The Ghouls of Gun Control Rear Their Ugly Heads Once Again

Editor's note: I'm reposting this, in part because of the anti-gun noise and nonsense in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, and because the liberal anti-gun crowd still can't get their facts straight.I wrote this piece in response to a column by Michael Fitzgerald, of the Stockton Record, late in Oct '15. I responded with a long letter to the Editor, which, to their credit, they published almost in its entirety. (Like I said, it was long!) Afterwards, there were a spate of shootings which made the national news, and I felt it might be inappropriate to respond, in the light of unfolding events. For those of you who just read The Ghouls of Gun Control, this is the columnist and the column that I was referring to. This last draft contained a lot of material I felt wouldn't fit in the letter.


Michael Fitzgerald, a columnist for my local dead tree paper, decided that my fair city has too many guns. In reality, what he wants to eliminate is too many shootings. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to know the difference.

You can't hardly blame him. Well, yes you can. He's regurgitating statistics that he got from the Brady Campaign to Stop Gun Violence. Getting reliable and accurate statistics from them is like getting information from our last Commander-in-Chief on keeping your doctor if you liked your doctor. He quotes the "reality" that
"A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting, than to be used in self-defense..."
So I read that and immediately I asked myself, where did they get that number from? A curiosity apparently not shared by our columnist, so I Googled it, and the top two entries were one from the Brady organization and the second was from the NRA-ILA, Institute for Legislative Action.

It listed the source of the study, "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home," Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care, Aug. 1998, and then proceeded to list the flaws of that study. This analysis was in 2001. For upwards to seventeen years, Brady has been repeating the results of this extremely flawed study, because it knows that columnists like Fitzgerald will accept it without question and then spread the lies even farther. Perhaps the greatest flaw in the study which "proves" 'A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used...yada yada yada", except in all but 14.2% of the subjects of the study, they were shot with some other gun!

"only 14.2% of criminal gun-related homicides and assaults he surveyed involved guns kept in the homes where the crimes occurred."

Let me break that down for you. Let's say you are a drug dealing gang banger and you keep a gun in your house for protection. Which is probably pretty smart, since all your other drug dealing, gang banger associates have guns and would shoot you in a New York minute if there was a buck in it for them. So, if you leave your house and get killed by someone else's gun, outside your house, the study says, See? He kept a gun in the house and he got shot! Mind you, the gun you kept in the house didn't kill you, but it counts in our study because...science!

And what's a good anti-gun diatribe without a little something to tug the heart strings? Fitzgerald recounts the 1989 Cleveland schoolyard "massacre". Because nothing like that has happened here in the last quarter century or so, but...science! A little background on the Cleveland school shooting, in case you don't remember back that far. A loser named Patrick Purdy, whom the New York Times described as having an "extensive criminal history", killed five children between the ages of six and nine, and wounded thirty others.

He had a record of at least five arrests in California, dating to 1980.

A psych evaluation for his probation report after his last arrest and incarceration in 1987 "described him as a danger to himself and others". Arrested numerous times, attempted suicide twice, one might suggest that the criminal justice and public health system failed this man. One other lesser known detail of his attack, he prepared a Molotov cocktail, a gasoline bomb, and blew up his car before he started his shooting spree. Which not only does not sound like the mark of a sane man to me, but it also points out his disregard of laws restricting the use of explosive devices. Imagine for a brief moment, you have a person this crazy, without a firearm in sight, who creates not one but a half a dozen firebombs and uses them to assault an elementary school.

Purdy was a mentally ill criminal. His last handgun purchase was subject to a 15 day "cooling off" period, which ended three days before the shooting. Guess that didn't work, either.

Fitzgerald gratuitously tells the tragic story of a young man who accidentally shoots himself fatally, cleaning his gun while his mother watched. Although this is both heart breaking and avoidable, this death would not have been eliminated by any of the proposed gun control laws being pushed today, so why bring it up? Because most gun control advocated today cannot be sold logically, it must tug the heart strings.

For example, who among us is untouched by the death of a child? So young, with their entire lives before them! So a few years back, there was a study compiled of the deaths of "children" killed by guns. Because when we hear about things like that, we tend to think "Sandy Hook" or "Cleveland school". Only this study was of "children" up to the age of twenty three! The highest percentage of deaths was among inner city gangs, 17-23, who were involved in all sorts of criminal activity and not the sort to abide by the law just for the sake of it. But the dishonesty of the anti-gun crowd can be seen in the way they pad their statistics, because if the numbers are not high enough, it will not affect you as emotionally.

Everyone who is killed by a gun in America is fair game for their statistics. People who use a gun in self defense, police officers in the line of duty, every justified use of deadly force is considered a "victim" of gun violence. Dana Loesch points out in her book, one group reciting the names of "victims" of gun violence, named Tamerlan Tsarnaev. You remember him? After he and his brother set off bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing men, women, and children and tearing their bodies limb from limb, he got into a shootout with police. Most of America didn't lose any sleep over it. Brady and their brethren drew another chalk outline around another victim, and if we only have "common sense gun laws" we could eliminate these senseless deaths. Don't worry. I'm sure Michael Brown of Ferguson MO is on one of their lists, too!

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed a gun control measure for the 2016 ballot. Newsom’s politically courageous measure would ban clips (sic) that hold more than 10 rounds.

I'm sure he meant "magazines". There is a difference, though I suspect much of Mr. Fitzgerald's knowledge of guns comes from Hollywood rather than hands on experience. There may be one slight hitch in this part of Newsom's "politically courageous measure" here in California. It's already been law since January of 2000. We affectionately call it California Penal Code Section 32310:

32310. (a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing January 1, 2000, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(b) For purposes of this section, "manufacturing" includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully functioning large-capacity magazine.

