Guns - Prison

Where else, but the Big Apple?

A public service campaign displaying the slogan "Guns = Prison" across New York City is an affront to law-abiding firearm owners and an attempt to scare younger people from pursuing legal gun ownership, a group that supports the Second Amendment charged on Thursday.

The group added that if New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg had his way, all guns in America would be outlawed.

Each of the posters blanketing New York City contains a brief message: one proclaiming "Guns Open Doors for Young People ... Prison Doors" and another simply portraying the word "JAIL" in capital letters, with the "L" as an image of a semiautomatic pistol.

At the bottom of each ad is a message that reads in smaller print: "Get Caught Carrying an Illegal Gun, Get 3 1/2 Years in Prison."

The posters are being displayed on space donated by corporate partners, including 1,000 Verizon phone kiosks, 500 posters for restaurants, clubs and bars, 50 backlit illuminated posters, 50 outdoor display panels and 1,500 bus interior ads.

Launched by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Citizens Crime Commission of New York City (CCC) President Richard Aborn, the campaign was criticized on Thursday by Alan Gottleib, president of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), as "perpetuating social bigotry against firearms and their owners."
If the mayor had his way, Gottleib told Cybercast News Service, "all guns would be illegal. In his utopian fantasy world, signs like that would not be confined to the Big Apple, they would also show up in places like Lander, Wyo., or Ft. Collins, Colo."

"If Bloomberg truly wanted to do something about criminal misuse of firearms, instead of teaming with Aborn to pander social bigotry against guns and the people who own them, then these posters would carry a different message so that the average person, looking at the poster from a distance, would not be left with the impression that guns in general are bad," he said.

Gottleib added that one of the mayor's partners in the new campaign -- Richard Aborn, past president of Handgun Control, Inc. -- is "one of the most virulently anti-gun extremists in the nation."

On the CCC's Web site, the group describes itself as "an independent, non-profit, non-partisan organization working to reduce crime and to improve the criminal justice system and the safety of New York City."

But "it's not about reducing crime," said Gottleib. "It's about attacking gun ownership."

"And Mayor Bloomberg is in bed with this bunch," said Gottleib. "He should publicly apologize to people who legally own and carry firearms every day in every corner of this country. Right now, he is holding up guns and their owners to public scorn and ridicule."

When Bloomberg introduced the campaign at a public ceremony in July, he declared that "last year, our administration succeeded in pushing through a law that gives New York the toughest penalty in the country for carrying an illegal loaded handgun."

"Almost 70 percent of murders in New York City are committed with firearms, and the vast majority of those weapons are illegal," said Aborn. "These ads, much like the law itself, are crystal clear in their simplicity - carry an illegal gun in New York and go to prison for 3 1/2 years.

"We are hopeful that this hard-hitting campaign will help keep guns off our streets by showing the serious consequences of carrying a gun and put an end to a tragic cycle of violence," Aborn added.

"This important community service project generated a lot of passion and excitement within our creative department," stated Brendan Ryan, a member of the CCC board of the directors and former CEO and chairman of Draftfcb New York, the advertising agency that designed the campaign.

"Our message of 'Guns = Prison' is purposely simple," Ryan noted. "Everyone can understand it. It's cut and dried - just like the new law."

The campaign "makes the point that illegal guns will simply not be tolerated in our city," said Bronx County District Attorney Robert Johnson. "That message must be spread. The new gun law has led to increased incarceration for gun offenders, and getting guns off our streets will make us all safer. Everyone should support this effort."

But on Thursday, Gottleib had a different perspective on the campaign.

"If Bloomberg wants us to believe he really isn't trying to take guns from everyone, he should revise those signs so people can tell the difference," he challenged, "and if he doesn't change the wording, then he is showing his true colors."

"As it now stands, Bloomberg is frightening people into giving up their firearms or never buying a firearm in the first place," Gottleib added. "He is demonizing inanimate objects in the furtherance of his anti-gun agenda, and planting the subliminal message that anyone who owns a gun is a criminal who belongs behind bars."

Telephone calls and e-mails seeking comment from the mayor's office and the CCC were not returned by press time.

Attention Michigan Handgun Owners

You know the annoying "safety inspection" you have to do whenever you purchase a handgun? You know, where you take the gun in to the police department and have them harass you and look at the gun to make sure the serial number is on it? Then you go and file the paperwork for the pistol in another part of the station?

Gun purchases are already highly scrutinized by state and federal authorities. This "safety inspection" isn't about safety at all. The cops conducting the inspection aren't trained gunsmiths, and the cops conducting the inspection have better things to do. Neither side - the gun owner or the cop - like these inspections, or see a need for them.

All this might stop, soon.

From NRA-ILA:

State Representative Paul Opsommer (R-93) has introduced legislation that seeks to repeal the required "safety inspection" for newly obtained handguns. House Bill 4490 would also require law enforcement agencies to destroy safety inspection records on file. Current Michigan law requires anyone who comes into possession of a pistol to take it to the police or sheriff’s department for a safety inspection. The requirement of a safety inspection is a burdensome waste of time for law-abiding gun owners and HB4490 will end that inconvenience.

HB4490 is expected to receive a hearing in the House Committee on Tourism, Outdoor Recreation, and Natural Resources soon. Please contact the members of the Committee and respectfully urge them to support passage of HB4490.

State Representative Joel Sheltrown (D-103), Committee Chair
(517) 373-3817
joelsheltrown@house.mi.gov

State Representative Kate Ebli (D-56), Majority Vice-Chair
(517) 373-2617
KateEbli@house.mi.gov

State Representative Tom Casperson (R-10, Minority Vice-Chair
(517) 373-0156
tomcasperson@house.mi.gov

State Representative Terry Brown (D-84)
(517) 373-0476
terrybrown@house.mi.gov

State Representative Ted Hammon (D-50)
(517) 373-3906
tedhammon@house.mi.gov

State Representative Kenneth Horn (R-94)
(517) 373-0837
kennethhorn@house.mi.gov

State Representative Kathleen Law (D-23)
(517) 373-0855
kathleenlaw@house.mi.gov

State Representative Steven Lindberg (D-109)
(517) 373-0498
stevenlindberg@house.mi.gov

State Representative Mike Simpson (D-65)
(517) 373-1775
mikesimpson@house.mi.gov

State Representative John Stakoe (R-44)
(517) 373-2616
johnstakoe@house.mi.gov

State Representative Howard Walker (R-104)
(517) 373-1766
howardwalker@house.mi.gov

West Virginia

Good news, Michigan CPL-holders. West Virginia just extended full reciprocity to us.

