Shall Not Be Questioned – Page 799 – The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …

Making Assumptions

The old saying about avoiding assumptions because when you assume you make an ass out of you and me is correct. Yesterday, a number of non-gun bloggers saw the notice about hearings to be held by the Senate Judiciary Committe next week. The title of the hearings was â€œFirearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Processâ€. They immediately thought this was some backdoor effort by Democrats to get back at us bitter clingers now since they might not have a chance after the coming elections.

Gun bloggers, on the other hand, were not so ready to jump to this conclusion. Instead most readily connected these hearings to the BATFE Reform Act when has been working its way through Congress. The House version, HR 2296, has 240 co-sponsors and the Senate bill, S. 941, has 36 co-sponsors including Pat Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And guess what? The primary focus of the hearings will be on S. 941. I have a “for background purposes” release on No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money that I received this morning from Erica Chabot, the Committe Press Secretary.

The bottom line is the most obvious answer is often the correct answer. It was in this case.

USMC 1, Pirates 0

CNN is reporting that elements of the 15th MEU Maritime Raid Force stormed and seized control of a hijacked vessel off the coast of Somalia. No shots fired; the pirates surrendered immediately.

Updated: Link fixed

Brady Bunch being reasonable?

From a 2009 article on a quadriplegic hunter:

Gun control advocates don’t oppose efforts by people with disabilities to hold firearms licenses.

“There are no categories of prohibited purchasers based on physical disabilities, nor do we think there ought to be, outside of reasonable commonsense prohibitions,” said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the group named for former White House press secretary James Brady, who was paralyzed in a shooting in 1981. “If someone is not a convicted felon or hasn’t been found to be a danger to themselves due to mental illness and they believe they can handle a firearm, we support their right to purchase one.”

On the other side, yes. Out to ban every firearm immediately, perhaps not so much. The other side has learned from the last 10 years too. Less Carrie Nation, more Nelson Rockefeller. The drug laws of NY are called the Rockefeller laws for a reason; punishing harshly the use of guns drugs not “in common use”.

Pele’s Playground

Today I am significantly increasing my odds of death by vulcanism, which brings up the inevitable question, what caliber for shield volcanoes? On the summit of Kilauea right now, actually. Staying a bit farther down her slopes tonight at a bed and breakfast. The lava pokery options are not very good right now, as there are no surface eruptions. Right now there’s only vent activity at the crater, and Kilauea’s piping is carrying lava underground and out to sea. A day of hiking, and hopefully not firey death, ahead.

Demonizing objects, not behavior: The Demon Rum edition

We had family guests over for dinner Sunday night, and the conversation turned to gun rights (it wasn’t my fault, I swear). One of the topics that came up was “guns in bars”, as a relative had heard of what was likely the recent changes in the law in Tennessee, though Virginia’s silliness in regards to carry in a licensed establishment came up as well. Long and short of it, he came down on the side of banning carry in bars due to “drunks and yahoos” (paraphrased). When pressed to define what a “bar” was, he said “any licensed establishment”. When I queried about carrying in the dining room of, say, TGIFriday’s, he would have that forbidden as well.

Forbidding carriage of firearms in licensed establishments sounds superficially reasonable. After all, we’ve seen “that guy” who gets belligerent and rowdy after a few. But not everyone is “that guy”. Heck, most people in the dining room aren’t drinking at all; and not everyone in the bar itself are drinking to impairment. Banning legal carriage of firearms in a licensed establishment, or even an out-and-out bar, makes about as much sense as banning the carriage of keys into the same establishment in the name of preventing drunken driving. Drunks kill far more people with cars than they do with guns, but we recognize (mostly) that it is the act of drinking and driving that should be punished, not the car or the booze.

The most that a ban on guns in bars can do is make “that guy” go out to his car, for the gun in his glove compartment, or the tire iron, etc. Worst-case scenario is something similar to the Luby’s massacre, where “one more ban” failed to stop a killer, but disarmed someone who could have stopped him.

I have little issue with a properly owner posting their property as off-limits to firearms being carried by a person, it’s their property; as long as they’re willing to take the responsibility of defending my person while I cannot. I wonder how many would, though, considering the signs above every coat rack, and around most parking lots, I see that say “management is not responsible for lost or stolen items” . I choose not to leave my coats on racks I cannot see, and I don’t leave anything valuable in my car when parked.

I understand that the fight against allowing carry in bars in Tenessee is being led, in large part, by a bar owner who wants to make sure his competitors are forced to ban the carriage of firearms into their own establishments, so his prejudices don’t cost him business. Which is too bad – if he wants to limit his clientele, he can do so. Chik-Fil-A famously closes on Sundays, but the last I checked they don’t lobby for a nationwide Blue Law. The big national chain restaurants have differing policies on acceptance of firearms in restaurants, but they mostly appear to follow Starbuck’s lead on pushing for policies (IE, they don’t at all).

Mayor Daley hangs it up

Mayor Daley has announced that he will not be seeking another term. Wonder if he’s hoping to get away with his bundle before the hue and cry is raised?