So, we have a journalist quoting studies that have been debunked for fourteen years impressed with someone who apparently hasn't got a clue to what current law actually states, and these guys are going to fix it for us? Please!

Patrick Purdy, the Aurora theater shooter and the Boston Marathon bombers all broke multiple laws in constructing, placing and detonating bombs aside from their gun crimes. Yet if anyone were to come up to you and say, "All we need are 'common sense' bomb laws", you might look at them as if they were insane. We already have "common sense bomb laws" on the books which need to be enforced when violated by evil or mentally ill individuals. BTW, that's the way that some Second Amendment advocates and those who actually know the issues, look at you when you propose something yet again that will not work, will not deter crime or criminals or the mentally ill, but you feel you "have to do something" about these horrific crimes. Or at least, that's what the politicians say.

Despite the media coverage, school shootings are actually decreasing. Homicides are decreasing. Accidental shootings are decreasing. The sensational coverage is increasing.

For liberal politicians, gun control is the gift that keeps on giving. They can pass legislation that they know will not decrease crime or violence one whit, in fact may even make the problem worse by disarming the law abiding, take credit for "doing something" and still have an issue they can run on year after year.

Bottom line, whenever someone tells you they want "common sense" gun laws, ask them specifically what the law would ban and how specifically that law would have prevented the latest in a long line of tragedies exploited by the Ghouls of Gun Control?

Originally published 12/14/15

Gun Control: I'm All For It!

Authenticated pre-shooting picture of Gabby at a police firing range.
(Please ignore any indications of youth or ethnicity in target picture.)

Cross posted at LCR

How to Ring Out the Old and Ring in the New...

...with a new gun!

A Uberti Cattleman rifle in .45 Long Colt
Today, I joined thousands of Californians in purchasing one last long gun before a new gun registration law kicks in on New Year's Day. I didn't really need one, (law or gun) but then, the Second Amendment is not found in the Bill of Needs. Plus, according to the Beltway's accounting principles, I actually cut my spending by over a thousand dollars in doing so!

I'd been to a big box sporting goods store on Sunday and didn't see anything that caught me eye, so I went to this smaller sporting goods shop in town, after I finished work this afternoon. I looked around a bit and toyed with the idea of buying this:

A .45 semi-auto Kriss-Vector carbine
A California legal version of their submachine gun. I wasn't that familiar with it, so I read some reviews online, with my smartphone, and handled it a bit, and while I was pondering the wisdom and utility of the purchase, I spied that little Uberti, like Charlie Brown's Christmas tree, kind of little and off to one side. And since I was planning on spending over a thousand dollars more for the Kriss-Vector, I was able to cut my firearm spending over 50% in December alone! Finally, some Washington-style fiscal accountability! Since about half of that was paid for with a small gift card from work, thus, off budget, my budgeted firearms expenses were 'actually' cut over 75%. Now, if this were true Washingtonian budgeting, I would immediately spend the money I "saved" on something else. Maybe some ammo... The year is still young!

See also:
When Idiots Write Gun Control Laws, We Get Idiotic Laws

NFL Bans Superbowl Ad from Daniel Defense

An ad which apparently was designed to meet every guideline published by the NFL has been rejected because...well, guns are just nasty! (Even if you don't show one.) And rather than glorify the use of guns, as many in the culture do, this ad simply states that they are "tools", useful for self defense. Go figure!

Anyway, if the same NFL that tolerates Bob Costas' mindless drivel wants to ban this ad, then I will show it to as many people as I can. Because I can.

Piers in Our Time

As accurate as always. The shooter apparently did not use an AR-15, Mr. Morgan's talking points notwithstanding.

The Wash Navy Yard shooter had 3 guns including AR-15 assault rifle - same killing machine used at Aurora and Sandy Hook.

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) September 16, 2013

It's Official! Eric Holder is the Worst Attorney General in the History of the Republic

From the very beginning, Eric Holder has been a disaster. I was on the record opposing his appointment long before the full measure of his bias and incompetence came to light. From the New Black Panther case, where he refused to pursue punishment in a slam dunk case of voter intimidation, strictly because of the color of the offenders' skin, to Fast and Furious, the ill conceived attempt to erode the Second Amendment, via the botched and clumsy gun running program that his department revived (after the Bush administration had terminated it due to its inherent unworkability) and expanded it, resulting in the deaths of a Border Patrol agent, a Mexican chief of police and hundreds of innocent men, women and children south of our southern border.

The oxymoronically named Obama Justice department even sent community organizers down to Florida to gin up protests and incite feelings against George Zimmerman. This was the use of our tax dollars to fund the expenses of AstroTurf rallies, prejudicial towards a citizen presumed innocent under the law. We expect the justice system to be impartial, not to pick winners and losers based on anything other than the law itself. Eric Holder is a disgrace.

And now, in front of the NAACP, the man who called America a nation of cowards, seeks to impose his own cowardice on the right of free citizens to defend themselves.

"It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods. (Cheers, applause.) These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if -- and the "if" is important -- if no safe retreat is available."

"Senselessly". A man who has the FBI to provide him personal protection thinks that you defending yourself in your own home is "senseless".

These laws try to fix something that was never broken

Not true. People have been prosecuted for defending themselves in their own homes. Stand your ground laws and castle doctrines were formulated to protect the rights of citizens to protect them from weasels who spout things like:

There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if -- and the "if" is important -- if no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common-sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely.

Do you understand what he said? If you are in the comparative safety of your own home, and someone invades your house, perhaps carrying weapons and threatening your life and property, Eric Holder says you have a DUTY to run away. Talk about cowardice!

I personally don't believe I have a duty to retreat from my own home if it is invaded. The invader is the one who has a duty to avoid entering my house uninvited. Besides, the weaselly, cowardly AG does not demonstrate how "outside" is necessarily safer than "inside". What if the invader who breached the four walls of my house decides to pursue me outside? Make my stand standing in the bushes, perhaps?