If you're heading down that way, you can find a copy of their gun laws here.

Students for Concealed Carry

An interesting article out of Kentucky. I'll skip the anti-gun portion.

Steven Davis owns a gun, and he has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. But when he steps onto Eastern's campus, he has to leave his gun behind. Davis and about 30 other people at Eastern want to change that.

Davis is a member of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, an anti-gun-control group at Eastern that advocates allowing people with concealed carry permits to bring their guns on campus with them.

Students for Concealed Carry has representatives at college campuses in 34 states. It wants to "push our state governments to approve laws that will give students and teachers the right to carry handguns on our college campuses," according to its Web site.

"I think it's a good group to get involved with," Davis said.

Davis signed up to help Students for Concealed Carry last fall.

In order to accomplish its goal, Students for Concealed Carry would need more than a chapter at Eastern. They would need to convince the state government to pass a law making gun bans on college campuses illegal, Davis said.

The only state currently allowing concealed weapons on campus is Utah.

Davis is still in the process of putting together a local group, but he said there are more than 30 people interested in being a part of Students for Concealed Carry. He doesn't expect there will be any change in the law before he graduates, he said.

Davis said allowing guns would make Eastern's campus safer because the people who have concealed carry permits already know how to use their guns correctly.

"It allows the people who can fight back the tools to fight back with," Davis said.

Another reason to allow guns is police response time, Davis said. Police can take several minutes to get to the scene of an emergency, which could be too late, he said.

"When seconds count, that four or five minutes is an eternity," he said.

Besides owning a gun and having a permit to carry a concealed weapon, Davis is also a concealed-carry instructor. This means he can teach the one-day class applicants must take before receiving their concealed-carry permit.

Davis said he believes the class teaches people how to be responsible with their guns and when it is appropriate or inappropriate in the use of guns. A one-day class isn't going to work miracles though, he said.

"It's not going to turn them into a police officer overnight," he said.

Allowing concealed carry wouldn't flood the campus with guns because only 1.5 to 2 percent of people have a concealedcarry permit, and you must be over 21 to apply for one, Davis said.

"It really wouldn't be that many people that would have [a gun] on campus," he said.

And Davis said gun-free zones like Eastern's campus are good targets for criminals. "Allowing people to carry guns on campus would mean criminals wouldn't know who had a gun and who didn't," he said.

NRA Director Sells Out Gun Owners

This was written by Jeff Knox from The Firearms Coalition.

Yesterday I sent out an Alert about NRA Director Joaquin Jackson's TV interview in which he opined that "assault weapons" were alright if they only had a capacity of 5 rounds.

This story has actually been bouncing around the internet for a couple of weeks and Ranger Jackson and NRA have released a response to the concerns raised by the story.

It is very clear in the interview exactly what Jackson is saying and what he means. Along with some other comments he states:

"I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but as far as assault weapons to a civilian, if you… if you… it's alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five rounds."

The interview took place on June 5, 2005 - not long after the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban had been allowed to sunset - so the debate on that issue should have been fairly fresh in Jackson's mind.

The interview can be viewed here.
http://www.klru.org/texasmonthlytalks/archives/jackson/jackson.asp

The pertinent segment is the last one on the page.

For the record, H. Joaquin Jackson is indeed a sitting member of the NRA Board of Directors. A complete listing of NRA Officers and Directors, along with their mailing addresses, was published in the current (September) issue of the NRA magazines.

A response has been posted on the NRA web site that is supposed to have been written by Jackson, but which does not really sound or feel like Jackson. In that response letter, Jackson - or his ghost writer - claims that the mistake is the viewer's, not his. That his only mistake was in not making himself clear that he was talking about hunting and full-auto assault weapons.

If that is true, then Ranger Jackson was advocating that the police have full-auto weapons and that it is "alright" for civilians to have then as long as the magazine capacity is restricted to only 5 rounds.

Here is the Statement:

Recently, concerns have been raised in response to statements made by NRA Board Member Joaquin Jackson to Texas Monthly in 2005. We have received questions from NRA members who are seeking clarity as to NRA’s positions on the subject matter discussed in Mr. Jackson’s interview. To be clear, NRA supports the right of all law-abiding citizens to Keep and Bear Arms for all lawful purposes. We will continue, as we have in the past, to vigorously oppose any efforts to limit gun ownership by law-abiding citizens as an unconstitutional infringement on our Second Amendment freedoms. These efforts include opposition to any attempts to ban firearms, including firearms incorrectly referred to as "assault weapons", and any attempts to place arbitrary limits on magazine capacity.

For more information on NRA's legislative efforts to protect and defend the Second Amendment, please visit www.NRAILA.org and www.Clintongunban.com.

STATEMENT OF JOAQUIN JACKSON

Recently, some misunderstandings have arisen about a news interview in which I participated a few years ago. After recently watching a tape of that interview, I understand the sincere concerns of many people, including dear friends of mine. And I am pleased and eager to clear up any confusion about my long held belief in the sanctity of the Second Amendment.

In the interview, when asked about my views of “assault weapons,” I was talking about true assault weapons – fully automatic firearms. I was not speaking, in any way, about semiautomatic rifles. While the media may not understand this critical distinction, I take it very seriously. But, as a result, I understand how some people may mistakenly take my comments to mean that I support a ban on civilian ownership of semiautomatic firearms. Nothing could be further from the truth. And, unfortunately, the interview was cut short before I could fully explain my thoughts and beliefs.

In fact, I am a proud owner of such rifles, as are millions of law-abiding Americans. And many Americans also enjoy owning fully automatic firearms, after being cleared by a background check and meeting the rigorous regulations to own such firearms. And these millions of lawful gun owners have every right – and a Second Amendment right – to own them.

As a hunter, I take great pride in my marksmanship. Every hunter should practice to be skilled to take prey with a single shot, if possible. That represents ethical, humane, skilled hunting. In the interview several years ago, I spoke about this aspect of hunting and my belief that no hunter should take the field and rely upon high capacity magazines to take their prey.

But that comment should never be mistaken as support for the outright banning of any ammunition magazines. In fact, such bans have been pursued over the years by state legislatures and the United States Congress and these magazine bans have always proven to be abject failures.

