So Bush and Kerry and the congressional committee are blathering on about weapons of mass destruction.

Now that's a WMD! The new S&W Model 500 Magnum Revolver. Look at that mo-fo! 10 1/2 inch barrel, it looks like something Captain Kirk would have carried instead of that faggy phasor. Never mind the fun you'd have with a monster like that, think of the look in some mutant criminal's face when you point that thing at them... And I just know that somewhere out there is a really wealthy reader who would love to buy one for me. Just email me and I'll give you the name of my local FFL dealer to ship it to... Oh well, nice fantasy... Onto the business at hand, examining the bias exhibited by Yahoo over the links they choose for their Gun Control Debate Page.

What brought that bad-boy to mind was this story in SFGate about a California county attempting to ban .50 caliber weapons. Notice how the writer opens the story:

Contra Costa County's move to ban the sale of .50-caliber rifles is the opening salvo of what could be a fierce battle pitting terrorism fighters against firearms owners.

Talk about bias! As if people who want lots of gun control are just "terrorism fighters" and anyone who's against gun control must somehow be for terrorism or at least not for fighting against it. Here's their rational:

Supporters of the ban worry that the 28-pound weapons [.50 caliber rifles], which reportedly can fire bullets capable of penetrating steel and concrete from as far as a mile away, could be used by terrorists to mount a catastrophic attack on a refinery, a chemical plant or on trains.

But gun advocates say the ban is meaningless and infringes on their rights to carry weapons.

I'll ignore the actual data that says that by the time a .50 caliber bullet has travelled a mile, it might still penetrate flesh but certainly not steel and concrete, and just say that these are not the weapons of choice for terrorists within our shores. But more than that, notice that the gun-banners are now suddenly claiming that their goal is only to prevent terrorist attacks (yet they refuse to support President Bush, who has actually taken steps to fight terrorism.) And "gun advocates" are portrayed as folks who think they can carry anything and don't care about terrorist attacks.

It goes without saying that 99% of gun-rights advocates are probably the fiercest defenders of America, our shores, and of course, our liberties and way of life. This SF Gate story is bias of the highest order by an alledged journalist who has allowed his personal beliefs to tarnish a newspaper article.

Speaking of bias (which we do around here...) how's this for a Chicago Tribune story title: Gun Curbs Suffer Setbacks. Here again, a newspaper loads their bias at the beginning of a story to indicate their disdain for the content they're forced to report. The title would lead you to believe that curbing guns is a noble cause that has somehow been misguidedly thwarted. Here's the "plot":

The Illinois Senate Friday approved legislation to allow retired police officers and former military police officers to carry concealed weapons, the latest example of a growing mood against gun control in the legislature despite the Democratic takeover of both chambers.

As if, "My God, we finally control the legislature and yet they're going to allow retired cops to carry guns!" As if that (retired cops -- always a nefarious group, huh? -- being allowed to carry concealed) is somehow going to cause mayhem in Illinois streets. As if they (the authors) somehow think that as soon as a cop retires, he becomes a dangerous suspect not to be trusted. If I was a cop in Illinois I'd be big-time insulted by this op-ed masquerading as a news article. Here's another quote:

On Thursday, the NRA successfully pushed separate bills through the House and Senate that would lower to 18 from 21 the age at which a person may apply for a firearm owner's identification card without a parent's permission.

Study that paragraph. Apparently the NRA now IS the legislature. State senators didn't introduce the measure, the NRA did! Incidentally, lowering the age to 18 means those people could buy long guns only. Federal law prohibits anyone under 21 from buying a handgun. The writers thoughtfully left that out. This begs the age old question that if an 18-year-old is "old enough" to tote a firearm in a war-zone half-way around the world, why can't he be trusted to protect himself and family at home?

USA Today had a point-counterpoint pair of op-eds about the ability of some "mentally-ill" people to obtain firearms. The position of the newspaper:

The arrest last week of an Ohio man as the prime suspect in a 10-month string of highway shootings in the state has turned a momentary spotlight on the mentally ill's easy access to guns.

Charles McCoy Jr., who has been charged with one assault count, has a history of psychiatric problems. But, apparently, he had no record of being committed to an institution or judged mentally incompetent. So he was not prohibited from buying a gun.

Even if such a record existed, it likely would not have shown up in a required background check for a gun purchase. That's because only a handful of states make any mental-health information available to the national background databank used for checking gun buyers. Nearly two-thirds don't even compile such information. As a result, a 1968 federal law designed to keep guns away from the mentally ill is toothless.

The "opposition" to this stance came from Robert Bernstein, executive director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, a national legal advocacy group for the rights of people with mental disabilities. He says:

Encouraging the sharing of mental-health records with the national instant-background-check system would do little to prevent gun violence and could lead to more discrimination against those with mental illness. Without strong protections, such information could be shared, creating new avenues for discrimination unrelated to gun use -- in housing, credit or employment.

Since names on the checklist are not automatically purged, individuals could remain on the list as ''mentally defective'' forever. A 35-year-old woman committed for depression once in 1990 would remain in the database for life. Ironically, early reports indicate that McCoy would not have been included since he voluntarily sought treatment.

Bernstein started off his piece by stating that "...focusing on McCoy's history of mental illness misses the larger point: Guns are dangerous and shouldn't be easy for anyone to obtain. That pretty much shows where he stands on the overall issue.

Look, no one is going to argue that people with a history of violent mental illness should be allowed to possess firearms, not even the demonized NRA. But if there is a problem with reporting such illnesses then maybe states should do what Vermont used to do by having the instant check first check state records and then check in with the FBI. But there has to be a way to seperate (and protect) such information, such as the true nature of the illness and if it was simple depression, there has to be a mechanism to purge those records. No easy answers on this one.

Well, at least Yahoo included one lonely link to someone on our side of the issue: John R. Lott, Jr. had an op-ed in last week's NRO which reported that even the gun-control group, The Violence Policy Center, admits that the phony "assault weapons ban" would have no effect on crime if it was allowed to expire. Here's a quote:

An example? Take the statements made recently on National Public Radio by a representative of the Violence Policy Center. NPR described the VPC as "one of the more aggressive gun groups in Washington." Yet the VPC's representative claimed: "If the existing assault-weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets. So if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass."

Read the whole thing of course. But remember that quote from VPC: Their objective is to get a "particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets." All firearms are lethal, therefor the unstated goal is to ban all guns!

Anyway, that was about it. I guess Richard Clark's book pushed IMPORTANT news out of the way... Thanks for stopping by!

By Golly, it must be that time of the week again. Time to look at some of the stories and editorials linked to by Yahoo! on their Gun Control Debate Page. And this after I watched the DVDs (again) of The Matrix and The Matrix Reloaded. Talk about being in the mood. Here's a "Sharp Dressed Man":

Incidentally, via Les Jones and his Weekly Gun Links, I discovered Guns of the Matrix. Pretty cool. Anyway... Most of the new links again dealt with the defeat of the bill to protect gun makers from baseless lawsuits.

From one of the most unusual sources linked on the page -- Rolling Stone Magazine comes up with this editorial:

Bull's eye shooter supply, a great barn of a building in Tacoma, Washington, sells everything from air rifles to the Bushmaster XM15 semiautomatic rifle, a kind of high-class M-16. Upstairs, you can try a gun before you buy it at one of twelve indoor shooting lanes, where children under 12 yrs shoot free when accompanied by adult. For a building that contains enough firepower to overthrow Kim Jong Il, security is remarkably lax. "It's pretty amazing," says Richard Van Loan, a federal agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. "You have guns not tethered down, no security cameras, nobody checking the doors." According to the ATF, at least 238 guns have "disappeared" from the store -- and fifty-two have been used in crimes. The snipers who terrorized the nation's capital in 2002, for instance, managed to obtain the Bushmaster they used to kill ten people from Bull's Eye without bothering to pay for it.

Relatives of nine of the victims sued Bull's Eye and Bushmaster Firearms, claiming their negligence led to the killings. Last June, a judge agreed to let the lawsuit go forward, citing Bull's Eye's "allegedly reckless or incompetent conduct in distributing firearms." But if the National Rifle Association and President Bush have their way, the case will never go before a jury. The NRA and the White House are pushing a bill that prohibits lawsuits against the makers and sellers of firearms that end up killing or maiming people. Supporters call it the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Opponents call it the Bull's Eye Protection Act.

(The magazine doesn't identify the story as an editorial but that's what it is.) I was wondering how much mis-information could be packed into one piece and now I know. The recently defeated bill would NOT have protected the Bull's Eye gun store from lawsuits claiming negligence. The bill had specific protections to permit such actions. The Bull's Eye had a history of "losing guns" and they could not account for the weapon used by the two mutants in the D.C. Sniper case. The lawsuit by the relatives of the victims could easily proceed. So the writer of this screed, Dan Baum, is flat-out wrong or worse, is trying to deceive his readership to push an agenda.

What the bill does do is protect a firm such as Bushmaster from being sued if one of their products -- properly functioning, ie not defective -- winds up being used criminally. The same way you would not sue Ford because of the actions of a drunk driver, so the bill was really designed to stem the flow of frivolous lawsuits against gun makers and distributors. And most of those lawsuits have originated from greedy cities and organizations.

The editorial goes on:

The bill set off the biggest congressional gunfight in years. The House passed the measure by a wide margin, and the Senate seemed all but certain to follow suit. Then, on March 2nd, gun-control advocates managed to tack two amendments onto the bill that are anathema to the NRA: one extending the ban on assault weapons and another requiring background checks on customers at gun shows. "It's the NRA's dream bill -- with some of its worst nightmares attached," said Peter Hamm, communications director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Again, the tired mantra of the phony "assault weapons" ban and the innuendo that background checks are never conducted at gun shows. Licensed FFL dealers have to conduct NICS checks. The problem -- if you want to call it that -- is with unlicensed participants or sales in the parking lot. I've addressed that ad nauseam and won't do it again now.