Daley Won’t Seek Re-Election in Chicago

Mayor Richard M. Daley stunned the political establishment in Chicago this afternoon when he announced he would not be running for re-election in 2011. He has held the office since 1989 when he won a special election to replace Mayor Harold Washington.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Daley said “it just feels right” regarding his decision to not seek re-election. On December 26th, he will eclipse his father, Mayor Richard J. Daley, as the longest serving mayor of Chicago. The Sun-Times quotes his brother, William (Bill) Daley, on what is behind the decision:

â€œItâ€™s not Maggieâ€™s health or [the cityâ€™s] financial problems, unemployment or crime. Blaming this decision on the re-election campaign or fear he wasnâ€™t gonna win is silly also. All of the things you go to to find a reason, thereâ€™s bits of truth in all of them. Itâ€™s not one thing. Itâ€™s an accumulation of 21 years and looking, not just at an election, but the next four years in oneâ€™s life. Heâ€™s healthy. Heâ€™s got time to do other things â€” or nothing.â€

However, a poll commissioned by the Chicago Tribune conducted earlier this summer found:

The poll found only 37 percent of city voters approve of the job Daley is doing as mayor, compared with 47 percent who disapprove. Moreover, a record-low 31 percent said they want to see Daley re-elected, compared with 53 percent who don’t want him to win another term.

Now that Daley isn’t going to run for re-election, politicians who have previously suppressed their desire for the office are now thinking of running. Some of the names mentioned include Rahm Emanuel, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., a number of sitting aldermen, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, and Cook County Assessor Jim Houlihan.

The announcement leads to two important questions. First, will the coalition that kept Daley in office and the Chicago Democratic Machine running start to fight amongst themselves? And, second, what will this mean for gun rights in Chicago and the State of Illinois?

I think the answer to the first question is absolutely yes. Alderman Ed Smith, considered the dean of the African-American alderman on City Council, guarantees that there will be an African-American candidate for mayor.

â€œIf we can raise the money, thereâ€™s gonna be a [black] candidate. Weâ€™re not short on people who can run this town and who would get in the race.

Probably the best analogy would be to Yugoslavia upon the death of Marshall Tito. Without a leader that could hold a coalition of antagoinistic factionsÂ together, the factions began to fight for power and control and the place fell apart. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is the same in Chicago.

As to gun rights, none of the potential candidates is going to be good for our side. However, they could be “less bad” than Mayor Daley. For example, Rahm “Never let a crisis go to waste” Emanual has described being Mayor of Chicago as his dream job. He saw what the impact of gun control did for the Clinton administration in 1994. When he was head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, he recruited many “Blue Dog” Democrats who were pro-gun. I’m not saying he’d be pro-gun but might be less anti-gun than the present regime.

Sheriff Tom Dart came out against concealed carry in Illinois last year when SB 1976 was proposed. Obviously, Jesse Jackson, Jr. would not be good for gun rights but he may be damaged goods due to Rod Blagojevich.

I’d love to hear the comments from people who live in the Chicago area who might have a better feel for potential candidates and where they stand on gun rights.

Update on Korean Garands

The Washington Times ran an editorial on Friday that referred to the blocked Korean Garands as “Obama’s backdoor gun ban.” The paper confirmed with the State Department that the rifles’ importation was being blocked and that they were looking at alternative options. As the paper notes, during the Clinton administration, “alternative options” meant melting down surplus rifles.Â The end result of that fiasco is that it left the U.S. Army scraping the barrel when it came to finding M-14s for theirÂ Designated Marksmen.

The Washington Times furtherÂ accused Obama of doing this to appease the “gun grabbers.”

Therefore, the best way for Mr. Obama to appease the gun-grabbing fringe is to take actions that won’t bring too much attention to what he’s doing. As long as the destruction of these rifles stays under the public radar screen, he will have achieved his goal.

The Firearm Blog has a post about the South Koreans’ reaction to the surplus Garands and M-1 carbines being blocked. They link to a story in the Korean newspaper The Chosun llbo. The story reiterates much of what was said in the original Korea Times article. Quoting an unnamed Korean official who said:

“It’s difficult to understand why the U.S. opposes the deal now, when we already shipped tens of thousands of these firearms to the U.S. in the early 1990s. We are trying to grasp the real underlying cause of this reversal through diplomatic channels.” He added that because these firearms were originally made in the U.S., selling them back needs approval from Washington.

The Chosun Ilbo article does have one humorous aspect. The picture that they use to illustrate the M-1 Carbine seems to be that of a plastic, G.I. Joe toyÂ carbine.

New York Times on SanFran Image Ban

The NYTimes has its expected take on the San Francisco transit authority’s allowing SAF to put up the posters for their shindig.
Bonus PSH in the last paragraph. A gardener who is not only hoplophobic, but aichmophobic? Really?

Interesting Posters Appear in SF – update

The most interesting posters started appearing on certain bus stops throughout San Francisco on August 31st. Mind you, the San Francisco MTA has a policy against ads that “appear to promote the use of firearms.”

The posters were a joint effort of the Second Amendment Foundation and the CalGuns Foundation. More here and here. A clearer picture of the poster can be found here. The poster is an adaption of an earlier poster by Oleg Volk.

UPDATE:Â According to a CBS News blog, the SFMTA is investigating whether the posters above should have been allowed to be posted at bus stops in the first place. The feeling I get from that report is that the MTA has been getting a lot of pressure from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to remove the ads.

If they remove them, Alan Gottlieb will be one happy man. He has vowed to sue if they are removed and itÂ sounds like he is just itching for the chance to sue SF on First Amendment grounds.