Let me be very clear. As a retired Texas Ranger, during 36 years of law enforcement service, I was sworn to uphold the United States Constitution. As a longtime hunter and shooter, an NRA Board Member, and as an American – I believe the Second Amendment is a sacred right of all law-abiding Americans and, as I stated in the interview in question, I believe it is the Second Amendment that ensures all of our other rights handed down by our Founding Fathers.

I have actively opposed gun bans and ammunition and magazine bans in the past, and I will continue to actively oppose such anti-gun schemes in the future.

I appreciate my friends who have brought this misunderstanding to light, for it has provided me an opportunity to alleviate any doubts about my strong support for the NRA and our Second Amendment freedom.
####

Doesn't that sound more like it was written by a Washington PR suit than a Texas Ranger?

Regardless of who actually wrote the letter, Jackson's name is on it.

As I said in the Alert yesterday, I like and respect Joaquine Jackson. I am very disappointed that he would take such a misguided and bigoted position on "assault weapons" and even more disappointed that he would choose to try to blame the viewer rather than owning up to his own remarks. If he thought civilians shouldn't have "assault weapons" and has now seen the light and changed his position, I could accept and respect that. Trying to claim that what he very clearly said - and reiterated - is not what he actually meant, I find completely disingenuous.

I hate having to get into the middle of this at a time when The Firearms Coalition is actively working to bring the gun rights community together, but when you are guided by certain principles, you can not ignore those principles in favor of diplomacy.

Should Joaquin Jackson be vilified and made a pariah in the gun rights community? No, absolutely not. But he should not be a member of the NRA Board of Directors.

Jeff Knox
www.FirearmsCoalition.org

Shall Not Be Infringed

From John Longnecker:

As always, I write for the Non-gun owner sovereign in America.

2008 Candidates, listen up – some of whom own guns or bodyguards. Or both!

If I had interested people stopping me on the street in response to my button, I'd reduce my answers to an intelligent few sentences. I could answer quite a few people this way.

Understand, also, that, in asking, many would want to learn more. I'd gladly make the time for them.

Looking at two recent polls showing popular interest in people having automatic weapons – 41% according to the CBS hit show The Power of 10, and a Zogby International Poll showing a 66% desire for no more gun laws – I'd say one thing: Americans aren't afraid of automatic weapons or even guns for that matter – they're afraid of abuses. Violent crime is an abuse and gun control is an abuse of process. Name your poison.

Reasonable people don't dislike guns, they dislike crime, and that includes the hundreds of thousands of the non-gun incidents of knifings, beatings, carjackings, rape, abductions of adults and abductions of children. Use of citizen authority can stop many, many of these. Why is it obfuscated and punished when non-gun violent crimes vastly outnumber gun violence? Because armed citizens can impeach the very concept of such go-nowhere anti-crime policies.

You've read my writing this before, and I'll post it again: The Founders did not need to anticipate weapons of the future, it was abuse of due process they feared in the government of the future, so they said that the force which backs citizen authority shall not be infringed. The word shall carries legal weight under our system – shall not makes the concept absolute.

There can be no such thing as a sensible gun law, because gun laws interfere with the force which backs the authority of citizens as supreme here.

Your citizen authority is an obstacle, so the move is on to dissolve it. Resistance to such adversity to the nation resides in intact families, privacy, how we educate our children, how we meet and handle violent crime and in other venues. Crime is an excuse for many of these strongholds of resistance to be eroded and pushed aside. No-fault divorce and rotten education content are as much a threat to citizen authority as gun control is.

[The trick is to suspicion and to criminalize more routine, honest behavior, including parenting, what we teach children as much as weapons and self-defense. As the Founders experienced, the PEOPLE wind up being criminalized. This constant moving of the goal posts was what the Founders fought and defeated. The rest of the citizenry who witness this today go along with it, not quite realizing that, sooner or later, they'll be next to be criminalized. RFID Chips and a National ID Card have quite a head start as two examples of this imposing suspicioning-of-all-citizens / criminalization trend undertaken by officials and hi-tech industries under color of fighting violence.]

Quote me on this: When it comes to fighting crime, no one can take your place as the first line of defense. The combination of personal authority and superior force trump anything officials can dream up as an absentee substitute, including hi-tech surveillance, no-fault divorce, punishing parenting, too many gun laws and no guns on campus.

If you had such an Ask Me About Shall Not Be Infringed button, what would you talk about, Guns?

Talk about Authority. Citizen authority.

And if they say those three words every liberty enthusiast loves to hear – take me shooting – commit to a date and make it your treat.

Because unwinding gun laws would begin to unwind so many abuses of due process, even for non-gun owners, the repeal of all gun laws would be good for the country.

Buy a Box of Ammo Day - August 28

David Codrea over at War on Guns advocates August 28 as Buy a Box of Ammo day, in response to VPC BS rallies.

It'd be nice unintended consequences for the Bradys if we could demonstrate a few percentage points of sales increases on that day because of this.

You can find more information here and here.

Because the Legislature Said So

This commentary was written by Attorney Steve Dulan and featured in the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owner's newsletter. It's worth a read.

In a departure from our normal format, I'd like to discuss the recurring issue of the "why" behind firearms laws that comes up in so many of your questions that are submitted via the website. It is very common for a citizen to learn about some specific Michigan or U.S. statute that has to do with the regulation of firearms (sometimes the hard way) and then ask the question "Why is this the law?" The short answer that runs through my mind is a paraphrase of something that has probably been repeated by every generation of parents since humans invented language: "Because the legislature said so."

As the professor who teaches firearms law at the largest law school in the United States, and as someone who is often given the opportunity to discuss proposed laws with legislators and their staffs, I know that the real answer is more complex. Those of us who study law are often struck by the fact that most laws are basically responses to times in history when someone did something stupid or evil.

The history of gun law is no different. Someone does something horrible and a legislature reacts. The press essentially operates as a 4th branch of government by shaping public opinion, which in turn shapes voter behavior. Our elected representatives must respond to the will of the people, or find themselves looking for alternate employment.

For example., the first gun control law in the United States, the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed soon after the repeal of prohibition, which had led to the rise of Al Capone and other famous gangsters, many of whom used "Tommy Guns" in the commission of famous crimes such as the St. Valentine's Day Massacre in the 1920's. Coinciding with the debate in Congress preceding the NFA, there was a second wave of "organized crime" including famous names such as: John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson and Bonnie and Clyde. All of whom were killed during 1934 by agents of Mr. Hoover's new FBI.

