozen states require a license for open carry -- Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Utah. Another dozen allow open carry but don't require licenses -- Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming, according to www.OpenCarry.org.

California allows open carry only in rural areas; the other 16 states are defined as open-carry friendly.

"This is a return to days gone by," McCartney said. "I don't live in a community where I want to see people with holsters. I think others probably feel the same way.

"Where are we going to draw this line? Or are we going to carry them everywhere?"

Legislative push

Pierce said he and other open-carry supporters will start talking to Texas lawmakers soon to see who might be interested in carrying an open-carry bill. In 2009, they focused on state Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball, because she seemed the most receptive.

In the end, Riddle didn't carry the bill, nor did anyone else.

State Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, a former Arlington mayor pro tem, said he would consider voting for the open-carry proposal if it got to the House floor, which he said isn't likely. But that would mean that the proposal had significant support from lawmakers and gun-rights supporters in Texas.

But he said two other bills -- one that would let those who were older than 21 and had the right license to carry concealed handguns on college campuses and another to let licensees keep concealed handguns in their vehicles at work -- will likely get the bulk of attention next session. He said he would support those measures, both of which died during the 2009 legislative session.

Alice Tripp, a lobbyist for the Texas State Rifle Association, said Texans lost the right to carry handguns openly, except on their own property, in the 1870s.

"Fifteen years ago, when Texas finally passed their concealed-carry license, it was a major coup," Tripp said, adding that about 400,000 Texans now have a license to carry concealed handguns. "The license is a success."

While the rifle association is working on the measures for guns on campuses and at work, the group would support pro-gun legislation -- such as open carry -- if it got to the House or Senate floor.

'Open carry makes sense'

Texans who signed the petition say they support open carry for various reasons.

"I'm a firm, long time believer in my 2nd Amendment right to keep & bear arms! I hope & pray that the open carry law comes to be in the state of Texas & I urge the powers that be in Texas to make it a law," Tolbert L. Parfnell wrote on the petition.

John Daniels wrote, "Criminals will not rob armed citizens if they SEE the citizen is armed."

Jason W. Traynham wrote: "C'mon Gov. Perry, COYOTES are bad in Williamson County too. ... Open carry makes sense, most are carrying anyway either legal or otherwise."

A Renewed Call For Open-Carry In Texas

KRLD News

A vote in Oklahoma is expected to renew the push here in Texas for an open-carry law.
It's unclear whether the governor of Oklahoma will sign off, but yesterday the state house voted overwhelmingly to approve allowing gun owners with permits to openly carry their weapons in public. There's been a movement for years here in Texas for the state's conceal carry law to be changed to allow licensed owners to carry handguns in plain sight, but it's always faced opposition from those who believe allowing it would be intimidating to those who don't own guns. Others worry the wrong people could wrestle away a person's gun. But, thousands in Texas have signed a petition aimed at pushing lawmakers to allow law-abiding citizens to carry their guns in plain sight. The debate will no doubt heat up ahead of the next legislative session here in Texas in January.

Wish List 04.25.10

Well, another year has past, and my wish list for personal toys changes once again. Here is this year's wish list. There is no particular order, and I already know there is no way I will acquire this whole list. But hey, everyone has a dream.:

>Bushmaster M15A2 20" 5.56mm



>Bushmaster ACR 5.56mm



>Bushmaster ORC 5.56mm w/ EOTEC sight



>Glock 22 Gen 4 .40 S&W



>Glock 17 OD 9mm NATO



>Ruger LCR .38 S&W Special



>Kimber Warrior .45 ACP



>Arsenal AK 7.62x39



>Beretta 90-Two .40 S&W



>Mossberg 590 12 ga.

Dumb Liberal Quote 03.29.10

This piece of typical Libtard wisdom regarding self defense is from the Toledo Blade.

Twice in just the past few days, seemingly bad guys were shot while allegedly attempting to rob Toledo stores. Although we're glad the robberies were thwarted and thankful no innocents were injured, we're not sure that store owners and employees defending themselves with deadly force is an absolute good.