The aphorism "a man's home is his castle" has been around for far longer than the cowardly, craven Eric Holder has been alive. It is part of that "common sense" that he falsely attributes to retreat. One can make defensible places inside one's home. A safe room, if one is so inclined. Proximity to a phone line to call for help. A weapon secured for just such a circumstance. My back yard, on the other hand, is about as defensible as invoking executive privilege for Fast and Furious, or snooping on AP reporters...there's a clear line of sight from virtually every window and door to the six foot fence I would have to scale to put any real distance between myself and an attacker. But, all that aside, perhaps Mr. Holder would care cite the statute or legal doctrine that imposes upon us the "duty" to flee our own homes when attacked?

Beuller? Beuller??

The Obama administration is rife with malcontents, mountebanks and ne'er do wells. And as such, Eric Holder fits right in. I suspect he will be a part of Obama's Reign of Error until the bitter end.

Elections have consequences.

Cross posted at LCR.

When Idiots Write Gun Control Laws, We Get Idiotic Laws, Redux

Radio guy Tom Sullivan is fond of saying that the "C" students are running the country. Tom may be an optimist. Here in California, we have yet another example of "We have to do something about all these shootings!". In this case, yet another onerous gun control law that will not make anyone one whit safer.

The genius savants in Sacramento have passed a bill in the state Senate, that would register ammunition buyers, forcing them to submit personal information and fifty dollars for a background check. The vast majority of people in this state and indeed the United States, are law abiding citizens who use their guns for sport, recreation and even self defense.

Let's look at this proposed legislation not from the perspective that finally the legislature is doing something, but will the legislation produce the desired results and at what cost?

Let's back away from firearms for a minute, since talking about guns makes some people crazy. Let's say that there have been a number of highly publicized, high profile, drunk driving incidents around the country. One drunk driver drove onto a school playground, killing and injuring a number of children. One drunk driver drove onto the sidewalk in front of a movie theater, killing and injuring a number of people standing in line to see a movie. Another seriously injured a popular, prominent politician on her way to a town hall meeting. The number of people who drive drunk and kill or injure people is very small compared to the number of licensed drivers, but...we have to do SOMETHING!

So, the brain trust under the dome in Sacramento puts their best minds on the problem. You can't drive drunk without gas in your car (all you drunken Volt drivers notwithstanding!). So, in addition to licensing cars and drivers, Sacramento lawmakers want to require you to have a separate license to purchase gasoline (or electric cars). A fee will be levied on every new licensee, and a questionnaire exploring every licensee's drinking habit will be filed away for law enforcement to reference. The fact that this file will be a virtual duplicate of the records on file at the DMV means that there will be an additional level of bureaucracy and twice as many files for law enforcement to go through to get the same limited results.

Now, ask yourself, how are drunk drivers typically apprehended? By police officers combing through DMV records? Or is it primarily officers on the street, following up the relative few who commit the crimes, rather than the millions who do not.

Let's look at some of the high profile gun cases that get everyone's blood boiling:

The Sandy Hook shooting. If the shooter's Mom had been required to obtain a license before she purchased her ammunition, do you think this would have deterred her son in any way? No.

The Aurora theater shooting. The miscreant guilty of that crime purchased a large quantity of ammunition, but apparently there was nothing criminal on his record that would have raised any flags. (He also illegally constructed bombs, which indicate that even if his ammunition purchases had been criminalized somehow, he would not have hesitated to attempt to obtain ammunition illegally.)

The Virginia Tech shooting. Once again, nothing on his record that prevented him from purchasing the guns he used. How would an ammunition license magically have turned up something different?

The Gabby Giffords shooting. Same story.

The Fort Hood shooting. I know people like Obama like to forget about this one because it doesn't fit the "template". Both guns and ammo are tightly controlled on military bases. Requiring civilians to obtain ammunition licenses would not have stopped this bit of terrorism ludicrously entitled "workplace violence".

The Columbine shooting. Same as Sandy Hook. When they obtained the weapons, they had access to ammunition.

The Boston Marathon bombers. Duplicating the law that could not keep them from possessing a gun (or bombs) would not have kept them from obtaining ammunition.

In every case, some mythical ammunition license would not have prevented any of these horrific crimes. And to achieve that end, you would hassle millions of sportsmen and citizens, some of them lower income, from obtaining what they need to defend themselves against those who do not obey the law. Now put yourself in the shoes of a typical sportsman or hunter: How happy would you be to have to make an additional trip to the DMV before you purchased your next tank of gas?

Far better to have law enforcement vigorously follow up and prosecute every drunk driver and everyone who commits a crime using a firearm. The Obama administration has a notoriously low record in prosecuting people who have broken federal gun laws. (Eric Holder comes to mind!) Almost as if the Obama administration would rather have gun control as a political issue rather than to apprehend those guilty of crimes with firearms...

The fifty dollar fee, in addition to the fee required to purchase a firearm, the firearm itself and ammunition, will be a disproportionate financial difficult for the poor. The prohibitions against "Saturday Night Specials" was first instituted to try to keep guns out of the hands of inner city blacks, regardless of their disposition to criminal activity. Dianne Feinstein and her bodyguards will have all the ammunition they need. Some single mom living in a bad neighborhood, or some battered spouse whose better half is not particularly deterred by a paper restraining order may not.

The law will not work as designed. It will be costly to maintain and will yield virtually no benefit. Better to budget money for officers on the street, not file cabinets full of dead trees. Doing something just for the sake of doing something may please a political constituency, temporarily, but apart from hassling the majority of law abiding citizens will not yield any positive results, certainly not those the lawmakers supposedly want to achieve.



When Idiots Write Gun Control Laws, We Get Idiotic Laws (part I)
Cross posted at LCR.