The National Firearms Act created a tax of $200 on machine guns, silencers, and, short-barreled shotguns and rifles. (The law was framed as a tax act due to the complex relationship between the federal government and the States under our Constitution.) By the time the law was passed, prohibition had been repealed, Capone was in prison, showing the early signs of dementia brought on by syphilis, and the infamous bank robbers of the early 1930's were mostly dead, and the FBI had become a fairly effective, modern force in the war on crime. In other words, by the time the law responded to the perceived need, it was essentially obsolete. It is still in place, and machine guns and sound moderators are still stigmatized and prohibited outright in some states.

Many of the laws currently on the books in Michigan were similarly the result of previous legislatures responding to perceived threats, news accounts, or specific tragedies. In our democracy, the law is the result of debate, bargaining, and negotiation between legislators. As we're all aware, there will always be some legislators who are opposed to private ownership of guns. They either honestly (and erroneously) believe that taking away our gun rights will make us more safe, or, they are simply pandering to public opinion in an effort to appear to be doing something about public safety. The result is often bad law. Some of that law is still on the books. In fact, until recently, gun control law was a one-way ratchet that only took away rights, never moving towards freedom and common sense, only away from it.

The MCRGO has been on the front lines of the turn-around. We can be proud of the fact that the pendulum of law is swinging back toward common sense due to the efforts of the members and leadership of the MCRGO. The entire organization is working daily toward tying up the loose ends that still exist, some of them very significant. But, keep in mind that our success depends on electing the right legislators and county prosecutors and on being successful in debate and in court. Interest groups like ours, and legislators, must constantly prioritize and remember that politics is the art of the possible and that law-making is an imperfect process that sometimes results in an imperfect product. So, ultimately, the answer to the question of "why" a particular law is on the books does boil down to: "Because the legislature said so."

Steven W. Dulan, J.D. is a member of the Bar in Michigan and Colorado, a member of the Board of Directors of the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, an NRA Life Member, a former US Army Infantry Sergeant, a volunteer pre-deployment trainer of Squad Designated Marksmen for the Army Marksmanship Unit (AMU), Professor of Firearms Law at The Thomas M. Cooley Law School and Honor Graduate of the III Corps Armorer's School at Fort Hood, TX.

Gun Control Hitting Michigan

Coleman Young helped screw up Detroit. Now Coleman Young II wants to continue his father's legacy and spread the trouble to all of Michigan.

State Representative Coleman Young II (D), age 23, son of the late Mayor of Detroit, has introduced House Bill No. 5079 which would require that all handguns sold by Michigan FFL dealers on, or after, July 1, 2008, would have to be "ballistically fingerprinted."

The states have been called the "laboratories of democracy" because one state can learn from another's public policy successes or failures. This bill shows that Rep. Young has not learned from the failures of other states, and has not yet learned the value of your tax dollars. HB 5079 would repeat the costly mistakes of other states in relying on junk science. Furthermore, it would create a new, very expensive bureaucracy that would probably cost millions of dollars before finally being cancelled as useless.

So-called "ballistic fingerprinting" is currently in place in Maryland and New York.

In theory, a database of images showing the microscopic marks left on ejected cartridge casings and fired bullets from each handgun sold might provide a useful tool for law enforcement agencies attempting to match such items found at crime scenes with specific guns and their last known registered owners. However, in practice, there is little or no benefit to law enforcement, while the expenses are enormous.

The Director of the Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division, John J. Tobin, issued a report in 2004, 4 years after implementation of the MD-IBIS (Maryland Integrated Ballistics Identification System). In it, he stated definitively that: "There have been no crime investigations that have been enhanced or expedited through the use of MD-IBIS. Guns found to be used in the commission of crime are not the ones being entered into MD-IBIS. The program has been in existence four years at a cumulative cost of $2,567,633."

He also referred to the New York experience with the same type of system: "The New York State Combined Ballistic Identification System (CoBIS)...has compiled almost 80,000 cartridge case profiles. There have been no hits reported by CoBIS. The annual budget for CoBIS is approximately $4 million."

In conclusion, Director Tobin said: "The Program simply has not met expectations and does not aid in the Mission statement of the Department of State Police. It is recommended that this Program be suspended."

In January of 2003, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer issued a report entitled: Feasibility of a California Ballistics Identification System. The report concluded that there are significant problems with the technology of such systems and referred to the failures of the Maryland or New York systems to provide any help at all to criminal investigations in their states. Significantly, the report also referred to a report by ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms), entitled: The Crime Gun Trace Reports (2002) National Report, which indicates that Ballistics Identification Systems should be considered operable if it generates a hit rate of about 15% after 2 years in operation. Both New York and Maryland have failed in this regard after expending millions of dollars over several years.

According to long-term, comprehensive research by Professor John Lott and others, the reasons for the failure of these systems are many:

1. Criminals rarely buy their guns in gun shops.
2. There is no such thing as "fingerprints" or "DNA" in a gun. There are microscopic tool marks that are subject to change over time, particularly during the "break-in" period when a gun is new.
3. Unlike human fingerprints or DNA, the microscopic tool marks on gun parts such as extractors, firing pins and bolts are very easy to alter with hand tools and common abrasives such as toothpaste.
4. The best available software misses matches or "hits" false matches up to 68% of the time.

While ballistics evidence can be very useful in solving crime. The type of matching that works is when human technicians are matching a known case or projectile to a known gun. Searching a huge database of images for a match is an entirely different process and the technology simply does not exist to create such a system that would help our police officers do their jobs any better.

HB 5079 would leave all details to the State Police and fails to consider costs or effectiveness: "The Department of State Police shall promulgate rules...that establish the type or types of records that are sufficient for purposes of this subsection." If it were to become law, this bill would squander large amounts of money, waste the time of gun manufacturers, wholesalers, and buyers, creating a new potential technical violation for all dealers to be concerned with, all without any probable benefit at all for the People of Michigan.

Pistol-Free Zones Are Killing Our Children

From MLive.com:

Michigan author Skip Coryell claims, "pistol free zones are killing our children."

In the former Orangeville native's latest book, Blood in the Streets, he shares his thoughts on school shooting incidents, like those at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech.

