Shall Not Be Questioned – Page 791 – The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …

Latest MAIG “Research”

Released just today, but it seems to me that it’s making assumption on top of assumption. Nonetheless, it throws numbers around with authority. I’m not sure how statements like this are convincing, however:

Moreover, the average TTC of the ten states that export crime guns at the lowest rates is 14.1 years, while the average TTC of the ten states that export crime guns at the highest rates is 9.9 years. This average TTC data provides an alternative method to assess which states are the top sources of crime guns most likely to have been trafficked. However, this report primarily relies on the proportion of short TTC crime guns originating from a state because ATF has specifically identified a short TTC as a key indicator of gun trafficking.

OK, so the “source” states are still having an average “Time to Crime” rate of 9.9 years for guns recovered? Your average crime gun is still on the street 9.9 years before recovered in a crime? Sounds like we have a horrible trafficking problem to me. They also seem to claim that state laws against straw purchasing make a difference in TTC rates, and that restricting private sales does as well. Actually they seem to claim all gun control laws lower TTC.

But all of this is really based on some pretty wild assumption. I think it’s probably reasonable to conclude that guns will flow from places with low restrictions to places with great restrictions, because that’s easier than alternatives. But it makes the assumption that if we just make all the US a place of great restriction, we’ll solve this whole problem. But that ignores the alternative methods of trafficking and obtaining firearms. It might take a bit more creativity, and gaming the system, but where there’s demand, there will be supply. Just ask people who smoke crack.

Bloomberg also ignores the fact that we do not find New Jersey’s, New York’s or California’s gun laws acceptable, or constitutional.Â So keep tilting at windmills, Mayor Mike, we’re coming for your gun laws in short order. You will be made to comply. We promise.

Scott Case Looking More Like a Justified Shooting

Unless you believe there are multiple individuals who are all involved in a conspiracy to cover up the improper death of a person, Erik Scott isn’t turning out to be any kind of poster child.Â Generally speaking, if you buy the notion that most people will do the right thing most of the time (which is really what allowing carry is based on), that rules out broad conspiracies. Based on the Las Vegas Sun story on the inquest:

Dr. Alane Olson, a medical examiner in the Clark County Coronerâ€™s Office, testified that Scott had a number of drugs in his system when he died. The levels of morphine and xanax found by a toxicology screen conducted after his death were very high and potentially lethal, she said. The levels also indicated that he had likely built up a tolerance to the drugs over time, she said.

This includes testimony from multiple doctors who said he had an issue, with even his most sympathetic doctor agreeing he was trying to wean him off narcotics. While this doesn’t have a whole lot of bearing on how things actually went down, and whileÂ there’s still conflicting statements from witnesses, but they all seem to agree on this:

Every one testified they saw Erik move his right hand towards his waist. It gets unclear as a few recall him pulling his gun out; pictures show the gun never left its holster.

There more here. I’m not sure it really matters if he drew or not. All witnesses seem to agree he made a move for his waist, and he was known to be armed. So far there have been more than twenty witnesses. I think we should be careful about drawing conclusions, and playing armchair jury. I certainly don’t absolve myself of jumping to conclusions here, in suggesting it looks liked it could be a civil rights lawsuit. So far, this is looks like a justifiable shooting on the part of the officers.

Pepper Jewelry

Breda is skeptical of this piece of jewelry that claims to deliver a dose of pepper spray to an attacker. I share her skepticism of the basic design and delivery method, but the idea of making pepper spray easier to carry I think has a lot of merit. With this ring, in addition to the accidental discharge issue, I’d be skeptical that it could deliver enough spray. Looking at some other descriptions of it, it has a range of a whopping twelve inches. You’d probably be better off following through on that short distance with a fist, to be honest.

My preferred option for spray these days is the Kimber Pepper Blaster, which is actually a gel, rather than a spray. It has a much better range, fits nicely in a pocket or purse, draws more naturally, and is a much more powerful formulation than typical sprays. The big downside is you get two shots. For something with a bit more, Fox Labs makes good sprays in a more traditional canister.

I still think it’s a good idea to carry OC. There’s a whole lot of force between harsh language and hot lead that pepper spray helps fill. One can imagine situations where someone is in desperate need of being in pain, but gunfire would not be legally justified. For instance, someone stealing the radio in your car: if you shoot him, you’re going to jail. But most state allow the use of force (but not deadly force) to protect property. Pepper spray is force, legally, and not all that high a level of force, so there is a greater number of useful circumstances where it can be employed.