The Cindy Sheehanization of Sandy Hook

Anyone here remember Cindy Sheehan? Anybody? Anybody at all? Back before the war in Afghanistan became Obama's and the casualties really started to mount, the Main Stream Media found a champion against the war in Cindy Sheehan. Cindy's son had been killed during the Iraq war, and Cindy would camp out by the side of the road in Crawford, Texas, to see if she could waylay President Bush on his way to or from his ranch. As an IED of the MSM (Improvised Exploitative Device), Cindy was supposed to have moral authority to oppose the war, perhaps more than any other, because she lost her son in the fighting.

After a while, her fame at being a gadfly, escalated to where she could rub shoulders with dictators, and demagogues like Jesse Jackson, up until there was a Democrat in the White House. After that, it didn't matter how many mothers lost their sons in the escalation of deaths in Afghanistan, because protesting a Democrat president simply isn't done, except by the far Left wackadoos, and we try to keep our distance from them!

The reason I bring up dear, forgotten Cindy, discarded by the Left like a Kleenex in an influenza ward, is it seems to be happening again to a lesser degree with the parents of Sandy Hook. The Left doesn't have a logical argument for implementing a new regiment of gun control laws. They are exhibiting the "never let a crisis go to waste" mentality that they tried with Gabby Giffords* and the Aurora theater shooting and now with the Sandy Hook shooting, to stir people emotionally to the point that they do not recognize that none of the proposed measures would have stopped any of those tragic shootings. Not one.

It seems that flying the parents, or at least some of the parents, out on Air Force One and squiring them around to twist the arms of law makers is an attempt to make use of this same supposed "moral authority" that Cindy Sheehan was supposed to have. "Who better to judge whether or not we should be at war than someone who lost a son?" translates to "Who better to judge what is a good gun control law than someone whose child was a shooting victim?" Well, in Ms. Sheehan's case, perhaps someone who was an expert on military strategy, or someone familiar with the security and defense needs of our country, or the intentions of our adversary? People also lose loved ones in auto accidents every day. It scarcely makes them authorities on automobiles, road construction or advisability of traffic laws.

While we have deep feelings for those surviving family members of the Sandy Hook shooting, grieving for their loss, it doesn't make them an authority on gun control or the Second Amendment, or give them some moral authority that should supersede the rights of fellow citizens. I truly feel sorry for their loss, but it does not make them experts on guns or legislation, it merely makes them political pawns.

And when all the President's men are through using them, they will find themselves abandoned, by the side of the road, alongside Cindy Sheehan. And any actions taken by this administration will have been to further their own political agenda.


*Remember the shameful "memorial" service/ pep rally Obama had in Tucson for those who were killed? All the attendees were given a "Together We Thrive" t-shirt, because what's a proper remembrance of the dead without a slogan for the President's reelection campaign?

Cross posted at LCR.

"This is Not About Politics" said Politician Barack Obama at His Latest Political Rally

"This is Not About Politics," said Barack Obama in a campaign style stump speech where he mentioned Congress no less than eighteen times. Four times, he repeated: "We have to tell Congress it’s time..." to do something or other. Once, he says, " I’m asking everyone listening today, find out where your member of Congress stands on this."

Does that sound like a non-political speech to you? A similar sentiment came from the Business Insider:

"The speech served as one of the most emotional and forceful on gun control, as he spoke with urgency at a rally that at times sounded more like a campaign stop."

-Brett LoGiurato

So, when the Bamboozler-in-Chief tells you that what he's talking about is "not about politics", you know that's all he's talking about.


Update:

This is not about politics. This is about doing the right thing for all the families who are here that have been torn apart by gun violence. (Applause.) It’s about them and all the families going forward, so we can prevent this from happening again. That’s what it’s about. It’s about the law enforcement officials putting their lives at risk. That’s what this is about. This is not about politics. (Applause.) This is not about politics.

The problem with this bit of shameless demagoguery, is that none of the "solutions" that are being put forth would have prevented the tragedy at Sandy Hook. If it's all about preventing another mass shooting like Sandy Hook, how come all we get are the same old tired gun control bromides that haven't worked before?

The Left is advancing a political position on guns and the Second Amendment. To use the terminology of the Left, they are 'dancing on the graves of murdered schoolchildren' to do it.

Repeat after me: "This is not about politics. This is not about politics. This is not about politics. Well, gosh! Look at that! It IS about politics!"



Cross posted at LCR.

"Charged With A Felony For Transporting A Legally-Owned Gun"

My name is Beth Arneson Ferrizzi. I live in Moorhead, MN. I am a 29 year old stay at home mother and a military wife. I have a 6 year old daughter and am 6 months pregnant. My husband is a Master Sergeant Select who has served multiple tours in Iraq. He is currently on a year long unaccompanied tour in Honduras.

On March 16th, my daughter and I flew to New York City to visit my best friend, meet my husband, and attend his sister’s wedding in Philadelphia, PA. I asked my husband if he would show me where he grew up while we were in Philly. He agreed, but warned me it was a rough neighborhood. He asked me to bring his handgun with me, just in case. My husband has a conceal to carry permit in the state of North Dakota with reciprocity in Pennsylvania.

Prior to my departure from Fargo, ND, I went on the Delta Airline website to read the policy on transporting a firearm. I also called the Delta customer service hotline and I explained that I was planning to transport my husband’s gun and wanted to be sure I followed the proper procedures. I felt the information I was given was somewhat confusing, especially in regard to transportation of ammunition. I then talked to my husband about what I had been told on the phone and I went to Wal-Mart to find out more about ammunition packaging and what, if any, ammo transportation cases they sold. After gathering additional information, I drove to the airport in Fargo, ND and spoke to a Delta employee directly. I again told the agent of my desire to transport my husband’s gun to New York City and asked what specifically I was required to do.