Referring to the Columbine incident, Coryell writes that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, "fired 188 shots, including 37 shotgun rounds and 151 9mm rounds, killing one teacher, 12 innocent students, and injuring 23 others. How did they do that? Why did no one stop them? How did they kill so many people?"

According to Coryell, "The answer is easy."

"It was like shooting fish in a barrel, sheep in a pen; the students, faculty, and staff didn't fight back; they were unarmed, both physically and mentally. They hid beneath desks, waiting for the police to come and rescue them. It didn't happen. They died. Society's promise had failed them. The promise of gun control was a lie."

In the book, Coryell quotes Ted Nugent, an ardent advocate of American's "right to bear arms."

"You mean to say that when an imbecile walks into a church, office, a day care center, or school, stumbling about, almost zombie-like, with gun-filled hands at his side, blabbering incoherently to his next victim, the reaction of grown men and women is to run, cry, whimper, and hide under a desk or pew? The sheeping of America' is nearly complete."

Coryell suggests that Americans become more like sheepdogs, to defend the innocent and fight criminals, than acting like powerless, unprotected sheep. If a criminal has no regard for the law, laws will not deter them, Coryell said.

He does not advocate vigilantism, but "when laws no longer serve the people, the people should work to abolish those laws," he said. "So, work hard to abolish counterproductive gun control laws, arm yourselves, train, stay alert, and when the bad guy comes knockin,' you start rockin'! It's the only thing that makes sense. Pistol-free zones, like high schools, universities, churches, and other public spaces, create an artificial geographical area where only criminals have guns."

Coryell said, legislators who advocate gun control and gun-free zones are announcing to criminals everywhere,

"You may rape, pillage and plunder with impunity," he said. "I find it an amazing tribute to God that he loves even anti-gun politicians. It's probably best that he's God, and I'm not."

The author said it is the "task of this generation to stand and fight, to resist, to restore sanity to our legal system."

For more information on Coryell and his published works, visit www.skipcoryell.com.

A Reply From The NRA

A while ago I posted on NRA support for the NICS bill, co-sponsored by Carolyn McCarthy, D-NY, one of the most vicious of the anti-gunners in Congress.

I never heard from NRA about my response. I wasn't shocked... until today, when I received a response. It's a typical canned response, but I promised to share any response I received.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your recent email.

The bill was originally introduced as HR 297. Pro-gun Congressmen asked that we help oversee the reconstruction of the bill to ensure no new gun control was added, and to help add pro-gun provisions. We were successful in both roles, and the bill was reintroduced as HR 2640.

When the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640, "The NICS Improvement Amendments Act," by a voice vote, some gun owners were confused as to the exact scope and effect of this proactive reform bill. Let's look at the facts.

H.R. 2640 provides federal funds to states to update their mental health records, to ensure that those currently prohibited under federal law from owning a gun because of mental health adjudications are included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). For many years, NRA has supported ensuring that those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent are screened by the NICS.

In several ways this bill is better for gun owners than current law. Under H.R. 2640, certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving a firearm. Examples are adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required. Also excluded are federal decisions about a person's mental health that consist only of a medical diagnosis, without a specific finding that the person is dangerous or mentally incompetent. The latter provision addresses very real concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform. Remember that one of the Clinton Administration's last acts was to force the names of almost 90,000 veterans and veterans' family members to be added to a "prohibited" list. H.R. 2640 would help many of these people get their rights restored. H.R. 2640 will also require all participating federal or state agencies to establish "relief from disability" programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court. This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years.

This legislation will also ensure-as a permanent part of federal law-that no fee or tax is associated with a NICS check a NRA priority for nearly a decade! While NRA has supported annual appropriations amendments with the same effect, those amendments must be renewed every year. This provision would not expire. H.R. 2640 will also mandate an audit of past spending on NICS projects to determine if funds were misused in any way.

It is also important to note what H.R. 2640 will not do. This bill will not add any new classes of prohibited persons to NICS, and it will not prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital for treatment.

So why the confusion?

First and foremost, the national media elite is irate that NRA has been able to roll back significant portions of the Clinton Administration's anti-gun agenda and pass pro-active legislation in Congress and in many states. They are desperate to put a "gun control" spin on anything they can. The only real question here is--given the media's long-standing and flagrant bias on the gun issue-- why are some gun owners suddenly swallowing the bait?

Second, some people simply do not like the NICS. In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Act, including a mandatory five-day waiting period, over strong NRA opposition. Due to NRA's insistence, that waiting period was allowed to sunset in 1998, once the NICS was up and running nationwide. Now that the NICS is in place, it makes sense to ensure that this system works as instantly, fairly, and accurately as possible.

Also troubling to many is the fact that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) is a cosponsor of the bill. Carolyn McCarthy is among the most anti-gun Members of Congress. She has introduced another bill, H.R. 1022, which represents the most sweeping gun ban in history. But Rep. McCarthy is not the only co-sponsor of H.R. 2640. She was joined by some of the most pro-gun members of the House of Representatives in crafting this bill, including John Dingell (D-Mich.), Rick Boucher (D-Va.), and Lamar Smith (R-Tex.). A few years ago, when Congress passed a bill allowing airline pilots to be armed, one of the lead sponsors was anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.). Sen. Boxer's support of that legislation did not cause gun owners to oppose it.

Finally, some people have asked why the bill passed on a voice vote. The reality is that there's nothing unusual about passing a widely supported bill by voice vote. Even so, the House rules allow any House member to request a recorded vote on any issue, and in practice, those requests are universally granted. Despite having that option on the floor, no representative asked for a roll call on this bill.

Some gun groups argue that the catch-all term "other lawful authority" would include doctors, psychiatrists, or officials of the Veterans' Administration. They claim that those individuals could take away gun rights. This claim ignores a basic rule of statutory interpretation, which is that when a general term follows a list of specific terms the general term will only be interpreted to mean the same kind of things. This is the rule of ejusdem generis--"of the same kind." The example in Black's Law Dictionary is that if you see the phrase, "horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, or any other barnyard animal," the term "barnyard animal" would normally mean four-legged, hoofed animals-no matter how many chickens, cats or dogs live in the barnyard.

Applying that rule here, "other lawful authority" would mean some kind of officer or panel that holds hearings like a court or mental health commission. It would not mean just any doctor that finds a patient is dangerous or lacks mental capacity. In the context of this regulation and statute, it implies a process created by a legislature, with due process protections such as the right to a hearing and right to be represented by an attorney.