Rolling Stone really ought to stick to glorifying drug-using misogynist rappers or doing puff-pieces on the likes of John Kerry.

Speaking of nausea, Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley had an editorial in the Chicago Tribune blathering about the same thing and calling on state and federal legislaters to pass "reasonable" gun laws a chance. Of course, his definition of "reasonable" is to outlaw firearm possession in Chicago totally. Hmmm, and yet, Chicago has the highest murder rate in the nation. Hasn't worked, huh, Dick? Here's a quote:

So what can we learn from the Senate's gun vote? First of all, a majority of senators really aren't thrilled with the idea of suing the gun industry to force it to take responsibility for the way its products are marketed.

I agree that lawsuits should be the last recourse. The City of Chicago filed suit only because we had run out of ways to get the gun industry to clean itself up. We sent Chicago police officers masquerading as gang members, soldiers of fortune and straw purchasers (those who buy guns for criminals) into suburban gun stores. They were sold guns, with few or no questions asked, even when they made it clear the guns would be used for illegal activities.

Any other industry would crack down on dealers who abused its product in that manner. But the gun industry has rejected every request to police itself.

The City of Chicago filed suit after being approached by trial lawyers who saw gold in them thar hills. So spare us the altruistic nonsense. Most gun manufacturers DO crack down on shady dealers -- if those dealers are brought to their attention. But going back to the Bull's Eye for a moment, the ATF had found numerous violations over the years and never took action to close the shop, much less notify any gun makers of problems with the shop. Has Daley notified any gun makers of problems with the shops he mentions? I didn't think so.

As for undercover cops buying weapons -- I presume they passed the Instant Check which means they DID have to fill out the federal questionnaire -- if they did (and I doubt it) claim they were going to use the gun to rob or murder people and were still sold the firearm than yes, they should be shut down. But that's not the responsibility of a manufacturer, it's the job of the state.

If a restaurant is serving bad food and making people sick, it's the town or state health inspector who has to take action, not the food distributor or grower. Right?

Daley also says this:

We also filed our lawsuit out of frustration at the unwillingness of lawmakers in Springfield and Washington to pass reasonable gun regulations--with the emphasis on "reasonable."

So now he's blaming his own state legislature! And just to make sure they get the message, he'll sue the... gun makers? Hey Dick, if you don't like the laws of your state then try getting some of your like-minded cronies elected. But obviously the people have spoken and they don't agree with you. Too bad, but that's still not a reason to sue the manufacturers. That's why the Senate bill was so important. To stop hacks like you!

At this point in my report you could probably use some good news. Regarding the recently upheld concealed carry legislation in Missouri, the South County Mail (Ozarks) has this fine story by the editor:

With the Missouri State Supreme Court upholding the conceal and carry law, local law enforcement personnel say the crime rate may drop as a result.

"In the 31 states that have conceal and carry laws, all the crime statistics I"ve seen would indicate that the crime rate has gone down as a result," said Webster County Sheriff Ron Worsham.

"I've always supported the law. I've covered too many homicides where I've had to dig up victims of a crime, especially young women. I firmly believe that if they had a way to defend themselves, many of them would be alive today. I ve always encouraged my daughter to carry a loaded weapon in her car in plain sight," Worsham said.

My kind of guy. Now let's try a fantasy here: Picture the Chicago Tribune or the Washington Post et al printing a quote like that! Yah, too fantastic to imagine...

Back to reality, and this Washington Post column:

Last year, 1,982 guns were confiscated in the District -- where a ban on handgun ownership has been in place since 1979 -- and turned over to the ATF for tracing. Moreover, 77 percent of the city's 243 homicides last year were gun-related.

Washington D.C. has the second highest murder rate in the country. And if handguns have been banned for 25 years then I guess those 1,982 guns came from --wait for it-- criminals! You know, those folks who don't obey laws, much less gun laws. Which again, makes you ask if maybe the law abiding ought to be able to defend themselves?

This column was about a 14-year-old caught with firearms. Folks, criminals come in all sizes and ages. It's still not a reason to deny citizens their Second Amendment rights. Amazing, the contrast between the last two stories. This one also quotes a D.C. cop:

"We weren't into guns when I was growing up, unless we were playing cowboys with cap guns," Young said. "Firearms were off limits. Kids my age just didn't see guns. But this younger generation is different. Every day that I'm on the street, I expect to face juveniles who are armed. And I know what a 14-year-old is capable of."

Well, I don't know where you grew up but even as a twelve-year-old going to a summer camp in New Jersey, we had riflery everyday. And archery too. Talk about a sheltered life...

Here's some stuff from the always valuable Keep and Bear Arms.

A wide ranging story about the demise of the "assault weapons" ban in September came from the Star-Tribune (MN):

There's widespread agreement that the ban is flawed, but supporters of the ban argue that it should be strengthened, not dropped. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., voted to end the ban last week. In an interview Thursday, he called it "more dressing than substance."

Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., voted to uphold the ban, saying the guns' only purpose is "to slaughter indiscriminately human beings."

Coleman's vote represented a change from his position as a candidate two years ago, when he said he would support the ban as long as it did not extend to semi-automatic hunting guns.

Coleman said the difference is studies questioning the ban's effectiveness. "All the studies come to the same conclusion -- little or no impact," he said.

So far so good, right? Reasonably balanced. But wait, further down comes this:

Coleman, one of the top recipients of campaign contributions from the NRA in 2002, supported the group's positions. He voted against extending the ban, against background checks and against the overall bill.

Coleman received $9,900 from the NRA during his Senate campaign, and the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action spent another $7,558 on a direct mailing in support of Coleman.

There it is; the bias. Linking Coleman's votes to contributions from the NRA. As if his votes were bought. As if no other lobbying organizations (gosh, the NEA, AARP, the American Trial Lawyers Association, Hollywood, et cetera come to mind) ever make donations to a senate campaign.

Speaking of which, the article then veers into presidential politics by mentioning the senator who has received more special interest money than any other senator over the past 20 years:

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said that Americans have "no right to have access to the weapons of war in the streets of America." He criticized President Bush for not doing enough to promote an extension of the ban.

Funny thing, media bias.

Back to Missouri where St. Louis Today reports:

Robbers pointed a gun at Bryan Rutherford and demanded that he hand over valuables from his pickup Tuesday evening in Lemay.

Rutherford didn't pull out cash or jewelry. He pulled out a .22-caliber pistol hidden in his vehicle and opened fire in what authorities believe is the first instance of self-defense with a concealed firearm since the Missouri Legislature loosened the state's gun laws.

The man holding what turned out to be a BB gun on Rutherford was hit several times in the torso before he and two accomplices fled. Three suspects were later captured and charged.

The precise status of the concealed carry law at the time Rutherford fired is cloudy. But in any event, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch said Thursday that Rutherford would not be charged.

Oh, I'll bet there are other instances of self-defense that haven't been reported because the mutants backed off. As John R. Lott, Jr. has shown, law abiding citizens use firearms defensively a staggeringly large number of times every year. The media just doesn't report it much. By the way, on his own blog he reports on how the anti-gun Violence Policy Center admits in an interview with National Public Radio (the radio arm of the Democratic Party) that if the "assault weapons" ban is allowed to expire, it won't make "one whit of difference" in the crime rates.

Turning to what some Pro-2A bloggers are up to:

James at Hell In a Handbasket has some advice on economical protection.

Geek With a 45. poses the question of when is a "gun crime" not a gun crime?

My friend Nicki (of KABA) has been filling in over at Publicola. I don't know how I missed this one last week but she's reporting that Australia -- having banned guns -- is now going after swords! Yeah, what slippery slope?

Say Uncle reports on more nonsense from the Violence Policy Center.

Bitter Bitch reports on an initiation gone bad. I can think of so many safe gun handling rules that were broken.

Speaking of waiting periods, which I wasn't, damnum absque injuria just went through an excruciating one in -- where else -- California. It just reminds me once again of why I live in Vermont...

Okay, it's midnight and four hours is enough. Thanks to all of you for stopping by. See you soon.

While Martha Stewart begins to plan her next TV show on the proper way to make license-plates, we here at Alphecca will continue our focus on the Second Amendment. For newcomers, the purpose of this weekly report is to examine some of the bias shown by the media in their liberal bias against guns, gun ownership, and the Second Amendment. Much of the material comes from the editorials, op-eds, and stories linked to by Yahoo! on their Gun Control Debate Page. Some come from the excellent round-up of links provided daily by Keep and Bear Arms. Others are ferreted out by myself or by many of my blog-friends.

The big news this past week was the defeat of the bill to grant gun makers and distributors limited immunity from frivolous lawsuits based on the mis-use by criminals of their legally made and sold products. Unfortunately, while the House passed a "clean bill" that only dealt with that issue, in the Senate, liberal Democrats tried to attach all of their pet gun-control amendments to the bill and finally, the sponsor, Idaho Sen. Larry Craig and the NRA decided that those amendments (I'll speak about them in a moment) contaminated the original bill and compromised the Second Amendment too much to allow the bill to pass, so they decided to "kill" the bill.

Most of the stories this week dealt with the vote in the Senate and the aftermath.

I know that many of you have just eaten breakfast and I hope this won't make you ill, but for this week's graphic...

Isn't that a cozy quartet! Chucky Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, and Edward Kennedy leaving the Senate after the vote. Go ahead and retch because these are the Democratic power brokers who killed this bill to protect an industry from the ravishes of greedy city mayors and their sponsors, the American Trial Lawyers Association (the largest contributor to the Democratic Party.)