I was told the gun had to be declared when I checked my bag. I was told the gun had to be unloaded and in a hard sided gun case. I was told the case had to be locked and I needed to keep the key with me in the event that security needed me to open the case. I was told that I could transport the ammunition in its original packaging. I was told as long as the bullets were separated from each other, for example not tossed in a plastic zip lock bag, that it was perfectly fine. I specifically asked if they could be inside the same locked case as the gun, and was told yes.

When my daughter and I arrived at the airport in Fargo, ND, I went to the Delta counter and declared that I had an unloaded firearm in a locked case inside the suitcase I was checking. I was asked to sign a piece of paper and place it anywhere inside my checked bag. My bag was taken, checked, and I was told I could go. I told the Delta agent that I had been previously told that I could not go through security until my checked bag had been cleared. I waited for my checked bag to be checked and was told everything was in order. My daughter and I got on the plane and flew to New York.

When we arrived at LaGuardia Airport in New York, I was not stopped by anyone from the airline, security, or the police. I picked up my checked bag at baggage claim and continued on with my vacation. Throughout the time we were in New York, the gun remained inside its locked case inside my suitcase. It was not taken out until we arrived in Philadelphia, PA. Prior to leaving Philadelphia, the gun was unloaded and returned to the locked case.

On March 26th, I returned with my daughter to LaGuardia Airport. I arrived early and followed the same steps I had prior to boarding the plane in Fargo, ND. I went to the Delta counter and declared that I had an unloaded firearm in a locked case inside my bag I wanted to check. Upon hearing this, the Delta agent called the Port Authority Police.

I would like to say that my treatment while in the custody of the New York Port Authority Police was fantastic. The officers that I came into contact with went far above and beyond what was required of them by their position. They did everything they could to make me comfortable and to help me in any way they could. I am deeply appreciative of the courtesy that was shown to both me and my daughter.

I am charged with a class C felony, illegal possession of a loaded firearm. I have been released on my own recognizance, but will need to travel back to New York for trial. At that time I will be breast feeding a new born baby. Unknown to me, under New York Law, I was not supposed to transport a handgun, even within a locked case. I was completely unaware of this. Despite my taking every step I could think of to make sure I was transporting the gun legally and safely, completely unbeknowst to me, I had made a mistake. The gun is being considered loaded because I was in possession of the gun and ammunition at the same time. There was no ammo in the gun or magazine. It was in its original packaging, exactly as it was when it was purchased. I am being charged the same as if I had walked into the airport with a chambered round.

I agree with gun laws to decrease violent crimes. I do my best to set a good example for my daughter and to be a law abiding citizen. I am from a family who is involved in the community, my mother is a retired teacher and my father owns a small business. I volunteer at my daughter’s school. I bake cookies and send food to the younger troops on my husband’s crews. Prior to being married, I was a single parent who struggled to work and go to college. I got a degree to make a better life for my daughter. I enjoy reading, crafts, playing board games and shopping for antiques. I believe that I am being over charged for my lack of knowledge. I was misinformed. Crimes should be judged on a case by case basis, and what is happening to me and my family is wrong.

I am reaching out, looking for anyone who can help us. I did not intentionally or knowingly break any laws. Laws should be meant to keep people safe and to punish criminals who intentionally do wrong. Laws should not be used to heavily punish those doing everything possible to try to do the right thing. If you can help our family, or have any questions please email B.ArnesonFerrizzi@gmail.com.

More on the story can be found here.

Editor's note: This story seemed to me to be almost identical to the story of Tea Party Patriots co-founder, Mark Meckler in Dec of 2011, trying to legally transport a weapon on a Delta flight out of LaGuardia. I heard him interviewed about it, though I haven't been able to locate it. As best, it seems like a technicality to harass out of state gun owners flying through NYC.


Cross posted from Say Anything

Is Jim Carrey Heartless? Or a "Heartless Motherf**ker"?

You may have heard that Jim Carrey made a "funny" video about the NRA and gun control. He tweeted in defense of his efforts:

'Cold Dead Hand' is abt u heartless motherf%ckers unwilling 2 bend 4 the safety of our kids.Sorry if you're offended…

He has, however starred in movies in the past and is about to appear in the sequel to "Kick Ass", a movie that contained more gun violence (and torture) than you probably saw in your entire childhood growing up.

Mr. Carrey: Will you be advising us to boycott your new movie because of the way it portrays guns and violence? Mr. Carrey?? Mr. Carrey???

Should Businesses That Deny Concealed Carry Bear Greater Responsibility?

Does she? Or doesn't she?
Part of the debate about gun control, revolves around the question of whether or not businesses or national parks or schools should allow those with Concealed Carry permits (CCW) to bring their guns with them, and what the liabilities might be.

Reader and Internet buddy Dave, alerted me to a piece by Frank J. over at IMAO, discussing a proposal that, if a business, such as a restaurant or theater, requires you to disarm before entering, should they be required to provide armed security? Or, as Frank suggests, should they be held liable for damages if a disarmed patron is killed or injured? They make a conscious decision to disarm their patrons, should they not be held financially responsible for the consequences of that decision?

I must admit, at first blush, there was a certain attraction to the idea. But the more I thought about it, I was coming up with scenarios that didn't fit the bill. For shorthand, let's call armed security Plan A, and increased liability Plan B.

Let's start with Plan A. You take your family into a Luby's, where a mass murder took place in 1991, when at least one CCW holder left a firearm in her car. You come in, order, sit down minding your own business. A goblin comes in and starts shooting. The armed guard reacts and starts shooting. Don't get ahead of me here.