And, as we have mentioned before, H.R. 2640 requires "relief from disabilities" as a safeguard for anyone who may have been unjustly adjudicated. H.R. 2640 is now pending in the Senate.

Rest assured that if the anti-gunners use this legislation as a vehicle to advance gun control restrictions, NRA will pull our support for the bill and vigorously oppose its passage!

Thank you again for your email. If you have any more questions or concerns, feel free to contact us at (800) 392-8683.

This Guy Gives Me Hope

From The Collegiate Times, one of the best pro-2A editorials I have ever read, bar none. This piece, written by Jonathan McGlumphy, is so sensible, even a fraternity brother could understand it.

I read with interest last week’s column on the issue of concealed carry on campus (“Guns on campus would be disastrous”, CT, July 12). I have my philosophical disagreements with the article, but first I would like to point out several pieces of information that were either misleading or flat-out incorrect. Let me also qualify this by saying that I am a holder of a Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP), so I can truthfully say I know what I am talking about.

Point #1: There is not one single statute banning CHP holders from carrying on campus. The so-called gun ban is a Virginia Tech policy that applies only to students, faculty and staff. The maximum penalty for violation of this policy is expulsion for students or termination for faculty and staff. There is no criminal penalty whatsoever. Additionally, Virginia’s Attorney General has opined that the Board of Visitors has no legal grounds to prohibit the general public from concealed carry on campus.

Point #2: The author of last week’s column writes “I don’t trust someone to walk around with something that can kill me just because he has paid the permit fee and has a piece of paper that says he is competent with a handgun.”

First of all, to get that “piece of paper,” I underwent eight hours of classroom training (including instruction from a law enforcement officer), as well as spending an entire day at the shooting range demonstrating that I understood firearms safety. Secondly, you don’t just “pay the permit fee.” You undergo an extensive criminal background check, so much so that they ask you to provide every physical address you’ve had for the past five years.

Point #3: The author describes a situation in which someone has a gun in his or her bag and accidentally drops it, resulting in a discharge. Guns do not simply “go off” because they were dropped. Someone must put his or her finger directly on the trigger and squeeze with anywhere from 4 to 12 pounds of force. Any instance of someone getting shot accidentally is not because the gun “just went off.” It is because someone broke the cardinal rules of firearms safety and had his or her finger on the trigger with the barrel pointed in a non-safe direction.

Point #4: The author writes, “...logic says that more guns mean more gun-related incidents.” I cannot provide any hard data on the number of firearms in Virginia because we do not have gun registration. However, I will point out that in 1995 — the year that Virginia became a “shall-issue” state — there were only a few thousand CHP holders in the Commonwealth. Currently there are over 120,000 CHP holders.

Now let us consider the level of violent crime over that same time period. According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR) the rate of all violent crime in 1995 in Virginia was 361.5 per 100,000 residents, with the rate of murder being 7.6 per 100,000.
In 2005, the UCR reported Virginia’s rate of violent crime as being 282.8 per 100,000, and murder 6.1 per 100,000.

So my question is that if we now have significantly more CHP holders as we did 12 years ago, why has the rate of violent crime has not skyrocketed? Obviously, armed citizens are not the only factor that affects crime rates, but the author’s claim that more guns automatically lead to more crime is questionable in the face of these numbers.

The author also seems to think that a student who is armed would casually take a life over something so petty as a poor grade in a class. Let’s consider Utah, where concealed carry on campus by CHP holding students is allowed by state law. I am not aware of any incidents in recent history of a legally armed student committing a firearm assault at a Utah university.

Having gone over the facts, let me insert my own opinions. The author claims to be a believer in the Second Amendment. I am a believer of all 10 Amendments listed in the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. However, I don’t go calling for restrictions on free speech when someone prints a column full of misleading information.

Let’s go back to Point #1: that the firearms ban only applies to students, faculty and staff. What if Virginia Tech were to enact a policy of “free-speech zones” restricting or prohibiting what students can say and where they can say it? I don’t think there would be too much support for that. So why is it OK to restrict one civil liberty but not another?

The author further derides CHP holders by insinuating that we are cowboys just itching to get into a gunfight. In my experience, this could not be further from the truth. One of the very first things I was told in my CHP training was to do my very best to avoid any situation where I might even need a gun. CHP holders are taught that a firearm is to be used only in the very gravest extreme, when all other options of saving your life — or someone else’s — have failed.

I do agree with the author on one point, though. He says that we as a culture need to move away from the notion that violence is a solution to our problems. It does bother me that violence is glorified in our news media, entertainment industry and even our federal government (only then it’s called war).

However, there is a difference between aggressive violence and defensive violence. I will not sit and wait for the police to arrive and save me when the Chos and Morvas of the world come around. The police are neither legally obligated to protect citizens (according to the Supreme Court) nor are the always able. Self-defense is both an individual right and an individual responsibility.

Having a gun available is just one of many options of self-defense, brains and wits being the first and foremost.

From GOA

Highlights from the Gun Owners of American Alert
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Click here for full text


"For the first time [in history, HR 2640], if enacted, would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans." -- Military Order of the Purple Heart, June 18, 2007

ACTION:

Even if you have already sent an e-mail to your Senators on the McCarthy bill, please send another such as the one at the end of this alert. Yes, you might have already taken action on HR 2640. But if you (and many other gun owners like yourself) haven't taken any action recently, then NO ONE is taking action. After all, the NRA is supporting this bill, so they're not rustlin' up the troops in opposition to this massive gun control bill. Remember the immigration fight -- it took weeks of continued activism to kill that bill. This fight may very well be the same.

Please try to get as many of your friends as you can to join with you in this effort to kill the McCarthy bill (HR 2640). Now that Senators are returning from their July 4th holiday, we need to get as many gun owners as possible to remind them that HR 2640 is unacceptable!

[...]

You will remember that before the Independence Day break, the House of Representatives passed a McCarthy gun control bill (HR 2640) without any hearings, without any committee action... they put it on the Suspension Calendar and simply got a non-recorded voice vote.

An important part of the legislative process is to introduce a bill in committee, to get both public and private observers to ask questions, make recommendations and offer comments on the bill.

