29 October 2009

Tennessee AG Says Landlords Can Ban Guns

Wow. I didn't think landlords, particularly in residential settings, want the liability associated with providing a safe environment for their tenants. Or, in truth, the lawsuits that will surely come when someone renting a property is killed because they were denied the means to defend themselves. But apparently the state attorney general of Tennessee thinks otherwise.

One state lawmaker asks a brilliant question:

"Shipley said the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would apply to someone living in an apartment to prevent law enforcement officers from entering
without a search warrant. If the Fourth Amendment applies, why doesn't the
Second Amendment apply? he said. "Can a landlord say you give up free speech,
under the First Amendment, in the apartment? I think not."

Well stated.

Here in Ohio, a coalition of groups worked together awhile back to push through reform that prevents landlords from such bigotry. You already can't discriminate based on sex, race and for many other reasons in most states. So why is it okay to discriminate against a law abiding firearm owner?

I don't think people in Tennessee are going to stand for this one.

And Just Why Is This Surprising?


"Number of Women Buying Handguns Increasing"

Wow! Shocking news! NOT . . . at least not if you live in the Chicagoland area, or watch what is happening in Chicago, as politicians there who keep honest taxpayers disarmed while doing little about the gang-bangers running amok shooting people left and right.

Yes, women in the greater Chicago area are buying handguns in droves. Why, I don't need to mention. Self preservation. The basic human right of self defense. Tired of politicians telling them what to do, but nothing getting done. Worried that police can't get there on time.

Gee, people taking back control over their own lives. Hmmm . . . Mayor Daley won't like that!

23 October 2009

We Already Have Tools To Defend Against Violent Hate Crimes

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate passed what some are hailing as "groundbreaking legislation" -- the creation of a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

If someone is being assaulted, GLBT Americans already have a tool to defend themselves that is far superior to a piece of paper that politicians eager for votes and contributions are slobbering over in Washington.

Its called a .45. For some, it's a .38. For others, its a 9 mm.

Actually, these widely used tools are good for defending against ANY kind of violent assault, without categorizing the reasons why the scumbags of the world want to go after someone.

22 October 2009

No Horsing Around For This 70 Year Old; She Meant Business

An elderly woman visiting the American Quarter Horse Congress in Columbus this week -- the third largest convention in the United States -- shot an intruder who burst into her hotel room late Wednesday night.

According to news accounts, the woman, a great-grandmother from Ironton, Ohio, who has not been identified by police, pulled a gun when the attacker entered the room and demanded cash from the people gathered there. Everyone was ordered to the floor, and that put her in proximity to her personal defense sidearm. Police say no charges are expected (duh). And that the incident may go before a grand jury for review. No, in Franklin County ALL shootings (by good guys, bad guys or by police) go to the grand jury for review.

Quarter Horse Congress visitors are known for paying cash for just about everything. Whether this thug knew that ahead of time, we will probably never know. Family members say the police they met with have been "extremely supportive" of their mother. As well they should be. Armed citizens are a police officer's best friend. Younger LEOs don't always appreciate this, but veterans get it.

If you ask me, this woman should receive the "Self Defender Award of the Month" for her quick thinking and common sense actions. Her friends and family are lucky she was there, and that she was armed.

18 October 2009

Western Classic Asks 'Wouldn't It Be Nice'

This morning I was watching a re-run of Wagon Train on TV. The show, a western, aired in the 1960s and concerned the people and events surrounding a typical wagon trail of pioneer settlers moving across the U.S. plains toward hoped-for bright new futures in the American west.

This particular episode, a pretty good one, involved the shooting of a man at night who was stealing a horse. Remember, back then, horse thieves were either shot or hung. For a man's horse represented life. To deprive someone of their horse was a capital offense.

Anyway, at one point a little boy whose father was the supposed thief (it later turned out the man had been duped; he was exercising a horse thinking he was buying them, but actually had been set up by his brother and branded a thief) pulled down a rifle and stated that if he found the culprit he would kill the man who shot his father.

Shortly after, one of the main characters of the show, a scout named Flint, is talking to the boy. An early gun control message in a sense. But in his day, such a sentimen was probably far reaching and noble. But a cowboy of the 1800s could not foresee the troubles the nation has been led to. In the show, Flint gently tells the boy that its hard enough for a man to kill a man. It would be much harder for a boy to kill a man. He further says that his gun has killed many things, but he has never broken the law with it. That guns don't solve problems. People solve problems.

I am paraphrasing here, but the lecture to the boy generally followed these words: "I believe there will be a day when a man doesn't have to walk down the streets armed. That people will be good to each other. That a man won't feel naked if he isn't wearing a gun."

True, guns don't solve problems. But they do save lives. Ask pretty much any military historian, and they will tell you the United States was never invaded because private citizens have a right guaranteed by the Constitution to own personal firearms. Even dictators and despots from other parts of the world said such an invasion would be suicide. Generally, I don't feel naked without a gun. But in those times when I have to be in areas where the crime rate is higher, there are times I wonder if I should carry. Of course, criminal attacks can happen anywhere. But while there might have been a time when people felt safe, it is not so now.