What's his training? Police? Ex-military? Rent-a-cop? What's his experience? Beat cop? Combat? Call of Duty on the X-box?? Assuming he is proficient with a handgun, what are the effects of adrenaline as he is suddenly faced with shooting another human being. What if, in the excitement and confusion...he misses. If he hits you or a loved one, you may be worse off than taking your chances with the original bad guy. One of the reasons you are less likely to see an armed guard in a bank, is exactly that: what is the bank's liability if your guard injures or kills someone. The difference between a bank heist and a spree killing is that the bank robber wants to live to get away. The bank has insurance against theft. Risk benefit goes to unarmed guards. If Luby's hires an armed guard and can't prevent 1,2,3 or more deaths, or is responsible for injuries, how do you calculate the amount of liability. (I know. You get a lawyer.)

So, Plan A is risky. What about Plan B? Again, in many spree killings, the first indication that you are in one, is that someone has been shot. So, does this become like the Bill Clinton "first grope is free" policy? Since even a CCW holder is not necessarily going to be able to respond before the first shot is fired, is the restaurant liable for the first death if they ban CCWs? And if, because of the situational awareness you maintain as a good CCW holder, you noticed this guy when he first walked in, and might have stopped him before he fired his first shot, if you only had your weapon? Do you hire a lawyer, because you believe the "first dead patron" rule shouldn't apply in your case?

And to the extent that every McDonald's, Luby's and P.F.Chang's hires an armed guard or increases their liability insurance, to cover a statistically insignificant risk, you notice the cost of your food going up faster than the rate of inflation...

My suggestion? We don't need any new laws, with their accompanying judicial interpretations, regarding the liabilities or responsibilities of businesses that bar CCWs. Just say no. If someone came to your house and told you to lock up your gun where you couldn't access it easily, you'd tell them to pound sand. Why should your choice of restaurant or entertainment change that? Just like the Aurora CO shooter bypassed a theater that was closer in favor of one with a 'no gun' policy, gun owners need to do the same, and go a little farther out of their way to patronize businesses friendly towards gun owners and refuse to patronize those that deny you your right. McDonald's won't let you through the door with your gun? Use the drive through, or find another restaurant that doesn't make you choose between a burger and your Constitutional rights.

Can't find a gun friendly theater? Say hello to Mr. Blu Ray. Or make sure your concealed weapon is truly concealed. Ideally, no one should know you have it, or where it is on your person. Keep it that way. Until you need it. Then, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.


What is that about not wearing white after Labor Day?

Assault weapons? Ban the bomb!

When arguing with gun control advocates, one of the arrows in their quiver (which, admittedly, is not a high capacity quiver!), is that, we have to do something , whether or not that something will actually help the problem or even exacerbate it. However,in spite of the foot stamping of Dianne Feinstein (D-Neverland), the so called "assault weapon" ban will not be a part of upcoming "gun safety" legislation, even though there was yet another example in the news recently of another deranged individual bent on mass murder.


This incident happened at the Orlando campus of the University of Florida. A spree shooter wannabee killed himself when his plan started to go awry. A college student with two guns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition... and here is the dirty little secret that the gun banners never want to mention in their grandiose plans to separate you from your firearms...and a backpack filled with explosives... Four to be exact. Four improvised explosive devices. "Bombs", to the uninitiated.

And the reason why I call it a dirty little secret, is because, if you think about it, anyone willing to break all the laws concerning the manufacture and possession of destructive devices, is not going to be deterred by a law against any particular style of firearm. In other words, exactly the sort of person they say they are passing these laws to stop. This would-be shooter carried four bombs. The Aurora CO theater shooter made bombs and incendiary devices to boobytrap his apartment, hoping to kill or injure police whom he knew would search his home after he was killed or captured.

Adding an addition law would not have deterred the Aurora shooter, but, even if he had been denied any of the legal firearms he possessed, how many more people might have died had he simply placed one of his explosive or incendiary devices at each of the exits of that theater?

Dianne Feinstein's slightly hysterical exclamation that no one needs a bazooka is pertinent to a discuss of firearms, only insofar as if someone so crazed or indifferent to law or human life decides to build one, how is an additional law making it illegal going to stop him?

Time for Dianne Feinstein to Quit Waving the Bloody Shirt of Harvey Milk

Just again, we saw it last week, Dianne the Indignant, droning on about how she is qualified to testify about gun violence, having seen it "up close and personal". Having the blood of her fellow members of the SF Board of Supervisors on her like some 'Red Badge of Superior Knowledge'. Please! A couple of months ago, I was in a hospital operating room, observing my surgeon perform arthroscopic knee surgery. And even though I was there and awake the whole time, with my surgeon giving me play by play of exactly what he was doing, I don't expect the AMA to coming calling on me anytime soon for my advice. I was a spectator there. I suppose, had I stuck my finger into one of the incisions to check my pulse, I may have been better qualified, as is Ms. Feinstein. What's up with that, anyhow? Who sticks their finger into a bullet wound to get a pulse? Did she excuse herself, waltz into the ladies' room to scrub in first?

If seeing bullet wounds and their effects "up close and personal" is qualification for setting gun control policy, shouldn't we ask the paramedics who arrived at the scene what their opinions were? They've undoubtedly seen more bullet wounds than Ms. Feinstein. How about the coroner? Does he get a say? Military corpsmen (that's pronounced "Core- men", Mr. President) see more trauma from bullets than the average city coroner. Let's let them decide!

Witnessing an accident by the side of the road, no matter how gruesome, does not qualify you to make decisions on highway construction, signage or guardrail construction, either. While it may have been quite traumatic for you, it does not confer any technical or legal expertise upon you.

The exact opposite case could be made, Ms. Feinstein, in the shooting of your colleagues, if after nearly 35 years, your emotions are riled up to this extreme, where you have to "cool off" after a few simple Constitutional questions, maybe you are too emotionally involved to make rational decisions about it? If you cannot control yourself, Ms. Feinstein, perhaps you should recuse yourself?

The legislative "solutions" you are pushing, would not have prevented the shooting at Sandy Hook, the shooting in the Aurora theater, or the shooting in City Hall in 1978. We all know your antipathy towards handguns, at least, towards those other than the one you happen to be carrying at the time. And your present rhetoric notwithstanding, you have stated that if it were within your power you would ban the private ownership of all guns.

