2007 – Page 47 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Barrage of Death Threats?

SayUncle mentioned that Jayne Lyn Stahl was getting some vile e-mail from pro-gun people. She suggested death treats too, though we never saw any of them. Neither, I would wager, did this blogger.

Look folks, I have no doubt at all that there are bozos out there on Al Gore’s Internets. I am intimately familiar with how they operate, and the kinds of things they say. Color me skeptical, though, that she’s getting a barrage of death threats. I would buy one or two. Death threats ought to be reported to the FBI, which I hope Ms. Stahl is doing for those that sent them to her. These aren’t people we want being part of our community.

We’d all be happy to hear and blog about the results of whatever interaction Ms. Stahl has with law enforcement on this matter.

UPDATE: Robb says in the comments:

That site you link to is funny. Bitches about non-proven death threats yet has a banner that calls for the beheading of political opponents. Priceless.

True, but then again I have a joke about Rudy pushing Hilly in front of an oncoming NYC subway train. Then again, I’m not sure this guy is joking.

Don’t Believe the Lies

Diane Edbril, Executive Director of CeaseFire Pennsylvania, has a letter to the editor in the Daily News:

AS EXECUTIVE director of CeaseFire PA, I’d like to respond to some comments made by letter-writer Tom McCourt. Contrary to Mr. McCourt’s assertions, CeaseFire PA has no interest in taking guns away from responsible, law-abiding Pennsylvanians.

Unless that gun happens to be an evil “assault weapon”, such as this one, which is considered an assault weapon under New Jersey’s ban, which is held up by these people as a model for the country.

Our only goals are to reduce gun violence, injury and death. To that end, we support measures that will make it harder for convicted felons and violent youth to obtain handguns, as they do so easily now.

Pennsylvania already has laws on the book that bar violent felons and people under the age of 18 from possessing handguns. It is illegal to sell a handgun to anyone under the age of 21. It is illegal to sell, give, transfer or lend a firearm to someone who is prohibited from possessing a firearm. It is illegal to sell a handgun to someone without a licensed dealer or a county sheriff handling the paperwork requirements and background check.

Evidence shows that when gun laws are tougher, criminals have a harder time getting guns, while legitimate gun owners remain unaffected.

What evidence? Pennsylvania already has a lot of laws on the books to stop criminals from getting guns. They aren’t working. Why is the solution more? Ms. Edbril, would you care to answer Just One Question?

Moreover, CeaseFire PA, like the writer, also supports tougher sentences for illegal handgun traffickers, increased funding for police and more support for education and rehabilitation.

Funny, I only ever see you guys lobbying for gun control laws.

We do not support legislation action in place of any of these other interventions, but in addition.

Oh I understand now. You won’t support getting tough on criminals unless you get your gun control laws.

Only through comprehensive action on a variety of fronts will we succeed in reducing Pennsylvania’s unacceptable rate of gun violence.

Absent Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s crime rate is on par with Western Europe. Philadelphia has a crime problem because the justice system there is a revolving door for criminals and the cities political leadership refuses to do anything about the problem short of blaming Harrisburg and the rest of the state for is. Forgive me if we don’t want to give in to their cop outs.

We invite the writer to visit the CeaseFirePA.org and Handgun-Sanity.org Web sites so they can get their facts straight.

I already did. You guys should really update your web site before you tell people to go to it. There are broken links, and half the events are out of date. You might think you guys are having trouble raising money or something.

Diane Edbril, Executive Director

CeaseFire PA

Need Some Precedent

The Gary Indiana suit is moving forward despite the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.Â We’ll probably need to get some precedent from higher courts before this really has any teeth.Â It’s very telling of how activist lower courts are willing to be on this issue to ignore a federal law that blatantly applies to this situation.Â The people who allowed this to go forward have no place sitting on the bench.

Free Shooting Intro

Reader, blogger and NRA certified instructor Brian is offering to take newbies shooting in the Hampton Roads, VA area, and add any other instructors to the list if they want to add their name.