Kerry, the senator with the most "liberal" voting record in the senate, certainly surrounds himself with his "kin" and that should be a warning to all of you who might be pissed-off at G.W. Bush for various issues and are considering a protest vote. As the saying goes, you're known by the company you keep and you can see who Kerry hangs out with.

Stare at that photo for a moment and think about this: Is this the crowd you want making decisions for our country for the next four years?

So what happened? I'm not going to try to repeat all the great thoughts posted by so many better bloggers than myself (or even my own previous writings on the subject.) I promise to keep this short. The first amendment attached to the bill was:

...Designed to extend the "assault weapons" ban. This photo, from my friend Michael at Countertop Chronicles is of a Knights SR-47. A knock-off of the AK-47. It's a gun. Nothing more. And it fires just ONE bullet each time you pull the trigger. So does every single other semi-automatic gun in existence. And there-in lies the problem with the phony "assault weapons" bill and the amendment to extend it that liberals tried to attach to the original bill in this discussion.

The 19 gun "types" that Democrats have and want to continue to ban are just guns, and they function like any other gun. So these liberals put together a list of characteristics that they think make a firearm "assaultive." I'm not sure if that's a word but what the hell. These characteristics have to do with the cosmetics of the firearm. Things like the magazine, the grip, the stock and barrel, and so on.

I'm sorry I have to repeat myself but look folks, anything that is used to commit a crime is an "assault weapon" and how it operates or looks should have nothing to do with it. A baseball bat can be an "assault weapon." Should we ban them? End our national past-time? A kitchen knife can be an "assault weapon" when it's stuck into someone. Should we ban them? Maybe we should draw-up a list of knives that "look scary" and just ban those. After all, thousands of people are stabbed by these knives every year. Maybe chefs should have to obtain a license to use and register to own one of these knives. Catch my drift?...

The "assault weapons" ban was nothing but feel good legislation by the Clinton administration.

Here's the problem: If you ban some firearms because of their looks and then, Democrats find out that crime doesn't stop because of those bans, and since all other guns operate the exact same way, the natural course of such "Singapore and Saudi Arabian" loving control freaks will simply ADD more firearms to the list. And continue to do so until there are no legal guns left; and that is their goal.

The second major amendent to the bill:

A provision to close the so-called "gun show loop-hole" which deals with the very few "unlicensed" gun enthusiasts who rent tables at various gun shows. Since these few people aren't FFL dealers, they don't need to check with the Brady Bunch NICS instant check system when selling a firearm.

Truth in blogging requires me to state that I don't actually have a BIG problem with this amendment. At a REAL gun show, everyone should be doing the "instant check" and the federal government should provide an easy means for them to do so.

But here's the thing: What is the definition of a "gun show?"

If you listen to liberal lawmakers (and some misguided cops) you would have to include "any gathering" of people with firearms. This could mean a bunch of friends who get together at the firing range or in someone's living room and someone buys a gun from a friend.

If this amendment had been written to clearly state that a gun show is some large, organized and sponsored event at a public venue where people who make their living from trading in firearms sell to the general public etc, etc... Then I could go along with it. But Democrats want this measure to extend to any two people who bump into each other... And I will not go along with that anymore than I think someone selling a used couch through a local newspaper should have to obtain a federal tax ID for a commercial business and pay business taxes to their state.

So those are the two amendments that really (to use a NASCAR term) puked the deal. Here's how the major newspapers reported it:

New York Times:
Facing a tough re-election race in South Dakota, Mr. Daschle supported shielding gun manufacturers from lawsuits. Facing pressure from fellow Democrats, he also backed amending the bill to extend its ban on assault weapons and require background checks on customers at gun shows.

USA Today:
Democrats won close votes to extend a ban on military-style assault weapons for another decade and to require background checks at gun shows. But their victories were short-lived. Republicans, angry that the gun-control measures were attached to a bill immunizing the gun industry from liability lawsuits, scuttled the package after hearing from the 4-million-member National Rifle Association.

LA Times:
The bill was a top priority for the National Rifle Assn. But before the final vote, gun control advocates successfully proposed amendments to extend the federal ban on assault weapons and to tighten background checks for sales at gun shows.

Washington Post:
In a major reversal, Senate sponsors of legislation to shield the firearms industry from lawsuits yesterday abruptly killed their own bill after it was amended to renew an expiring ban on assault weapons and to require background checks for gun show purchases.

And in one of the most over-the-top spins on this, the Chicago Tribune:

In a dramatic victory for gun-control advocates, including Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, the Senate on Tuesday rejected a popular bill to protect gun manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers from liability lawsuits when guns are used in crimes.

The bill had broad support in the Senate and was a priority for gun-rights groups, and President Bush had said he would sign it. But when the Senate added two gun-control amendments, supporters decided to kill the bill instead of accepting the amended version.

Now... After reading all of the national papers' take on this, here's how a smaller, local paper -- in an editorial! -- reported it. The (Ohio) Toledo Blade:

The measure started its run with 55 co-sponsors but was consigned to defeat after a bipartisan group of insurgents succeeded in amending it to renew the assault weapons ban, due to expire in September, and to require criminal background checks for people who buy firearms from private dealers at gun shows.

Keep in mind that the Toledo Blade editorial was very against the bill and supported the amendments, but at least they had the honesty to say: "require criminal background checks for people who buy firearms from private dealers at gun shows." "Private dealers." As opposed to the vast majority of FFL dealers who exhibit at gun shows. They added that all important qualifier and "explainer" that none of the national newspapers bothered with. Bias. An insidious thing.

So what happens next? The gun maker immunity bill is probably dead for this year. The "assault weapons" (notice how I always put it in quotes to indicate how phony it is?) bill expires in September. I predict that Democrats (stupidly, if past elections are any indication) will make an issue out of it then and try to make it a "wedge issue" to contrast them from Republicans. I'll be around and I'm sure I'll be blabbing about it...

Some of the editorials reporting on this past week's events were truly hysterical. And I don't mean that in the humorous sense...

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

For months, the National Rifle Association has lobbied hard for passage of a bill that would make the gun industry immune to civil lawsuits. The measure -- the NRA's top legislative priority -- had already passed the House, and this week was close to passage in the Senate as well, until NRA lobbyists stepped in at the last minute and ordered that the bill be killed.

Why the sudden change of heart? Because Democrats and moderate Republicans had succeeded in attaching two quite sensible, reasonable gun-safety measures to the bill. One amendment extended the 1994 ban on military-style assault weapons that's set to expire in September; the other closed a loophole that permitted people to buy firearms at gun shows without having to undergo instant background checks.

Liberals always throw around the phrase "sensible" and "reasonable" to somehow indicate that anyone who disagrees with them is irrational and just plain nuts.

Oddly enough though, the SF Gate (San Francisco Chronicle) had a well balanced report which said in part:

Even if the Senate had enacted the bill with the gun-control amendments, it faced a tortuous route to final passage. The House had easily passed the bill to give the gun industry unprecedented protection against negligence lawsuits last year, and House Republican majority leaders, all of them firm NRA allies, had vowed the assault-weapons ban would never come up for a vote.

Feinstein said she had Senate leaders' agreement that her amendment would not be sacrificed by a Republican-led House-Senate conference committee. That would have either killed the entire bill, or sent Bush a bill including her legislation.

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said pro-gun- control senators were making mischief with the liability bill. "There are some in the Senate who are seeking to undermine that legislation with certain amendments. That's not the issue here. The issue here is about passing a meaningful piece of lawsuit reform,'' he said.

I have to admit something here: I have been writing this weekly report on bias against guns by major media for a year-and-a-half now and I certainly knock papers such as SF Gate and the LA Times. But I also have to admit that some of their writers occasionally pen a straight-forward news story with equal quotes from both sides.

That is in sharp contrast with the supposed leaders of the press world -- the New York Times and the Washington Post -- whose reporters (and editorialists) have NEVER published an objective story on firearms and the Second Amendment.

The New York Times is the most grievous, and it is just one reason that while other bloggers suck-up to them and put them on a pedestal, I have NEVER done so and in fact, I consider them an irrelevant paper other than for their influence over swooning liberals.

---

As I write this Monday morning, KABA is out of commission for the moment which limits my material... but that just gives me more time to report on what some of my friends in the blogosphere are chatting about...

My friend Kevin at The Smallest Minority (that's us pro-2A folks, in case some of you haven't yet gotten it...) has a righteous fisking of an op-ed in the Washington Times (!) which reads like a screed against hunting. Good going Kevin!

Say Uncle is fisking everyone over media lies regarding the NRA and guns in general.

My pal Matt Rustler at Stop the Bleating reports on a positive editorial about guns and the mis-steps of the Democrats in the Seattle-Times.

Backroad Blog responds to Publicola with answers to various firearms questions about preferences, how you got started, etc. Rather interesting and I should probably answer these myself but Robert has given good, thoughful answers. Just another blog you should be checking out...

Another friend, Pervasive Light thinks he's found a pro-gun editorial in the New York Times. Kind of like the quest for evidence of life on Mars...

---

Anyway, there's tons more, just randomly pick out the great folks on my blogroll. But it's 11:30 now and I always promise to put up this post in the AM so I'll sign-off and as always, I thank you all for stopping by.

Oscars, schmoscars, let's talk about guns. (Was that a song?) Specifically, the bias exhibited by Yahoo in the links to stories and editorials on their Gun Control Debate Page. Almost a clean sweep of new articles and editorials this week as the bill to provide limited immunity to the firearms industry (from frivolous lawsuits because of the mis-use of their legally made product) advances in the Senate. It's already been passed by the House.