But for some reason, HR 2640 was not given this benefit. The bill was rammed through the legislature with very few Representatives present on the House floor... there was no recorded vote at all!

[...]

Newspapers last month reported that Horatio Miller allegedly said that it could be "worse than Virginia Tech" if someone broke into his car, because there were guns there. It is not clear whether he was making a threat against a person who might burglarize his car, or if he was simply saying that the bad guy could do a lot of damage because of the guns he would find there. Nevertheless, Miller was arrested, but not charged with anything.

The comment Miller made was certainly not the smartest thing to say.
But realize, we don't incarcerate people for making stupid statements in this country -- at least not yet. Miller was a concealed carry permit holder who, as such, had passed vigorous background checks into his past history. Miller does not have a criminal record.

Regardless, the county district attorney did not like what he had said, so, according to the Harrisburg Patriot News on June 20, "I contacted the sheriff and had his license to carry a firearm revoked. And I asked police to commit him under Section 302 of the mental health procedures act and that was done. He is now ineligible to possess firearms [for life] because he was committed involuntarily."

Get that?

Pennsylvania is operating exactly the way Rep. McCarthy's bill (HR
2640) could treat all Americans. You might be thinking, I've never had a mental illness... I'm not a military veteran... I've never been on Ritalin... hey, I have nothing to worry about under the McCarthy bill. Right?

Well, think again.

[...]

The Pennsylvania case shows how all gun owners could be threatened by HR 2640. After all, did you ever tell anyone that the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because the Founders (such as James Madison) wanted the people to be able to overturn a tyrannical American government?

Or, while you were watching the nightly news -- and getting a detailed account of all the crime in your area -- did you ever make a statement such as, "If someone were to break through my door, I'd blow him away!"

Well, those kinds of statements will certainly make anti-gun nuts think you're a potential danger to yourself or others. So if you make the local district attorney or police officer nervous, how difficult would it be for him to get a psychiatrist (most of whom are very left-wing) to say that you are a danger to yourself and to others?

Or, would the district attorney even need to get a psychiatrist? One of the outrageous aspects of the McCarthy bill is that Section 3(2) codifies existing federal regulations. And existing federal code says it only takes a "lawful authority" to "adjudicate" someone as a mental defective.(1) And another section of the bill makes it clear this "adjudication" does not need to be made by a formal court, but can simply be a "determination" -- such as a medical diagnosis.(2)

[...]

But who else could be classified as a "lawful authority"? A school counselor? A district attorney? What about a legislator, a city councilman or a cop? They are certainly "authorities" in their own right. Could the words "lawful authority" also apply to them?

[...]

In its open letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this "danger" doesn't have to be "imminent" or "substantial," but can include "any danger" at all. How many shrinks -- using the Pennsylvania standard -- are going to say that a pro-gun American like you, who believes the Second Amendment is the last defense against tyranny, DOESN'T POSE AT LEAST AN INFINITESIMAL RISK of hurting someone else?

As easy as that, your gun rights would be gone forever.

HR 2640 is Janet Reno's dream. Does somebody make a politician nervous? Get a prescription pad, get your friendly left-wing psychiatrist to make the "dangerous" diagnosis, and it's all over. Expungement will be virtually impossible. Just turn in your guns.

[...]

CONTACT INFORMATION: You can use the pre-written letter below to help direct your comments to your two U.S. Senators. Please visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

The Military Order of the Purple Heart got it right when it stated that for the first time in history, HR 2640 "would statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

The Military Order of the Purple Heart, which is chartered by Congress, is urging the DEFEAT of HR 2640, the Brady-expansion legislation introduced by anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy.

Despite what you may have heard elsewhere, this bill THREATENS gun owners' rights and represents one of the biggest gun bans in history.


A recent case in Pennsylvania shows how easily a gun owner can be slapped with a LIFETIME gun ban, without any due process, based solely on a mere accusation by a shrink or other "lawful authority."
For more information on this -- and for a point-by-point analysis of HR 2640 -- please go to http://www.gunowners.org on the website of Gun Owners of America.

All the background checks in the world will NOT stop bad guys from getting firearms. Severe restrictions in Washington, DC, England, Canada, Germany and other places have not stopped evil people from using guns to commit murder.

Again, I hope you will OPPOSE the McCarthy bill (HR 2640). Thank you.

Sincerely,


****************************

Backdoor Banning of Firearms

Much has been said across the blogosphere about the proposed OSHA changes to ammunition.

Here's a new, interesting piece of information (from packing.org):

Prominent anti-gun Senators Ted Kennedy, D-MA., Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-IL., all are on the OSHA oversight committee.

Press Release

Along with many other gun bloggers, I've decided that August 28, 2007 is "Support Your Local Gunshop Day" in the United States.

In a related story, Jesse Jackson announced he will organize a national day of protest in 25 cities on Aug. 28, 2007, to rally support for legislation to restrict gun sales.

"Our marching does not kill people; people who buy guns from gun shops kill people," Rev. Jackson said.

Actually, statistics show it isn't people who buy guns from gun shops that kill people - it's people who don't buy their guns from gun shops (that means lawless thugs, Rev. You know, criminals). Which is why "restricting gun sales" won't work to lower violence.

Gun Control Ain't Crime Control

This is a few months old, but an excellent reminder from a TRUE reporter (a man who actually investigates before he appears in front of the camera) that gun control has nothing to do with crime control.

Good job, John Stossel.

Who is Getting the Oklahoma CCW Licenses?

Addendum to the previous post:

In 2006, the state approved nearly twice as many concealed-handgun licenses for people in Tulsa County as in Oklahoma County, according to the Self Defense Act Statistical Report, issued by the OSBI.

Among the increasing number of Oklahomans who are are obtaining licenses are more elderly people and women than in previous years.

"There’s been a great increase in elderly folks and ladies,” said Robert Welch, a concealed-handgun license instructor in Tulsa. “Before, it was about 90 percent middle-aged males. Now it’s at least 50 percent female and senior citizens."

Armed and Licensed: Concealed carry law hitting mark

From the Sooner State:

If the number of concealed-handgun license holders is any indication, robbers may have to worry about getting more than stolen goods during a heist.

With an increasing number of state residents legally packing heat, more robbers may be taking away some hot lead.

More than 54,000 Oklahomans are licensed to carry concealed handguns under the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, said Jessica Brown, spokeswoman for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. That number is up from around 31,000 in 2000 and 15,081 in 1996, after the first year of licensing. Once approved, applicants are licensed to carry concealed weapons for five years. After five years, they are required to renew their application.