Think of the good people of Chicago. Some of whom are not leaving their homes because of violent crime. But they are not permitted to own a personal sidearm for their protection, as so ordered by a mayor and city council, most of whom are guarded by police paid by taxpayer dollars -- many of those taxpayers being the people who fear life in their own neighborhoods. Its twisted, isn't it?

People in this nation are good to each other for the most part. But for decades the justice system somehow becamed turned around, seemingly penalizing law abiding people for protecting themselves and their property, and giving undue protection to criminals. While for a number of crimes mandatory sentencing became the rage, the people rights -- which had been infringed around most of the nation -- were still being taken away bit-by-bit.

But about 20 years ago that started to change. With the first bans on competion rifles (so-called "assault weapons") Americans decided they had had enough. Kids who have been told guns are bad, increasingly, are asking college officials why they don't have a right to defend themselves if they are attacked. Individuals are filing court cases to overturn antiquated bans on handguns, or to loosen meaningless licensing restrictions.

The police cannot be everywhere. The old joke: . . . "Why do you carry a gun? Because a cop is too heavy" . . . has never been more true today. The shrill, worn-out, repetitive warnings of the gun control crowd that our streets would become like the old west if people are allowed to keep or carry guns has been proven not just to be wrong, but a big lie. Of course, generally, the old west was a quiet place. But the romantic old west of tv and movies is one of shoot-outs at every turn.

In point of fact, the streets that resemble the old west of tv and movies are found in those streets where the strictest gun control is present. Exactly the opposite of what the gun controllers insisted was necessary. Their actions have gotten people killed. But are they held accountable? Who of them steps forward to say, "we were wrong?" No one.

The wagon train scout mentioned above, Flint, says it best. People solve problems. And slowly, in the courts, and in state legislatures, the people are being returned rights that were unfairly and wrongly taken away. The right to defend themselves with the most logical tool possible. The great equalizer, as guns were called, ironically, back in the days of the old west.

People are fighting for their right to freedom. For self protection. To hunt. To shoot for sport and recreation. And to protect their nation. People feel naked, in a figurative sense, when those in Washington and in our state legislatures DO NOT do what is right to protect the people, but instead do what they need to do to protect themselves . . . to keep themselves in power.

With Heller, we may have taken back a bit of our rights. But there is a growing resentment that the powers that be in the White House, in Washington DC, and in a number of states, that those elected to represent Americans in this republic we call the United States, are doing things to support some unseen agenda. Witness the "tea parties" that popped up all around the nation. And to further the notion that the elite are out of touch with mainstream America, witness the venom spit at regular, law-abiding moms, grandmothers, dads and kids for showing up at such.

In business, "going naked" means going without insurance on purpose. These days, "insurance" is best defined as being informed and enlightened, and supporting the Second Amendment. Both are insurance against laws being rammed through without being read, against rules that harm the economy, and against people who would work to usurp the system to meet their own utopian vision of a top-down power structure.

As those international commanders of World War 1, World War 2 and other conflicts since those days have recognized, it makes no sense to invade the U.S. from without because its citizens are armed, or at least have the right to be armed even if they choose not to exercise that right.

Will usurpers from within come to realize the same thing?

12 October 2009

Mayor Bloomberg And His Objection To Individual Property Rights

. . . can best be illustrated by his continual attack on gun shows in the United States.

The video is everywhere so I won't waste space here with more images. But my thinking is if he is serious . . . and I am giving him the benefit of the doubt here, he had best start going after car shows, also. For there is no law that requires you to have a background check -- or even get a driver's license -- to get behind the wheel of a Ford, GM, Honda or the potential killing machine that is the green-conscious Toyata Prius . . . a veritable death trap if the wrong hands.

It doesn't matter your intent for the vehicle, under Michael Bloomberg's utopian plan for America, you will ask permission to buy pretty much everything that might be able to hurt someone, or yourself. Has he started regulating 5-gallon buckets of drywall mud yet at New York City hardware stores, let alone at home improvement big-box retailers across the nation? Of course not. Those dangerous items, along with box-cutters, ballpoint pens and butter knives (all classified as "edged weapons") aren't sexy. Better put, he goes after firearms because he can make more political hay that way.

Recently, he sent hired "investigators" to gun shows in Tennessee, Ohio and other states. And in each -- gasp -- he found people selling items in private transactions, just like lawn mowers, used cars, and chipped New York Giants coffee mugs. Selling a personal firearm, in a private transaction between two people, is not a loophole. It was an exception especially carved out to protect respect for personal property rights.

If selling a used mayoral limosine at a car pawn shop in the Bronx in a private transaction without background checks is legal, then so is selling grandad's single shot rifle, or an elderly widow selling her departed husband's favorite handgun.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns suffers from a number of problems. First, its name is a misnomer. Think about it. Secondly, mayors across the nation are dropping out of this draconian "organization" because its true goals are being exposed. MAIG is not about enforcing laws, it is about ultimately denying law abiding moms, grandmothers and dads from quickly and easily acquiring that which is protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The more important question about his latest "investigation" is, will he or the organizers who hired the so-called "investigators" be prosecuted for the laws THEY broke in order to create this heavily-edited "report"? The latest news this morning has some suggesting that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) will start its own investigation. That might be interesting.