The problem now is that since Democrats have basically conceded that the measure will pass, and President Bush has said he will sign the legislation, they (liberal Dems) are trying to pile on all sorts of wish-list amendments to advance their gun-control desires.

While all of the new editorials linked to were against the measure, or just anti-gun, almost all of the stories floated in that ether in between. It was difficult to rate them because on the one hand, they are saying that the "lawsuit immunity" bill was a sure thing, but on the other, that Democrat Senators were trying to attach all sorts of "clauses." Not pro, not anti, but not really neutral. So I will forgo "rating" the news stories.

In a perfect world, our lawmakers would simply vote on the bill as presented and it would pass or fail. Even President Bush called for a "clean bill." A nice thought and one we would all hope for but in real life on The Hill, it rarely happens. From the Washington Post:

The White House is opposing addition of gun show and assault weapons restrictions to a bill shielding firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits, prompting angry complaints from Democrats that President Bush is reneging on earlier support for the two proposals.

The dispute emerged as the Senate began debating the lawsuits measure, which is strongly backed by the National Rifle Association as well as the White House and appears to have the support of a bipartisan majority in the Senate.

This story is listed by both Yahoo and WAPO as a "news story" but notice how they intone that the measure is "strongly backed by the NRA" and the White House and then admits that it also "appears" to have support on both sides of the aisle. Yah. In fact, 75 Senators have pledged support for the legislation, 3/4's of the Senate -- more than would be needed to propose a constitutional amendment! So it's NOT just an NRA or Bush thing.

Some of the amendments proposed have, in fact, been voted "yae" and added to the bill. The photo above shows one of them. The Boxer-Kohl amendment would require that "child safety locks" be included with all handgun sales. Here's a quote from the AP:

The GOP-controlled Senate voted 70-27 to require all handguns sold in the United States to have child safety locks, adding the measure to the legislation providing the gun industry immunity from suits when a legally sold gun is subsequently used in a crime.

Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin argued that requiring child safety locks on newly purchased handguns would help reduce the number of children accidentally killed by handguns in the home. Every 48 hours, a child is killed through an accidental shooting, Boxer said.

As far as I can tell, this amendment doesn't require that the safety device be built-in to the firearm, just that something, such as the cable-lock in the photo be included in the sale. Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, the sponsor of the "immunity bill" argued valiently against the amendment but I can't get too worked up over this particular one. Most firearm manufacturers currently include such a device already. I suppose the crunch might come if gun dealers are required to include such a lock with used-gun purchases but we're not talking about an expensive add-on. Yes, the poor urban purchaser trying to protect their family from someone might not want or be able to afford the extra ten bucks but in general, this is a good give-away amendment to satisfy the Democrats that they "enacted meaningful gun-control" with the passage of this bill.

But, of course, it didn't stop there. The Baltimore-Sun said this:

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate is set to take up a bill that gives legal immunity to gun manufacturers. It's a bad bill, but it's also certain to pass Congress. Two amendments are expected to be offered, and both need to be approved. The first would extend the assault weapons ban. The other would close the so-called gun show loophole that allows guns to be sold by unlicensed sellers at shows without a background check.

Let's take the "gun show loophole" first. By federal law, all licensed FFL dealers already have to call-in an "instant check" to NICS on any gun purchase. At some (very few, actually) gun shows, there are unlicensed dealers who don't run a check. They would have to start doing so. I actually don't have a problem with that -- if they have a table at a gun show, let them follow the rules that everyone else has to follow. So far so good. And if the wording of the amendment clearly stated that a gun show is an organized event, advertised, and held in a venue open to the public, than I would (much to the enragement of some of my readers, I suspect) support it.

The problem is with how a measure -- an amendment -- is worded. In the past, some bills attempting to legislate this requirement have defined a gun show as "any gathering" of three or more people with firearms. The proposed measure says, "special firearms events." !!! That could, depending on the politics of the prosecutor, include almost anything. In addition, Feinstein included a poison-pill measure to ban import of what some call "hi-capacity" ammo clips. They're banned now unless they were manufactured before the 1996 AWB. But now, manufacture date wouldn't matter.

Anyway... I'm president of the local gun club. We get together once-a-month or so during the Summer to make a lot of noise in the forest. Afterwords, we bar-b-que and have a few beers. I could be sitting in my living room with a couple friends and we're admiring each other's guns and one want's to buy someone elses and suddenly we're a "gun show." If this amendment includes such a broad definition of a gun show as to include private sales, or simply a few folks hanging out at the local sporting club, than I am resolutely against it. The old "known to me" clause should take effect.

Now, my take on the amendment to extend the phony "assault weapons" ban. Why do I always put it in quotes and call it phony? Because all guns esentially operate the same way. And eventually -- as anti-gun forces get their way -- all guns could be added to the list of banned firearms. A "semi-automatic" is a gun that requires you to pull the trigger for each bullet it will fire. The gun then "loads" another bullet. And you have to pull the trigger again. Almost all guns operate in this fashion. Even a revolver, after you fire a round, rotates the cylinder and lines-up another cartridge. "Semi-automatics" just do it a little more efficiently. In fact, unless we're talking about muskets and black powder rifles, pretty much all firearms really are "semi-automatic."

The "assault weapons ban" didn't deal with the mechanics of firearms, it dealt mostly with cosmetics. Did the gun look dangerous? How silly is that? Did it have a "pistol grip" and so forth. The problem, of course, is that once the gun-grabbers realize that their measure didn't reduce crime -- mutant criminals don't obey laws -- then they will keep expanding "the list" of banned weapons and eventually, all guns would be banned. The fact that they claim that gun makers "get around" the ban by making small modifications to their legally made products" PROVES that their definitions of an "assault weapon" are based on cosmetics.

That's the problem. The solution is to scrap this silly law -- let it expire in September -- and concentrate on the criminal use of guns. But they won't. They'll just keep adding and adding until all we law abiding citizens will be left with are black-powder rifles that require a complicated reload before we can fire them again. And more innocent people will die at the hands of thugs who ignore all laws anyway.

The only mention of language of these two amendments that I could find was this PDF from the Senate:

Extension of Semi-Automatic Gun Ban
Senator Feinstein may offer an amendment to repeal the 2004 sunset on the Clinton ban on certain semi-automatic weapons. Senator Feinstein has offered S. 1034 to this effect, which also includes a ban on importing certain "ammunition feeding devices."

S. 1807 -- "Gun Show" Background Checks
Senator McCain or Senator Reed may offer S. 1807 as an amendment. This amendment would regulate firearm transfers at special firearms events. The amendment further prohibits any person from operating a special firearms event without notifying the Attorney General and sets forth (1) responsibilities of special firearms events operators and firearms licensees and transferors other than licensees at such events, including with regard to criminal background checks; (2) special firearms event license application requirements; and (3) penalties for violation of this Act.

The New York Times -- ever the defender of the Bill of Rights (that's a joke folks...) -- got the vapors over all of this:

President Bush has long been on record supporting two crucial gun-control measures: the renewal of the assault weapons ban, which has been the law for 10 years, and a new law to close the loophole that shady dealers can use to slip weapons to buyers at gun shows. For an equally long time, he did nothing to back up his words. Now, in the early days of his re-election campaign, Mr. Bush has finally acted. He has stepped in at a critical hour in an attempt to kill both of those vital laws and promote instead a plan to grant unreasonable immunity from victims' damage suits to reckless gun dealers and manufacturers.

As usual, the NY Times is wrong. What President Bush did was to say in effect, "Hey, let's just focus on this (immunity from frivolous lawsuits) issue and not load up the bill with lots of distracting and controversial issues. As for this bill being "unreasonable immunity" I would say to the New York Times this:

The "Flu" kills 30,000 people just in the U.S. each year. The vaccine has proven to be an effective preventative measure. Yes, there is a microscopic fraction of people who are allergic to the vaccine. Does that mean that we should ban the vaccine or allow lawsuits against the makers of the vaccine?

And furthermore, Ford Motor Company sells a lot of vehicles. Once in a while, some schmuck gets drunk and gets in his Ford and tragically kills an innocent person. Should Ford be held liable for that?

The [bastardly greedy] trial lawyers would like to hold firearm makers and distributors liable for the criminal use of their products. This bill would protect those companies from such frivolous lawsuits. It doesn't prohibit suits against defective products or illegal sales. Why is that so "unreasonable"?

This is the major issue this week. This ("immunity bill") is an important step towards protecting a legitimate industry. What really should happen is that this legislation (the original, not the amendments) should be used as a template for other industries. It's time to stop the lottery of lawsuits against innocent companies who make a legal product that helps millions of people live and enjoy and protect their lives.

The discussions in the Senate about this bill, and the amendments, are happening RIGHT NOW and you could watch it on C-SPAN or if -- like most -- you have to work, you can follow the "blow-by-blow" through several excellant bloggers who are covering this (I think) important legislation. The following are (they're not the only ones, just the ones known to me) blogging continuously on this bill:

Geek With a .45,
Say Uncle,
Publicola,
Countertop Chronicles.

We should give our thanks to them for their tireless coverage. Now, let me just say this once again: The anti-gun forces, the minions of the Brady Bunch and such, are busy phoning and faxing and emailing their senators to support all the gun control measures being heaped upon this righteous bill. Even if you are at work right now, if your boss isn't looking, find the proper phone numbers and emails and write, fax, and tell them that YOU are a voter who supports the Second Amendment and you will not tolerate their support for any of these fake, phony, fraud amendments attached to the "immunity bill."