Since you are pushing a "solution" that solves nothing of the problem of Sandy Hook, which supposedly was so great that the Senate was compelled to write a bill within a matter of weeks, when you and your fellow Senators have failed to produce a federal budget, required by the Constitution every year, for the last four years, and it solves nothing of the shooting of those men, whose bloody shirts you love to wave, why should we not see your actions as just one more bit of incrementalism when it comes to banning our Constitutionally protected firearms?

As sad as it is, the assassination of Harvey Milk and George Moscone benefited you personally, Ms. Feinstein. The sudden power vacuum at the top of the Board of Supervisors was filled by the supervisor with the blood stained fingers. You became Mayor of San Francisco, which gave you a larger platform to do things, like pass an un-Constitutional ban on handguns in your city, (which was fortunately overturned). It gave you a platform to run for higher office. But stop pretending that tragedy gave you any special insight into the Constitution or how to solve the problem of gun violence. It did not. That is evidenced by the shallow, knee jerk response you have to every shooting tragedy, whatever the cause and whatever the weapon. Waving the bloody shirts of Harvey Milk and George Moscone will not change that. It just makes you look like you haven't learned anything of use in the last thirty five years, except to play upon people's emotions.

Cross posted at LCR.

Dianne Feinstein -"I Am Not a Sixth Grader!"

One last thought on Dianne Feinstein's somewhat disgraceful performance. She famously declared that she was "Not a sixth grader". There were some who opined that being a sixth grader might be something she could still aspire to be. However, after she proclaimed she wasn't a sixth grader*, she proceded to act like one.

After indignantly defending her exclusion of all but about 2,000 weapons from the American public, she screeched

"What do they need? A bazooka???"

A bazooka, for the uninformed, is a WWII era equivalent of an RPG - rocket powered grenade. Bazookas, because they fire explosive devices, have been banned from the general public and highly regulated by the federal government since the 1930's - in fact, not long after Ms. Feinstein was born! For her to suggest, that to question her ban of some firearms, some as small as .22 caliber, suitable for plinking tin cans, with a weapon of war, capable of destroying armored tanks, goes beyond hyperbole IMHO. It was terribly inappropriate in a discussion of firearms to compare them to fighter jets, A-bombs or bazookas.

In other words, the type of uneducated, over-exaggerated, infantile argument that you might hear... on a schoolyard...outside an elementary school.




*I remember the old saying, "If you have to hang a sign on you saying you is, then you ain't."

Dianne Feinstein Still Hypocritical on Gun Bans

Dianne Feinstein, the poster girl for hypocrisy when it comes to gun control, has spoken again. For those of you new to this rodeo, Di-Fi, as mayor of San Francisco, passed a law banning all handguns in San Francisco. (While carrying her own concealed and licensed handgun). Aside from the folly of passing yet another law that criminals will ignore*, listen to her latest bit of hypocrisy. Now I heard this on the radio at least twice this AM, but after searching the Internet, have not been able to come up with audio or a transcript of this remark, so if you stumble across it, let me know and I will gladly post a correction or an apology, but what I heard was this:

"No one has yet to show me where an assault rifle is better for self defense than a handgun." -Dianne Feinstein (paraphrased)

My initial reaction was something along the lines of, who made you the final arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable for self defense? Does my car or deodorant or toothpaste have to pass the Di-Fi test before I'm allowed to buy them as well? This was the point Ted Cruz made in comparing the First Amendment to the Second: Are there only 2,200 books the government will allow us to have? Part of her tirade against Ted Cruz this AM was her blustering that she "respects" the Constitution:

"I have great respect for it... I've studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated..."

Well, again, let's recap: Dianne's handgun ban in San Francisco was overruled as...wait for it...un-Constitutional. Respecting it apparently means something different than "adhering to it" to Ms. Feinstein.

But, then, as I got to thinking about her statement, she implies that handguns are just fine and dandy with her, at least for self defense, it's just those nasty, black scary guns we need to get rid of! Except that, when she thought she had the power, she banned private ownership of handguns from the city where she was mayor. So is she saying, "No one has yet to show me where an assault rifle is better for self defense than a handgun, but we plan on taking them away, too!"

And last, but not least, Di-Fi telling an interviewer, that if she'd had the votes she would have banned all guns, period:


Dianne Feinstein Caught Lying About Her Past Gun Ban Intentions

Dianne Feinstein keeps trying to put lipstick on her gun control pig, but her record indicates that she is in favor of banning all guns. If she has to do it one at a time, that's okay, too. I've detailed elsewhere some of the moronic gun bans passed in California, just because they could. If Dianne Feinstein's "reasonable education" can't bring her any understanding or enlightenment about the Second Amendment, why should we trust her with any of the thousands of pages of laws these dim witted do-gooders crank out every year?




*On the day Di-Fi's handgun gun was passed, I was listening to KCBS radio out of San Francisco. The first story after announcing the handgun ban, was a story about a man who held up a liquor store with a sawed off shotgun. Let's recap: It's illegal to make a sawed of shotgun. It's illegal to possess a sawed off shotgun. It's illegal to transport a loaded shotgun in your vehicle. (Let's presume for the moment our crook didn't use an unloaded gun.) It's illegal to use any kind of shotgun in the commission of a robbery. That's a minimum of four felonies committed by this outstanding citizen of SF. What makes Di-Fi think that one more law on the books will deter the commission of violent crimes?

Bonus points if you can figure out WTF Di-Fi is talking about "imploding bullets":

I’ve seen the bullets that implode.

???

Cross posted at LCR.