In my opinion, some of these private sellers are downright stupid in the remarks they made. Maybe, like the defense of the ACORN employee who, on tape, said she killed her husband (she didn't; she says she was playing with the couple who asked her the questions), one of the idiots on tape who said he couldn't pass a background check either was likely screwing around and having fun with the so-called "investigator." I don't know.

But keep this in mind. I have no idea if the individual sellers are guilty of a crime, as Bloomberg alleges. But if they are, then the buyer with the camera would have to be a prohibited person under the law and will need prosecuted. If the buyer is not an actual prohibited person and it was legal for them to obtain the guns, then the seller has done nothing wrong. The good mayor of New York City, or one of his lackeys, is the one that needs to go to jail. Since he has no jurisdiction in these other states and he is financing these operations, he may well be guilty of conspiracy to deny someone of their civil rights (the Justice Department goes after those scofflaws).

Frankly, many doubt the BATFE would do a real investigation as it would most likely end at the mayor's office.

In the United States, citizens stand up for their rights. Subjects acquiece. That's what drives Bloomberg and his cronies nuts. The fact that more and more Americans are recognizing Bloomberg's self-funded "organization" is a smokescreen for gun control. Which, according to the latest polls, logically continues to wane in importance to Americans.

Why? Because they worry about crime. They worry about terrorism. They worry about their individual rights. And giving in on the issue of firearms freedom, most Americans are realizing as they become more enlightened, puts them at risk on each and every one of these fronts.

Oh, by the way. The city of Sharonville, in SW Ohio is none too happy with the Mayor's hijinks. Here is the story.

As my good friend David Codrea writes, "This should make any fair-thinking person wonder if Bloomberg is truly serious about stopping "illegal gun sales," or if his primary motivation is to generate self-serving publicity. After all, we're talking about a creature so desperate for power -- and control over the lives of all who fall within reach of his clutches -- that he won't give it up in spite of the law. Instead, he'll change the law, and the expressed will of the people be damned.

Does all this make you think Bloomberg is merely eccentric? Or dangerous?

10 October 2009

A Reminder: DO NOT Buy Ammunition at Wal Mart

In case you were not aware, or have forgotten, Wal-Mart is in a bizarre partnership with Mayor Mikey's anti-gun cabal of mayors who have forgotten their oaths of office (most of them swear to support the Constitution of the United States).

You reminder may be found here, with thanks to Ahab for the refresher.

Support for Gun Control At Its Lowest Point In Decades

A new Gallup poll shows that the number of Americans who favor tougher gun control laws has dropped to its lowest point in nearly 20 years. Gallup asked the question, "In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now? Forty-four percent said more strict, 12 percent said less strict, and 43 percent said the laws should be kept as they are now -- making for a 55-44 majority opposed to tougher laws.

But wait . . . there's more. Read the entire story by clicking here.

09 October 2009

Big Wilmington, Ohio Gun Show This Weekend

If you are in the Midwest U.S. this weekend, and anywhere near Ohio, you should head out to the big C&E/ShowMasters gun show taking place at the Roberts Center on Interstate 71 near Wilmington.

Here is a link to their website. My colleagues will be out front selling NRA memberships. Buy a one year membership, or renew your annual membership at a $10 discount from the normal National Rifle Association one-year rate, and you get into the show FREE.

Plus...you get a nifty hat, also FREE.

07 October 2009

Chicago Gun Controllers Want To Know Why Obama Not Jumping On Control Bandwagon

Chicago . . . one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S., if not THE most dangerous.

Chicago . . . it never stood a chance to get an Olympic bid, much to the surprise of supporters in the Windy City and some media chatterboxes. It seems they were the only ones who didn't know Chicago never would be chosen, and would likely be dropped early. Because of the violence there?

Violence that the gun controllers continually say can be curbed if only there were restrictions on guns? Well let's see . . . there is no concealed carry allowable in the entire state of Illinois. Pretty restricted there. And handgun ownership is banned in Chicago and a number of suburbs. Hmmm . . . so if guns are pretty much verboten, then how pray-tell can there possibly be all these shootings?

Gun controllers in Illinois and Chicago are upset because there will be a meeting today on violence against children, the latest being a child who was beaten with splintered railroad ties. Captured and replayed again and again on YouTube, the incident has further tarnished Chicago's already dangerous reputation. They want to know why Obama isn't doing more to ban handguns . . . whoops I meant restrict guns (they already are banned, right?).

An interesting read. Take a look and pass it on.

06 October 2009

PA College Relents: Quits Censoring Student's Attempt to Organize A New Campus Group

A student threatened with punishment for attempting to form a gun-rights group at Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) is finally eing ballowed to distribute pamphlets about the group on campus.

Read it here.

Score another for the good people at FIRE.

01 October 2009

Does CHL Ban In Churches Violate The 1st Amendment?

An interesting question and fascinating debate unfolding in Arkansas.

I won't comment until later. Read about it here.