You HAVE TO make your voice heard over the din. This bill could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow and you MUST try to convince your representative to keep it clean and not laden it up with a bunch of anti-Second Amendment clauses that infringe on your rights. Please! Don't say, "well yeah" and then just go back to your spread-sheet. Take a few minutes to fire-off a letter or email and protect our country, our rights, our freedoms. Just do it. I did it last week and I promise you it wasn't painful. And now, I will spend the next couple of hours doing it again. It's that important!

In closing, I guess this was a strange week for my "Weekly report" in that I editorialized A LOT but I really think we are at a junction where action is needed to secure our 2A rights. Please don't shrug and put it aside. Better yet, write me and let me know what you have done, include the text of your emails, etc. I'll put them up here at the end of this post. Just keep telling yourself: No Fucking Surrender of My Rights!

Thanks for stopping by!

Time once again to take a look at the bias exhibited on the Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page. It is, alas, no surprise to anyone I'm sure that they link to very few stories and editorials that present firearms ownership in a good light.

This week's graphic is the Bill of Rights, direct from the National Archives website.

Even with some enhancing with Photoshop, you can see that it is badly faded. Unfortunately, in real life in our country, so are many of our rights. Certainly the left continues to assail the Second Amendment (and in an aside, they also -- despite their claims -- are laying seige to the First Amendment as anyone who's spent time on a college campus can attest to.)

I'm sure you'll be shocked to know that the Washington Post takes a dim view of Maryland Governor Ehrlich and others' refusal to extend (and expand) the state's own "assault weapons" ban. This editorial makes no attempt to present both sides and I suppose that's how editorials -- at least at WAPO -- are. But check out this quote:

THOUGH THERE is no sensible, compelling reason for a civilized society to be loading up with assault-style weapons -- arms that sportsmen do not need -- Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) and state lawmakers who answer to the call of the National Rifle Association favor the free flow of these arms. And though several surveys over the years have shown that most Marylanders support a ban on such weapons, opponents are working to defeat a measure that would keep a state ban in place if Congress fails to extend a federal ban to expire Sept. 13. A critical vote -- which could be decided by one swing senator in Annapolis -- is set for today or tomorrow in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.

First of all, maybe sportsmen don't need them (though actually, I believe the US Olympic Shooting Team does use some of the guns on the list) but they don't have to need them. Maybe they just want them and the Bill of Rights says they have a right to own them. Furthermore, "sportsmen" aside, some folks living in crime infested urban areas might feel they need them as protection against the mutants who already have their own.

And maybe Gov. Ehrlich and the state senators who are against the measure realize that as a matter of fact, these "assault weapons" are -- cosmetics aside -- just like any other firearms and the list of banned weapons will simply keep being expanded by hysterical liberals.

Lastly, Ehrlich and company certainly don't "favor the free flow of these arms" as the writer implies. Maryland already has some of the most draconian gun control laws of any state, so ownership and licensing are very tightly regulated.

The Hartford Courant (CT) editorializes about the national bill ("assault weapons") due to expire in the Fall. Needless to say, they don't like that:

Lawmakers must summon the courage to buck the gun lobby by renewing the ban and closing loopholes. The proposed Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act would accomplish both goals by adopting provisions in the current California ban, which is the toughest in the nation.

The bill before Congress would tighten the definition of assault weapons to prevent gun makers from making minor design changes to skirt the law. It also would close the loophole that allows manufacturers to sell "parts kits" to gun lovers who want to construct their own assault weapons.

But that just proves the point of those who would let the bill expire! If gun makers can simply make a minor design change "to skirt the law" then that must mean that the characteristics that supposedly make these guns "assault weapons" are indeed insignificant and cosmetic. And rather than just calling for renewal of the bill, the Hartford Caurant is calling on Congress to make it tougher -- to include more weapons. And in a few years, they would call for yet MORE weapons to be added to the list, and more ad infinitum. The slippery slope.

Incidentally, they take CT Senator Joe Lieberman to task for NOT adding his name as a co-sponsor.

The New York Times sets it's biased sites on the bill in Congress that would grant protection to the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits. Here's a quote:

A large number of police chiefs and other law enforcement officials have joined gun control advocates in a campaign to defeat a Senate bill that would grant gun makers and dealers almost total immunity from lawsuits.

and:

The police officials' campaign began last week when Chief William J. Bratton of the Los Angeles Police Department held a news conference there denouncing the bill. Chief Bratton and 80 other police officials then signed a letter to the Senate expressing their opposition. At the same time, a full-page advertisement featuring a photograph of Chief Bratton and paid for by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence appeared in The Washington Post.

The advertisement is expected to appear soon in other major newspapers and on television, and Chief Bratton, the former New York City police commissioner, said he would go to Washington to lobby senators.

Chief Bratton, when he was in NYC and also in Boston, worked hard to tighten state laws against the ability of law abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

I'm willing to bet that you won't find any of these cops who've signed on in support of the Brady Bunch living in rural areas and probably ARE in cities that have or are planning to sue gun makers. After all, theres the potential for money in the air all though fortunately most of these suits have been dismissed so far.

Now this is important: This isn't an editorial, it's a "news story" yet aside from a brief quote from an NRA spokesman, it reads like an op-ed. In fact, while several police officials who are against the immunity bill are quoted, NOT ONE representing the countless police chiefs who favor the bill was quoted. And remember, most police in rural areas and many in states that allow concealed carry ARE fervently pro-2A and would likely support such a bill. This isn't reporting, it's editorializing. Not that we would expect anything better from the New York Times, which in my view has simply become the mouthpiece for the leftist faction of the Democratic Party.

The San Francisco Chronicle chimed in on the same subject:

THE NATION'S gun lobby rarely backs down from a good fight, which is more than could be said of vast numbers of congressional representatives too scared to take on the National Rifle Association.

That's why it appears there is a chance a bill that would exempt gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits brought by shooting victims could be approved by the U.S. Senate in the next month, unless reason stops being overshadowed by fear.

Well, at least the SF Gate calls their story an editorial... I love the fact that any legislator who might actually support the bill must somehow be "too scared" of the NRA. It never occurs to these writers that some people actually feel that S&W, Sturm Ruger, et al should not be held liable for the mis-use of their legal products.

That was about it for Yahoo. Here are a few items from Keep and Bear Arms...

While the national newspapers are loathe to ever print anything about the defensive uses of firearms, local papers aren't quite as biased. From the Seattle Times:

A jewelry-store owner shot an armed robber yesterday afternoon in the 4200 block of Southwest Alaska Street.

Investigators said the robbery occurred at 4:19 p.m. when two masked men pointed their handguns at the store's owner and an employee, said Seattle police spokeswoman Deanna Nollette.

During the robbery, the 42-year-old store owner pulled out his own handgun and shot one of the men in the chest, police said.

This is such a common occurrence and yet can you ever remember reading a story like that in WAPO or the NY Times?

I discussed last week the re-introduction of a bill in the Kansas legislature to allow concealed-carry. The Miami Herald has more:

Being first isn't always best, Wichita lawyer Kelly Johnston found Wednesday.

As chairman of Safe State Kansas, he was the first to testify against a bill to allow Kansans to carry concealed weapons -- before a committee that heavily favors the measure.

"How many Kansans must die before you decide they have the right to defend themselves?" asked Rep. Harold Lane, D-Topeka.

"Isn't self-defense different than vigilantism?" asked Rep. Arlen Siegfreid, R- Olathe.

While there is plainly plenty of support for the measure from legislators, the current Governor Kathleen Sebelius is unlikely to sign the measure (granted she hasn't quite come out and said that but her past record...)

I suppose that's a wrap on this edition. But remember that all through the week I'll be reporting on other stories that happen across our country. Thanks for stopping by!

Time once again to check out the bias in what stories and editorials about gun-control are linked to by Yahoo! I'm a bit late today because, well, frankly, I was at a Superbowl Party last night and we all got rather drunk rooting the Patriots on. That's my excuse and I'm sticking with it.

While the balance between anti-gun and pro-gun is heavily tilted towards the "anti" side, at least the 38th Superbowl had a good outcome. Tom Brady showed just why he's deserving of MVP status but I have to tell you: When it came down to field-goal kicker Vinatieri, after he had missed two field-goals, I was like "Oh Ghod, a Red Sox Jinx is spilling over to the NFL." But the guy did good, he was on target. He hit the bull's eye. Okay, enough metaphors. But isn't it interesting how so many "gun terms", expressions, have permeated our English language?

"He's a high-caliber salesman."

"He hit the mark."

"Take your best shot."

"She shoots from the hip."

"Wait till the smoke clears."

"He's firing blanks."

"She's quick on the draw."

"She's in the cross-hairs."

"He's a straight shooter."

"They're armed with the facts."

Et cetera. I'm sure you can think of a ton-more examples. America has been accused of having a "gun culture" that saturates our society and while it certainly does so in our language, it is also the culture of freedom. The Second Amendment has protected our First Amendment, and all the others. I was looking at our calendar and there's really no important holiday coming up this month (Okay, besides Valentine's Day) and I was thinking that it might be nice to have a day where we celebrate the dear and precious rights granted by our Bill of Rights. There's a "blank spot" on the calendar and I was thinking, what about the last Monday in February?

What if our schools spent that day, the last Monday of February, teaching and talking about the Bill of Rights that protects all of our freedoms in this great country of ours? Naturally, if I were a teacher I would concentrate on the First and Second Amendments, plus the right-to-vote amendments for women and people of color. I'd name the holiday "Freedom Day." It would be the day of joy and respect that seperates our nation from all the others of this world.

Look, I know this will never happen. The NEA might rejoice in the First Amendment (except for their restrictions on so-called "hate-speech") (You know, where bashing the Catholic Church and Jews is a 1st Amendment right but anything critical of Islam is "hate-speech." -- typical hypocrisy of the leftist-liberals.) And the average lock-step liberal teacher would NEVER support the 2nd Amendment even though that is what guarantees their jobs and lectures. Well, it was just a fantasy...