The Difficult Balance

I was reading this excellent bit linked to by Insty:

Simon makes a strong point when he writes, â€œYou want to have some ideology to hang onto, some method of organizing everything, but the moment you settle on one thing, if youâ€™re even partially awake, it kicks you in the head.â€ The world isnâ€™t so simple as to be efficiently run via a bumper sticker slogan. The problem, though, is figuring out where responsible trade-offs end and cheerleading for oneâ€™s team begins. Itâ€™s one thing to be an â€œadult;â€ itâ€™s quite another to be a party hack willing to abandon all principle when necessary to defend the decisions of the leadership.

That’s a smart observation.Â I certainly hope if I start wandering too far one way or another, people will say something.

Maryland State Police Update

After a very good interview on Cam & Company on Friday, Sebastian has an update about his permit to carry woes in Maryland.Â I think he’s successfully put the corporal in an uncomfortable political spot, and if I were a betting man, I’m guessing he gets his license in the end.Â I’m glad I live in Pennsylvania.

I certainly wish him luck.Â What we need to fight crime are more Sebastians, not more silly gun control laws.

Suspended for Shotgun Shell

If this can happen in Arizona, is there anywhere it can’t happen? Competitive skeet shooting kid left a box of shotgun ammo in the back of her car and got caught when she got a parking ticket. We seemed to do better back in the days when schools had rifle teams than we are today.

Angry Bastards

Bruce has some interesting information about the violent tendencies of a certain anti-gun journalist.

Bad Ideas

There’s an article by Jennifer Collins of Concurring Opinions describing why she thinks tossing out the gun ban might have a tremendous impact on crime-fighting The District:

I think it’s worth acknowledging the primary functions of the law as it’s used by prosecutors in DC: the gun ban is both a preventive detention statute and an intelligence-gathering tool. At one time when I was a prosecutor, we were prohibited from extending a plea offer in gun cases unless the defendant agreed to come into the office (with his attorney, of course) and be “debriefed” about his knowledge of criminal activity in the city. The statute was also a mechanism for locking up individuals perceived as violent, but against whom other cases could not be brought for whatever reason. It’s pretty simple to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual was in possession of a gun without a license and a lot tougher to prove that he committed a violent crime.

I have issues with this method just from a civil liberties standpoint.Â The question should not be, as a society, what makes life easier for prosecutors and the police.Â After all, it would make life for prosecutors easier to allow door to door searches of homes in bad neighborhood for drugs and guns, but we would, quite properly, find that unconstitutional and reprehensible.Â This law is also guaranteed to disproportionately affect the law abiding.Â If I were to be caught transporting a firearm through DC (DC claims FOPA doesn’t apply to them, stupidly enough), I have nothing to offer a prosecutor in terms of information or a deal, so they will just charge me with the weapons violation.Â Robb is correct to point out:

I want the government to catch and prosecute criminals. What I fear is that Uncle Sam keeps broadening the definition of criminal to make it impossible to not be one.

I think government has an obligation not to cast such a large net that they catch the good people along with the bad.

But as Dave Hardy points out:

Those seem rather doubtful objectives for a law of this type… but even so, could have been met with almost any other form of law, even permissive CCW licensing. Odds are that persons suspected of ongoing violence already have a criminal record that would disqualify them, or at the very least, wouldn’t care for the attention that would follow filing an application.

I agree with Dave, and I think Ms. Collins overestimates the impact this will have on crime fighting.Â How often are people being caught in their homes with a firearm rather than being pulled off the streets with a concealed firearm?Â How often are people who are caught not already persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms?Â Before assessing how large the impact would be, one would have to know these things.

Mexican Gang Wars

SayUncle is correct to point out that machine guns are just as illegal here as they are in Mexico, yet they keep blaming American gun laws for violence in Mexico.Â Â This is ridiculous, but it is a response to something ridiculous that our government is doing.

The War on Drugs has already ruined Colombia.Â It seems it may ruin Mexico too.Â In short, we’re bitching at the Mexicans because they aren’t doing enough to stop the flow of drugs into the United States, and the Mexicans are bitching at us because we’re not doing enough to stop the flow of guns into their country.

Both governments need to start facing reality that where there’s demand, the is always going to be someone willing to be there with the supply, and that market is guaranteed to be violent, no matter what laws you pass.