Punishing Companies for Not Screwing Up

You’d think that if a company self-reported a potential problem and then found out that they didn’t, in fact, break any rules, that the department responsible for regulating that industry would be happy to find out there were no problems and they could go on about their merry little way. But, it’s government, so you know that’s just not going to happen.

Common sense seems to have been banned from the building at the Department of Transportation according to Cranky Flier.

There have been plenty of questionable decisions coming from the Department of Transportation lately, but none more insane than the decision to fine United for accidentally reporting tarmac delays. Thatâ€™s right. United was overly cautious and now owes at least $6,000 (and another $6,000 if they do it again). I am now asking the DOT for proof that a monkey isnâ€™t running that organization, because I canâ€™t imagine a human making such an absurd ruling.

When I first heard this, I thought it was a joke. But no, itâ€™s not. In May, the first month when the tarmac delay rule was in force, United reported four flights that had exceeded the three hour ground time permitted. They were included in the DOT monthly report but later retracted. See, United made a mistake and was overly cautious, so in exchange, the airline has been slapped with a fine.

I would like to see this decision overturned. What’s more, I’d like to see the offending bureaucrat’s salary have a $6,000 fine removed. I suspect if the punishment for supremely stupid decisions had an impact on the take home pay of said bureaucrats, we’d see a little sanity return to the department.

Just One Question, Dodgy Response

Joe has some dialog with Ms. Peterson as well. The Brady folks really need to learn more about this issue than talking points. They need to learn how to argue. When I read threads like this, it’s almost sad, because I feel I could take their positions and argue them better than many of them are capable of. She still could not have answered, Joe’s question, but there are more effective ways to dodge and misdirect than that.

I Think a Lawsuit is in Order

The City of MadisonÂ apparently aren’t backing down on Disorderly Conduct charges on five open carriers, though they are dropping the obstruction charges on the two who refused to turn over identification. In order to conduct a Terry Stop, the officer has to have reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has taken place. Open carry is lawful in Wisconsin. It is the only form of carry that is lawful. In addition, the Attorney General of Wisconsin’s opinion is that open carry alone does not amount to disorderly conduct. So what was the suspicion that a crime was taking place? If there was none, their Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, along with their Second. The only disturbance being caused was apparently from a woman who becomes unhinged at the sight of firearms.

That said, I don’t get the obsession with refusing identification. I know you’re right dammit, but I think here is a place to consider what the goals of the movement are. The best example for the hysterical 911 caller would have been for the police to show up, do their thing, and send the gun carrying folks on their way with a, “Have a nice day,” and for said hysterical woman to hear, “Sorry ma’am, they aren’t breaking any laws.” In addition to her, it matters for other witnesses as well. If you want open carry to be normal an accepted, and given that’s the only choice in Wisconsin, I would think that’s a worthwhile goal, then part of that is going to be people calling the police and being told “Well, are they doing something illegal? Because carrying a gun isn’t a crime” Seeing the gun carriers cuffed, hauled off to jail, or cited only reinforces the wrong message: that carrying a firearm is wrong and criminal. To me the primary goal should be getting the police to go away quietly, and if that involves some damage to your pride, so be it. If the police are stopping you, your rights are already being violated.

The only thing refusing to show identification accomplishes is creating an incident where one doesn’t need to exist, and getting that self-satisfied feeling that you’re right dammit. Turning over identification, even if the order is unlawful, doesn’t hurt your subsequent lawsuit any. As soon as you’re not free to leave, you’re technically under arrest, and into Fourth Amendment territory. You’re also getting your Second Amendment rights violated, in a context that would be favorable for asserting a right to carry. I do favor civil rights lawsuits.

GOP Committeeman Mark Hillman is a Bozo

Clearly they don’t appreciate the Second Amendment being a bipartisan issue, and is lashing out at NRA, and outright lying in at least one instance:

Itâ€™s simple: the NRA likes to play it safe by backing incumbents, even those whose support of gun rights is as sturdy as a soggy role of toilet paper. When the NRA endorsed liberal Democrat Sen. Harry Reid, NRA lobbyist Chris Cox explained that its â€œlong-standing policy â€¦ gives preference to incumbent candidates who have voted with the NRA on key issues.â€

They back incumbents with pro-gun records, which Markey has. Secondly, NRA has not endorsed Harry Reid this election. If you’re going to throw bombs, at least get your facts straight. I’m also outraged that he demeans pro-gun votes by Democrats:

(Remember Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall voting to allow guns in national parks but only after obtaining permission from the Senateâ€™s top gun-grabber, Sen. Charles Schumer? Markeyâ€™s votes were of the same lot â€” manipulative campaign fodder.)