Okay, the win by the New England Patriots was wonderful. The gun-bias isn't. Let's get to it...

Utah has had a running battle over their concealed-carry law. The colleges don't want guns on their campuses. I actually do sympathize with their reasoning but the fact remains that there have been a lot of instances where an armed citizen could have prevented or at least cut short a crime spree in a house of worship. None the less, the Church of Latter Day Saints has again declared that their churches are "off-limits" to firearms, concealed or otherwise. From the Salt Lake Tribune:

The LDS Church said Friday it will impose a gun ban in its hundreds of houses of worship throughout Utah, invoking provisions of a state law that allow for criminal prosecution of violators.

"Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world," President Gordon B. Hinckley and his two counselors said in a statement. "The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law."

The statement was a repeat of a position church leaders staked out eight years ago. The difference now is they will take steps to back up the policy with the force of state law.

I think the Salt Lake Tribune was striving for fairness by quoting a lot of differing points of view but the overall tone came out as anti-gun.

There was nothing ambiguous about the position of the Madison.com (WI) pair of editorials against the Wisconsin Legislature's votes to override Gov. Doyle's veto of the concealed carry law newly enacted in Wisconsin. From their Capital Times website, here's a quote from the first:

There has been no outcry from Wisconsinites to overturn the state's 134-year-old ban on the carrying of concealed weapons. In fact, polls show most Wisconsinites oppose the proposal. And rightly so - Wisconsinites tend toward common sense and openness, and there is nothing sensible about letting people sneak around with guns hidden under their coats. Nor is there anything sensible about the provisions attached to the legislation that would close public records about who has obtained a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

So if Wisconsinites are not clamoring for this legislation, who is?

The Washington-based National Rifle Association lobby, that's who.

"...letting people sneak around with guns hidden under their coats. ..." Well there's an unbiased assessment if I ever heard one. (You liberals reading this should note that THAT was sarcasm.) I wonder who they think the state senators who voted for this legislation represent? Obviously, since they want to get re-elected, they must be voting the wishes of their constituents. And WHO does the NRA represent? I mean besides the 4.5 million members who pay them to lobby for their interests? Would the Capital Times have also pointed out that the NEA represents and lobbies for teachers' agendas?

This is hypocrisy of the first level. If the dairy farmers of Wisconsin had lobbied for a bill favoring farmers, would the Capital Times have stated that they were in the "hip pockets" of cows?

Then, two days later, they print this op-ed:

We keep being told that Wisconsin is one of only a handful of states that don't allow the carrying of concealed weapons. So what? The practical wisdom of Wisconsinites is one of the reasons we love this state. Those smart citizens -- that is, the vast majority not whipped into a frothy panic by gun rights lobbyists -- have repeatedly said we don't need to carry hidden weapons to feel safe. By the way, there was no shortage of rifles and shotguns in this state the last I checked, and no one threatening to take them away from their law-abiding owners.

So anyone who believes in our Bill of Rights and thinks they should be able to protect themselves and their families is obviously NOT SMART or PRACTICAL. This is the typical pose of the elitest liberal garbage that infects our American way of life. You don't agree with my leftist, "trust the government" view so you must be a stupid idiot. This op-ed by a psychophant named Judy Ettenhofer is the perfect reason why no matter HOW bad Bush is, the Democrats will not regain the White House this November. They (sick animals such as Judy) want the U.S. to adopt the fascist, authoritarian practices of Singapore and Syria and Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

You know: Women are garbage. You will all eat what WE feed you. You will think what WE tell you to think. You will say only what WE allow you to say. The State will protect you. And even though we don't, we will anyway and you will have to rely on us. You will only watch what WE think you should watch on TV. Sorry, no smoking. Sorry, no literature unless WE approve of it and it proclaims the glory of our regime. You are not allowed to think. WE will think for you... Etc.

That is the world Judy would like all of us to live in.

From Keep and Bear Arms comes this Cox.net story of much better news:

An east Valley man is behind bars, facing four counts of burglary after he he broke into a Mesa home and was captured by the homeowner. Mesa Police say early Thursday morning, they received a 911 call from a homeowner who said he had caught someone breaking into his home. When police arrived, the homeowner told them he had been sleeping when he heard a noise. He got his gun and confronted 24-year-old Bryan Varro Temple inside his home and handcuffed him and called police. The homeowner said he had been burglarized 3 prior times within a two-week period and when questioned by police, Temple admitted to committing the prior 3 burglaries...

And that's how it works folks. An armed society is able to defend itself and keep the mutants at bay. And think about this: This armed citizen caught and held this thug so the police could scoff him up and take him to jail. This saved the police the expense and manpower of searching for clues, tracking down, and maybe, just maybe capturing this criminal. That's a lot of bucks the town saved because of the actions by an armed citizen.

And from the anti-gun group Americans for Gun Safety comes this survey on the Democratic candidates' positions on gun control. Not surprisingly, AGS actually thinks their positions are "moderate."

I've given my thoughts on all this before. I don't like George W. Bush. He spends more money than a drunken sailor. He's stated that he would support an extension of the "assault weapons" ban. He wants to close the phony "gun show loop hole." And he's done nothing to encourage and move through congress the bill protecting gun makers from frivolous lawsuits all though he claims to support it.

I've already let you all know here my thoughts on John Kerry. I wrote this post 15 months ago about fake, phony, fraud, anti-gun Kerry. This is a guy who supports the Million Moms March. This is a bastard who would deny all of you the right to defend yourselves from criminals. Needless to say, hell will freeze over before I cast my vote for an anti-American, anti-Bill of Rights candidate like this.

And regulars here know I've shown that Wesley Clark is also anti-gun.

I've talked about Howard Dean. He supports the bills President Bush does, but otherwise he leaves it up to the states.

Joe Lieberman is, in my opinion, a good and decent guy. I wish he was doing better in the polls and primaries. He's not great on gun control issues but to his credit there's this exchange from the May 3rd Democratic Debate in SC, reported by Issues2000.Org:

Q: In the 2000 campaign, Al Gore had a proposal for the licensing of all new handguns bought by gun owners. Anyone who wanted to buy a new handgun had to get licensed. Will you support that proposal in this campaign?

LIEBERMAN: I do not support that proposal. I have never supported such a proposal.

Q: But you were part of the ticket.

LIEBERMAN: Gore came out with that position before I came on to the ticket. The issue never really came up. Al Gore said to me when I got on the ticket, "Don't change anything about yourself, that's why I chose you."

American citizens have a right to own firearms. It is no more unlimited than any other right that we have. The laws that we pass ought to concentrate on stopping criminals and children and others who shouldn't have guns from getting them. Licensing, registration, in my opinion are bad ideas and violations of that fundamental right.

Look folks, I do know that Lieberman supports some gun control that I don't like but I will give credit where it's due. That last paragraph above is pretty powerful. Does that mean I would vote for him? He is about where Bush is on gun control although I do believe he is against the bill shielding gun manufacturers from lawsuits. That's a negative for me. But choosing a leader is about more than one issue. Lieberman is the only candidate besides Bush who supports defending our nation against terrorists. That is a gigantic plus in his favor. I wish he were doing better. Is it because he's Jewish? Because he's not physically tall and "presidential?" I don't know. I just wish there were a strong and good Democrat challenging Bush so we had a real choice. I'd hate to have to vote for Bush just because he was "not as bad" as any of the others. And deep down inside, I know that Lieberman is a hell of a lot smarter and fairer than Bush.

John Edwards is a smart and likable guy. But there is virtually nothing on his website about gun control. All I could really find out about his position was here:

Q: How will your gun stance play among Southern voters?

EDWARDS: I grew up in the rural South. Everyone around me hunted, everyone had guns. I respect and believe in people's Second Amendment rights. That does not, however, mean that somebody needs an AK-47 to hunt. It does not mean that somebody who's been convicted of a violent crime should be able to walk out of prison, walk across the street and buy a gun. It does not mean that we shouldn't take every step that we can take to keep guns safe and keep guns out of the hands of kids. So, my belief is, first, I defend people's Second Amendment rights, but I don't think it's without limit.

Q: What federal gun control measures you would propose?

EDWARDS: I think we should extend the Brady Bill, which is set to expire. I think that we need to close forever the gun-show loophole, [to avoid criminals] buying a gun. I think it does make sense to have trigger locks for the purpose of keeping guns safe from children.

And:

"It's very important for us as Democrats to understand that where I come from guns are about a lot more than guns themselves," said John Edwards. "They are about independence. For a lot of people who work hard for a living, one of the few things they feel they have any control over is whether they can buy a gun and hunt. They don't want people messing with that, which I understand."

So he mouths the same legislation that the other Democrats do. Remember though, he's a trial-lawyer. Obviously he isn't going to support any legislation protecting gun makers from frivolous lawsuits. Sorry, but I don't trust him.

So where does that leave us? With not much at all. Even Bush has caved in on some issues. As I said several months ago, I'm a voter without a candidate.

---

So here's what a few of the pro-2A bloggers are chatting up:

Say Uncle has more about the Democratic gun control positions.

My buddy James Rummel at Hell in a Handbasket is the historian for us gun-nuts. Here's one example of why.

And on a personal note to Lay Lines, I am healing up fine, and thank you for your well wishes. From one old-timer to another...

Kevin at The Smallest Minority reports on something I've harped about so much: the slow response time of cops. Folks, I've yakked about this before. The cops can't protect you. All they can do is mop-up the blood and call for the coroner. Your defense is up to YOU. That is what the framers of this great country knew so long ago. They even created a special right, the Second Amendment, just so you could.