In the beginning, some people thought a wave of shootings by license holders would occur, but those fears have proved to be unfounded, Brown said.

"There's very little of that, quite frankly," she said. "Most people don't want to hurt each other."

Former state Sen. Frank Shurden, who sponsored the bill that led to the law, said he had tried to get the bill through the Legislature for several years but that fears of more shootings and of a more dangerous work environment for law enforcement officers held it back.

"They didn't have confidence in law-abiding citizens like I did, but they do now," said Shurden, a Democrat from Henryetta. "They claimed that every fender bender would be a shootout."

Shurden said he is pleased with the law's results more than 10 years after it went into effect.

"They (license holders) have to be good, upstanding people. That's one reason it worked so well," he said.

"I've always been of the opinion that when good, law-abiding citizens are armed, we're all safer. I'm real satisfied with the way the law is working."

Robert Welch, a Tulsa concealed-weapon license instructor, and Tulsa Police Officer Jason Willingham both noted that there have been instances in which a license holder has foiled a robbery or other crime.

Last November, a man who Tulsa police say had just committed a burglary, stolen a car and fled from police crashed the car and then accosted a bystander with a knife. The victim, a concealed-handgun license holder, pulled his weapon on the man, prompting him to flee.

In March 2006, a customer with a concealed-handgun license shot an armed man who was attempting to rob a supermarket near 91st Street and Memorial Drive.

This year in the Tulsa area, there have been three shootings -- one fatal -- by people who have concealed-carry licenses. Police say the two shootings in Tulsa were sparked by traffic altercations that became physical and ended with the license holders shooting people they said had physically assaulted them.

In the first shooting, which occurred at 18th Street and Boston Avenue in April, police say a motorist who had to stop for a pedestrian shot the pedestrian's friend during a resulting altercation. The man who was shot was treated at a hospital and released. The motorist was charged with recklessly handling a firearm and has pleaded not guilty.

On June 10, police say a retired security guard fatally shot a man during a road-rage-sparked confrontation in a parking lot in the 1900 block of Riverside Drive. The retired guard told police that he feared for his life when the other man verbally and physically assaulted him. He has not been charged with any crime.

In Muskogee last weekend, police said a pastor who holds a concealed-weapon license shot a man who, along with some juveniles, tried to rob his church's fireworks tent. The minister said he feared for his life and that of the teenager who was watching the tent with him.

The shooting victim was arrested in connection with the burglary attempt after he was released from the hospital, police said.

Willingham said that, in their duties, most police officers rarely come across concealed-handgun license holders.

"Most people who go through the trouble of getting a concealed-carry permit are not committing crimes," he said. "By and large, the people with concealed-carry permits are not the ones we're coming in contact with."

Welch agreed.

"Most goofballs and hot heads don't think to go and get a permit," he said. "Mostly, it's people who are law-abiding in nature."

Brown and Welch said increased exposure to terrorism, war and violent crime through the media may play a role in why more people are arming themselves.

During classes applicants must take before they can obtain a license, they must show that they know how to shoot and properly handle a firearm.

They also are instructed on how to tell a police officer -- should they come into contact with one -- that they have a concealed weapon.

"Do we worry? No," Willingham said. "We know people with concealed-carry permits are not the type of people out there committing crimes. Your gang-bangers, armed robbers -- they're not the ones going through the class and paying the fee."

Many NRA Members "Confused" by Proposed Gun Bill

This article, by Alan Korwin, is well worth a read.

No Guns

By Charley Reese at lewrockwell.com

I'm ready at last to support gun control. I believe every police agency in the United States – local, state and federal – should be disarmed.

After all, the gun-control people have been saying for years that we private citizens have no need for firearms. Well, if that's true for us, it's true for the police. We are the inhabitants of the country. We live in the neighborhoods, we are the victims of crime, and if we don't need guns, then who does?

I've yet to hear of a police officer being mugged or raped, and certainly not an FBI agent, as the feds spend most of their time in offices, except on weekends and holidays.

The Secret Service doesn't need guns. Look at the bad record it has. Even with guns, we've lost more heads of state than any industrial nation I can think of. If somebody tries to shoot the president, the agents can stand in front of him. Whether they do so promptly or with slow deliberation will probably depend on the personality of the president. It's safer that way for everyone concerned.

We will still need tough penalties for those who use guns to commit a crime, but as soon as criminals realize they're not going to be shot by the cops, many of them will ditch their guns. Why risk an extra-heavy prison sentence when all you really want to do is steal something?

Naturally, police could still carry pepper spray and clubs. I wouldn't even object if they wanted to carry a pocketful of rocks for throwing. If you practice, you can get to be a pretty accurate rock thrower.

I believe this effort is necessary to stop the militarization of our police. Some police departments these days will turn out a crew of people who look like Darth Vader, with bulletproof vests, masks, helmets, submachine guns, sniper rifles, hand grenades, etc., even if the call is for some little old lady who had too much to drink or a mouse heard in a gun store.

There is a fundamental problem with Special Weapons and Tactics teams (SWAT). They train more than they are ever needed, and therefore they begin to show up when they really aren't needed. For example, if there is a rowdy drunk in one apartment, you don't have to empty out the whole apartment building.

In saner days, a policeman, usually wearing a plaid jacket and rayon slacks, would go to make an arrest with only a snub-nosed .38 in his coat pocket. If he had to, he'd shoot you, but he didn't show up yelling and cursing. He came on reasonable and friendly, and tried to talk you into surrender. Most of the time it worked.

Nowadays, if one guy wants to off himself, a whole SWAT team will show up, block off the street, tie up traffic and diddle around for hours. I've never understood why police wish to interfere in somebody's suicide in the first place.

Naturally, I know that we once had a better class of criminals in this country. Even in the heyday of gangsters like Bonnie and Clyde, they were generally careful not to shoot civilians, and there was practically no crime against ordinary people. My cousins and I, even when we were not long past the toddler stage, often went to downtown Atlanta on the trolley and spent a pleasant and safe day.

I suppose, with our society growing increasingly authoritarian, there is no hope for disarming the police. Well, then, leave the guns for private citizens alone. If the sorry, no-good criminals are going to act without restraint, then let's make sure the few remaining good people can defend themselves.