You’re confusing the park issue with National Concealed Carry. But that aside, this is politics, and you know that given your position within the GOP. This happens with any controversial vote. At the end of the day they voted for it.

The GOP needs to get this through their thick skulls: you don’t own the gun vote. We owe you jack. The fact of the matter is we got more done in this Congress than we did in eight years of total GOP control. The way to compete with the Democrats isn’t to lambaste the NRA, it’s to tell us what more you’re going to do that the Democrats haven’t. There are ways to woo us.

I would strongly encourage members of the Colorado GOP to give them a call and tell them you expect them to compete against Democrats by kissing our asses even more, rather than berating NRA for following an incumbent friendly endorsement policy that they have benefited from, and will benefit from again. The bar is raised. We no longer have to depend on one party to secure our Second Amendment rights. Clearly some in the GOP aren’t happy about that. Hear that guys? World’s smallest violin.

Bagging Some Very Baggy Game

Via The Outdoor Pressroom, we have this amusing tale from Georgia of a homeowner with a trail cam and some very unfortunate burglars:

Coweta authorities captured three perpetrators recently after a motion-sensing surveillance camera first captured them in the process of burglarizing a Sharpsburg residence.

They managed to photograph the thieves, their car, and the license plate. Apparently, they believe these three are responsible for other burglaries in the area.

But what I want to know is: How does he walk with his pants tied up around his legs? And what kind of chick wears flip flops to break into people’s homes? You’d think she’d want something a little better for running should the cops arrive.

Does He Even Know What He’s Talking About?

Bryan Lentz says Pat Meehan wants to allow evil, armor-piecing ammunition. I’m going to wager Bryan Lentz has no clue what armor piercing ammunition is, or what properties it has. He’s delving into a highly technical topic here, where advocates of gun control have successfully created a lot of confusion and beliefs out of ignorance. Does Rep. Lentz know, for instance that:

Grandpa’s hunting rifle ammo will punch through the armor typically worn by police like a hot knife through butter, as will just about any centerfire rifle cartridge.
Gun ban advocates have been going after lead ammunition lately, which has no ready alternative because bullets containing metals other than lead can be construed as armor piercing under federal law and are therefore not legal to sell to civilians.

Tread carefully on this topic, Representative Lentz. You’re heading into gun banning territory, and going back to positions that were politically untenable even in the 1980s. I should say tread carefully if you want to have a chance of winning. We still have a lot of gun owners in the 7th District, and we’ve done a pretty good job of educating them that when someone starts talking about “armor piercing” ammunition, that’s code for banning grandpa’s hunting ammunition. Anything that will effectively kill a deer will go through soft body armor. This is a manufactured issue, much like your “Florida Loophole”

We have to defeat this guy. I hope people in 7 are pulling out all the stops for Pat Meehan.

UPDATE: If you’re on Twitter, please join my “Retweet the truth” campaign, which doesn’t strictly have to be a retweet, butÂ include Kopel article shortened URL, along with something that suggests Bryan Lentz is a gun banning radical, out of touch with mainstream gun owners, and use the hash tag #PA07. I want Lentz to know were out there, and he has more to lose by the anger he’s whipping up than by the friends he’s winning spreading Teddy Kennedy’s old tricks around. Keep in mind this also shows Pat Meehan he can make friends by standing with us.

Down With Fun

I have to agree completely with this article on compulsory fun in the workplace. They seem to suggest real fun would revolve better around two things most employers ban: smoking and drinking. I think the best quote from this article has to be this:

The merchants of fake fun have met some resistance. When Wal-Mart tried to impose alien rules on its German staffâ€”such as compulsory smiling and a ban on affairs with co-workersâ€”it touched off a guerrilla war that ended only when the supermarket chain announced it was pulling out of Germany in 2006. But such victories are rare.

So what was it that really put off the Germans? Smiling or not being able to shag their co-workers?

Via Instapundit