There's much more but I'm already late with this report and so I'm going to put it up and hope for the best later in the week. Granted, a short report this week but it's not like I'm being paid by the word... Thanks to all of you for stopping by!

Ballistic cats, bla bla bla. Primaries and SOTU speeches, bla bla bla... Here at Alphecca, we know what's really important: The breakup of Ben and J-Lo Guns! Time to turn our (okay, my) attention to the Yahoo Gun Control Debate Page and see what's happening out there...

It's not good folks; we are losing badly in the "fairness of linkage" debate. Matt Drudge had linked to this Time Magazine story on cell phones that do much more than just touch someone. For this week's chart, here's my Nokia model 47:

I know what you're thinking: "Gosh, Jeff's Photoshop skills just keep getting better and better..." Yes, thank you, thank you all a lot... Enough ellipsis! Makes me look Dowdy. Let's get to it...

The New York Times had a pair of editorials praising the NRA and calling on all nations to relax their gun control laws. Oops! Sorry, I slipped into an alternate universe there for a second. Actually, they first had this editorial deeply intoning how the NRA has all of Congress in their back pocket. Here's a quote:

The capital's one-party rule since the last election has left the National Rifle Association riding high. Incumbents in both parties are increasingly afraid to stand up and be counted on this life-and-death issue. Gun control advocates face slippage on all sides, and an ominous deadline this September: that is when the 10-year-old ban on military-style assault weapons is due to expire, and G.O.P. leaders have given no sign that it will be renewed. The ban, a landmark law, is criticized as less than perfect. But it has saved lives, even as manufacturers have worked to circumvent it with cosmetically altered "sportsmen" versions of battlefield weapons.

How many gratuitous remarks can possibly be slipped into just one paragraph? After decrying "one-party rule" (wrong party) and the fear of incumbents to vote their constituents wishes, they then warn of the impending "life-and-death" doom, "ominous deadline" etc. But the last sentence really shows what a farce the "assault weapons" ban is. The claim that gun makers have simply changed the look of these firearms to continue selling them IS PROOF that the whole law was based almost entirely on cosmetics! It should be scrapped.

Look, all of the guns on the "banned list" operate exactly the same as semi-automatics that aren't on the list. The only offending differences are that they "look bad." Should we ban cars that "look bad?" So a rifle has a pistol-like grip. Is that a valid reason to prohibit it's sale? I don't think so and I'll tell you this: This (New York Times) so-called "landmark law" has had a negligible effect on crime. As John Lott showed in chapter eight of his book The Bias Against Guns, in states (such as California):

As mentioned earlier, California provides a relatively unique example in that it both enacted an assault weapons ban in January 1990 and then had the law declared unconstitutional in early 1998. [The charts in the book] indicate that there is little impact on the state's violent crime rates from the law. For murder, robbery, and aggravated assaults, those crime rates were rising before the law and continued rising after it. Similarly, when the law was declared unconstitutional, those same crime rates continued their trend, as they were falling prior to the court decision and continued falling in 1998 and 1999. With respect to rape, while there was a tiny upward spike in 1990, rape rates were largely falling uninterruptedly since 1980.

I would, by the way, suggest this fine book to anyone needing to arm themselves with the data needed to counter media claims that gun control reduces crime.

The other op-ed from the Times details how Brazil would like to ban all handgun ownership. Apparently the disasterous examples of similar schemes in England and Australia have gone unnoticed by Brazil and the Times:

Since just before Christmas, no one in this nation of 175 million except police officers, soldiers and prison and security guards has been authorized to carry a pistol.

The sale and trade of weapons has been similarly limited: the illegal purchase, possession or furnishing of arms has become a criminal offense with no bail and long prison sentences. Gun owners are being told that most of them will have to hand over their weapons within six months.

And what will happen? The law-abiding citizens will turn in their guns and the criminals WON'T. And a country with a huge murder rate will find that rate rising even more.

By the way, for legal gun ownership (I presume long guns) the owner has to show cause and pay an annual $350.00 (US) fee. That's approximately the average annual salery of the working poor in Brazil, putting the right to hunt and defend out of the reach of all but the wealthy and privileged. Sound familiar?

Much of the reason for the anti-gun tilt in the charts for the past couple of weeks has been all the stories about the decision by idiot judge Reginald Walton in Federal District Court to deny law abiding residents of Washington DC the right to defend themselves from criminals. In one of the few bright spots that Yahoo linked to, Gene Healy writes in the American Spectator:

Many District residents, like the plaintiffs in Seegars, would like to have other options to protect themselves. Standing in their way is a gun control scheme of almost comic rigidity. You can't own a handgun without a registration certificate and you can't get a registration certificate, because the District stopped issuing them to ordinary citizens in 1976. If you do happen to own a pre-1976 handgun that you registered back when disco was king, you cannot lawfully carry it from room to room in your own house without a license. And you can't get a license.

You can register certain rifles and shotguns. You just can't legally use them when your life is threatened. District law requires all guns to be "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a triggerlock" at all times -- and it makes no exception for lawful self defense. If a burglar confronts you in your home, and you load your shotgun to defend yourself, you've just committed a misdemeanor offense punishable by up to a year in jail.

One might suppose that such a regulatory scheme constitutes an infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, if anything does. But Judge Walton disagrees, declaring in the Seegars opinion that "the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms" but rather grants some vague, unenforceable collective right.

As the author of this intelligent piece indicates, even "liberal" scholars have come to recognize that the Second Amendment, like the others, confers an individual right.

You know, if you're reading this today (Monday, Jan. 26th) just head over to Keep And Bear Arms and read the succession of crime stories from Illinois, a state (and especially the city of Chicago) that doesn't allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

Here are some other items:

In New York City, another "gun free zone" if you obey the laws, which criminals don't, comes this New York Times story:

A convicted rapist went on a violent 13-hour crime spree across three boroughs, killing a young man in front of a 4-year-old girl in Queens, sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl in Manhattan and shooting at people in the Bronx before he was arrested by a team of police detectives late Wednesday night, law enforcement officials said yesterday.

Officers and detectives from 10 squads worked against time, piecing together tips and bits of surveillance camera footage as the man they sought crisscrossed the city, growing more violent as the day wore on.

The man who was arrested, Andre Shobey, 45, had a knife and a loaded .32-caliber revolver when the police caught him. He has spent most of his adult life in maximum security prisons for accosting people in elevators, and for raping, robbing, beating and humiliating his victims in one-day crime sprees more than 20 years ago, records show.

He was charged yesterday with murder and criminal possession of a weapon. Other charges were pending, as the authorities continue looking into his activities since he was released from prison in August. The authorities would not suggest a motive beyond noting that Mr. Shobey told his interrogators that he had been drinking.

Why he was even out of jail is a subject for another day. But it should be noted that in the Bloomberg/Esposito city, not one of the victims or their families are allowed to own a firearm for self-defense. Privileges such as that are reserved for ex-doper rock stars and liberal movie stars who offer free tickets to concerts and filmings. In my opinion, Mayor Bloomberg, Police Chief Esposito, and the liberal members of the NYC Council are all guilty of these crimes because they do not relax the draconian anti-gun laws of NYC and allow the law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Speaking of politicians who infringe on gun ownership, blogger Jason Hinds has comments on this Chicago Tribune story about how... Well, read this:

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley on Wednesday called on Congress to reject legislation that would ban local governments from suing the gun industry over the sale of firearms that land in the hands of criminals.

Daley, together with Mayor Scott King of Gary, Ind., lashed out at a House-approved measure that is before the Senate, arguing it would effectively dismiss lawsuits the cities have filed against some gun manufacturers in state courts.

Also from the same Tribune story:

Daley and King, speaking at news conference during a U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting here, said their lawsuits were far from frivolous and relied on evidence gathered by local police.

"We should be able to sue to get some accountability," Daley said. "We're not looking for a lot of money. What we're asking them is to clean up their own industry. This will prevent a lot of lawsuits in the future."

How exactly will this stem the tide of murder in Chicago and Gary? As Jason rightly points out:

Call me crazy, but shouldn't the people who are using the guns improperly be the ones getting sued by mayors?

Of course not! Actually hold criminals liable for their crimes? But it's the gun makers who have money, so that's who the trial lawyers go after.

Speaking of England, which I was a while back, how's their gun ban going? You remember, they confiscated everyones' guns? From The (UK) Sun:

The number of violent crimes soared last year, shock Government figures revealed yesterday.

Police recorded a 14 per cent rise in offences involving violence.

From July to September there were 289,500 violent crimes in England and Wales -- compared with only 253,000 in the same period in 2002.

This included an 18 per cent increase in homicide and serious wounding, from 10,000 to 11,800.

Sexual offences also rose eight per cent from 12,900 to 14,000, according to Home Office figures.

Minor woundings, harassment and common assault rocketed from 203,800 offences to 238,000.

Hmmm... Not so good. When will England, and Australia, and Brazil, and Chicago, Washington DC, New York City, et al realize that preventing honest citizens from owning and carrying firearms is nothing but a free pass for mutant thugs to attack them?

Here's how it works, from the same article:

Britain dominates the top five in the crime league of Western countries, with only Sweden above them.

England and Wales have 10,608 crimes for every 100,000 citizens, followed by Scotland and Northern Ireland with 8,315.

Germany has 7,734, France 6,880 and America -- known for violent crime -- just 4,157.

And here in America, it's -- guess who? -- Chicago and Washington DC that lead the nation in homicide. And in states that DO permit gun ownership, the crime rates are much less. Is there a theme here that all these newspapers are missing? Or just failing to report because it doesn't fit in with their agenda? As the late author Robert A. Heinlein once said, "An armed society is a polite society."