Dianne Feinstein: It's 'Legal to Hunt Humans'

A lot of people have been trying to make some hay out of an admittedly stupid comment made by California Senator Dianne Feinstein. (Although, "stupid comment made by California Senator" is almost a tautology!) I do not think for one minute that she believes it is 'legal to hunt humans'**. Here's what she said:

"And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. Limiting magazine capacity is critical because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down.”

She was, IMHO, trying to make the point that criminals could use large capacity magazines, that they purchase legally, for the commission of their crimes. In her ardor to ban handguns, long guns, shotguns, and any accessories for those devices, she fails to notice that the hunting of humans IS illegal. How preposterous then, are we to assume that someone who would disregard the law insofar as taking another human life would be bothered by an infraction of some minor statute designed to limit his grossly illegal mindset?

Di-Fi's mistake wasn't in stating that hunting humans is legal, it's the fact that, to a miscreant, intent on violating one of the oldest and strictest of our laws, 'Thou shalt not murder', the fact that he might have to break a lesser law first, and obtain a larger capacity magazine, either through the black market, theft, 3D printer or some carefully cobbled bits of sheet metal and plastic from someone's garage or basement, and that such a law would deter him is ludicrous on its face.

I have six words for you Sen. Feinstein. I understand it has worked well in a number of states:

Use a gun, go to jail.

Doesn't matter whether you kill someone. Doesn't matter if you even fire it. If you carry a gun in the commission of a crime, you do hard time. Extend it to replicas and toys as well. If the victim of your crime thinks you were carrying a gun, same punishment applies. That's deterrence

Punish the criminal, not the tools he chooses to use. Disarming the law abiding is like getting a vasectomy because the neighbors are having too many kids. It's time to stop punishing all of society for the crimes of the few, and get serious about enforcing the crimes already on the books to rid the streets of violent criminals.

**She may have been confusing this with Obama's predator drone policy, too!

Cross posted at LCR.

The Demagogue-in-Chief's Shameless SOTU on Gun Control

I must confess, I took the night off from politics last night. I had intended to listen to the Bloviator-in-Chief prevaricate and dance around the actual state of the union in favor of some warmed over leftist rhetoric about "investing in the future" and a laundry list of new spending programs, but I somehow found more productive things to do.

Unfortunately, glancing over my dead tree newspaper this AM, I had to address some things on which I could not remain silent. The headline read:

Obama: Parents of Shooting Victims Deserve Vote

"They deserve a vote". Obama must believe it, he repeated it eight times. The parents, Gabby Giffords, The families of Newtown, The families of Aurora...deserve a vote on all of these gun control proposals.

Do you know what they deserve Mr. President? They deserve an honest president who doesn't demagogue tragedies to further a political agenda. They deserve a president honest enough to tell them that most or all of the proposals they "deserve" a vote on, would not have prevented the tragedies that you are seeking to exploit.

And listen to just how sympathetic the Demagogue-in-Chief is to their plight!

One of those we lost was a young girl named Hadiya Pendleton. She was 15 years old. She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss. She was a majorette. She was so good to her friends, they all thought they were her best friend. Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house.

"She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss". What about victims of domestic abuse, Mr. President? Any of them "love lip gloss"? So, if a woman gets a restraining order against an abusive spouse or boyfriend, who chooses then to ignore that order, and one of your new virtually meaningless regulations prevents her from obtaining a firearm for self defense, when she is seconds away from bodily harm and death, and police are only minutes away, will you come before the nation and tell us what she deserved?

Hadiya Pendleton lived in an area with some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Don't her parents deserve the truth, Mr. President? That what you are proposing is already on the books in Chicago, and failed to prevent the shooting of a little girl who loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss? That none of the proposals you say "deserve" a vote would have prevented the shootings in Aurora or Newtown? Would not have prevented the shooting of Gabby Giffords or the firemen in New York, who were shot by a weapon that illegal to own in New York, by a felon who was already prohibited by law from owning any firearms at all? Mr. President, what difference would one more gun law meant in any of these incidents? Don't those victims' families deserve to know?

At the bottom of my blog posts, there are labels or tags to help people searching for certain stories to find them. Up until today, I had never found the need for one marked "shameless", but in my five years of writing this blog, I have never seen anything so blatantly shameless as this president. Gun control fails in Chicago, New York City and Washington D.C. The murder rates are higher there than in most of the country. The lowest murder rates are in states with the highest per capita gun ownership. Mr. President, the families of murder victims deserve more than your smarmy demagoguery in furthering your agenda of gun control.

But since we're talking about things that the citizens of the U S deserve, how about a budget? The Constitution requires that the Senate pass a budget every year...something they haven't done since 2009. In this shipwreck of an economy, Mr. President, don't you think the people f the U S, victims of higher inflation, higher cost of living and higher unemployment deserve a detailed plan as to how your administration would put us on the path to fiscal responsibility? It is Harry Reid and your party, Mr. President, who have forced the country into crisis after crisis by not passing the budget every year, that they are Constitutionally required to produce. And when budgets were passed by the House, Senate Democrats refused to even bring them up for a vote. Mr. President, don't you think the U S deserves to have a Senate that obeys the Constitution they have sworn to uphold?

Don't you think the people of the United States deserve a vote on a budget that effects nearly every aspect of their lives?
In four years, Senate Democrats could not produce a budget, but in a mere manner of weeks were able to draft bill after bill on gun control measures, which would not only not solve the problems, but in many cases, make some of them worse, but still allow shameless politicians to beat their chests and tell us how much they care about little girls who love Fig Newtons and lip gloss.


Two words for you and your speech, Mr. Obama: Shameless demagoguery




Transcript of 2013 SOTU

Cross posted at LCR.

"My Bad!" Jay Carney Releases the Photo He Meant To

It's called "uphill skeet shooting".

Big 3 Networks All Admit "Assault Rifle" Not Used in Newtown Shooting

Show this to all your liberal friends who have been hyperventilating over "assault rifles" for the last month.