---

Here's what just some of the pro-2A bloggers are up to:

Swen Swenson is discussing Triple-Shock X-bullets. The Fuz is also talking ammo.

Xriq is all over the Hale DeMar story. You know, another Illinois resident who used a firearm to defend himself... Which is against the law there... Oops, I'm getting "Dowdy" again...

Glenn Reynolds has more on how the BBC is part of the problem regarding the steep crime rise in England for discounting the will of the people who want to be able to defend themselves.

Say Uncle reports on some positive gun stuff that Yahoo seems to have ignored.

Publicola is celebrating his one-year blogoversary. Congratulations man!

Eric Scheie is writing about the bashing of "homocons" such as Andrew Sullivan and myself and the issue of gays with guns comes up... By the way, I defended Sullivan in one of my very first posts. A lot of good that did me... I'm "Dowding" again...

And remember that Bitter Bitch has her continuing series on what all the state constitutions say about gun ownership. Just scroll (well, read everything of course) for the "Guns Are Sexy" posts.

There's so much more and I'll try to mention all during the course of the week. Anyway, that wraps up this edition of the Weekly Report. Thanks for stopping by!

Yup, that time of the week to look at how the print media is handling stories involving firearms and gun control. As usual, I use the Yahoo Gun Debate Page links as the bellweather of how things are going. The injuries to my hands and arms are still quite painful so this will be a shorter report than usual. Sorry about that.

That's the Ruger limited edition Bird's Head Vaquero, a single action 45 Colt with a 4 5/8" barrel, in case anyone was wondering what was on my wish list at the moment.

Quite a few new stories (links) this week. The biggest was a "report" by Americans For Gun Safety Foundation, a gun control group founded and bankrolled by Monster.com billionaire Andrew McKelvey that used BATF data to chastise a group of gun dealers. But let me digress for a moment...

In a terrible tragedy, someone used a hammer to bash in the head of someone else. A crime indeed. Turns out the hammer was sold by Home Depot. Well! It turns out that Home Depot has sold a LOT of hammers and many of them have been used in crimes. Obviously, Home Depot should be watched. Right?

Or maybe... Just maybe the real story is that Home Depot isn't doing anything wrong at all, just that they sell a lot more hammers than most other hardware stores and because of that, more hammers used for crime happen to have originated from them.

Okay, back to business. From the AP:

Of the 373,006 guns traced from crimes during the five-year period, 54,694 came from the 120 stores, according to data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives. The data, which surfaced in a lawsuit by the NAACP against gun manufacturers, [which was dismissed, by the way --js] was made public by the Washington-based Americans for Gun Safety Foundation.

Now, is it possible that some of these gun stores are doing something wrong? Sure. And if so, they should be prosecuted and put out of business. But most of them are just very high volume dealers. Someone comes in, passes the instant check, and buys a gun.

If I go to the local gas station/mini-mart and show proper i.d., I can buy beer or wine. If I later give that beer to a minor that isn't the fault of the gas station. Okay fine, so no one has asked me for i.d. in a very long time...

The point is that this is a "non-story" report. Large gun stores sell more guns that wind-up in the hands of criminals than small gun stores. Americans for Gun Safety Foundation want the BATF to form a "watch list" of these stores. I'm not sure what the government is supposed to "watch" for other than violations of federal law but as the NRA spokesman said:

"This is only a gun control group trying to make themselves relevant in a debate in which they have nothing to say," said Cox. "The focus of the investigation should not be taken away from the person who committed the crime."

While the AP story seemed rather biased, the Miami Herald

The report notes that some stores do such a high volume of business that it is inevitable that some guns will be used in crimes. Just because a retailer qualified for the high-crime list doesn't automatically mean it engaged in illegal behavior.

''If you're in a high-volume store or in a high-violence neighborhood, you're automatically going to have more traces done,'' said ATF Miami spokesman James S. Higgins.

Remember a couple weeks ago when the Oregonian had a silly editorial claiming that the Bush administration wasn't enforcing current gun laws?

For all of its law-and-order bluster, this administration has done a poor job of enforcing laws prohibiting gun trafficking, selling guns to minors and lying on criminal background check forms to buy guns. It has also encouraged the National Rifle Association to push bills in Congress to weaken the Brady law, grant the gun industry immunity from lawsuits and block efforts to reauthorize the ban on assault weapons.

The reality is that prosecutions are way up. Also from the Miami Herald:

ATF spokesman Higgins said the report accurately portrays bureau activity during the five-year period, but doesn't draw a complete, current picture.

Total gun prosecutions are up 23 percent between 2000 and 2003, and the number of licensees and dealers charged with violating federal or state laws has more than doubled during the same period, he said.

The Washington Post echos that:

Tom Hill, a spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, called the report's criticism of a lack of federal prosecutions "dated." He said that since 2000 -- the last year covered in the report -- the number of license holders charged with violating state or federal laws has more than doubled.

USA Today had an op-ed by Department of Justice spokesman Mark Corallo that really brought the point home:

Under President Bush leadership of Project Safe Neighborhoods, gun-crime prosecutions have reached record levels. At the same time, the violent crime rate has plunged 21%. That's what makes some recent criticism surprising. Consider: Federal gun-crime prosecutions increased 68% in the past three years. Last year, the Justice Department (news - web sites) set a new record by charging 23% more individuals for violating gun laws.

We're also shutting down and prosecuting corrupt gun dealers in higher numbers. Since 2000, the number of dealers charged with violating gun laws has risen 150% and cases brought against dealers have nearly tripled. More than 100 dealers have had their licenses revoked in recent years, and many more surrendered their licenses or closed their doors after our inspections.
Rather unusual for this paper to post such a piece but good for them. Anyway, this all seems like much ado over nothing but it certainly fed the appetites of anti-gun newspapers.

The big news to me was the asinine ruling by a judge that Washington DC residents aren't entitled to the same Bill of Rights that other Americans are. From the AP:

A federal judge on Wednesday upheld the District of Columbia's gun control law that prohibits ownership of handguns, rejecting a legal challenge by a group of citizens backed by the National Rifle Association.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton dismissed the lawsuit in which the plaintiffs argued that the 28-year-old law violated their Second Amendment right to own guns. The D.C. law prohibits ownership or possession of handguns and requires that others, such as shotguns, be kept unloaded, disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Walton ruled that the Second Amendment is not a broad-based right of gun ownership.

"The Second Amendment does not confer an individual a right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment's objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias," Walton wrote.

He went on to say that the amendment was designed to protect the citizens against a potentially oppressive federal government.

He also ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it was intended to protect state citizens, and the district is not a state.

I guess if you live in DC you are immune from paying federal income tax? (16th Amendment.) Look, Walton's argument is completely specious. First of all, DC might not be a state but certainly it's citizens ARE entitled to the same rights as any others whether they live in Texas or Michigan.

Secondly, he wants to have it both ways when he says that the Second Amendment is not a "broad-based right" or individual right but is limited to state militias. And in the next breath he says the amendment is "designed to protect the citizens against a potentially oppressive federal government."

Thirdly, almost all legitimate constitutional scholars (even Lawrence Tribe) recognize that all of the amendments detail individual rights. The Washington Post was almost gleeful in their reporting, with all sorts of "victorious" quotes:

The decision was hailed by gun-control advocates, including the Violence Policy Center, which filed a brief in the case.

"This is a rejection of the National Rifle Association's effort to overturn D.C. gun laws, which have stuck in their craw for years," said Matt Nosanchuk, the center's litigation director. "It is a victory for public safety of city residents who don't need any more guns on city streets."

Tony Bullock, spokesman for Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D), applauded Walton's decision as an endorsement of the city's effort to curb its gun violence and homicide rate.

"What the mayor is interested in is the right to control the flow of guns in our city, as all states and many cities do," Bullock said. "Gun laws help us much more than guns in the hands of citizens in reducing violent deaths."

Earth to Bullock: DC is second in the nation in violent crime and murder. I'd say that your mayor's stratagy isn't working.

The Montgomery Advertiser had an editorial rightly lamenting the fact that a mentally ill man was able to purchase a gun later used to murder two police officers:

Alabama does not report involuntary mental commitments to the central database maintained by the FBI and used by gun dealers here and in 25 other states to conduct background checks on persons seeking to buy guns. An involuntary commitment is one of several reasons allowed under federal law for prohibiting a person from buying a gun.

Alabama is not alone in this. Only three states report every involuntary mental commitment to the FBI database. Many do not report them at all, and a few states follow a provision meant to avoid putting a stigma on the mentally ill. These states report that an individual should not be allowed to purchase a gun, but do not cite the reason.

So far so good. Involuntary committments should be reported to NICS by all states. And if, at some point the person "gets better" than the records should be updated to reflect that. We're not talking simple depression here folks. But then the editorial goes on:

Any talk of additional firearms regulation raises suspicions with many Alabamians and invariably brings out the extremist gun advocates who contend the Second Amendment allows any American to have any sort of weapons he or she might want...

Since I've been called an extremist on this issue I assume they're referring to folks like me. Talk about painting with a broad brush! NO, I don't think ANYONE should be able to buy a gun. I certainly don't think convicted felons should. I don't think the mentally ill should. I don't think children should. And I dare say that most of my readers (and organizations such as the NRA) agree with me.

If the NICS instant background check system needs improvement, I say go for it and I understand that that is in fact happening. What a gratuitous insult to supporters of the Second Amendment. What bias!

I'm going to end this week's report here because it's just too painful to type anymore. I'll try to report on more stuff later in the week including what my friends in the blogosphere are chatting about. Thanks for stopping by!

Once again, it's that time of the week to take a look at some of the stories (and bias) shown on the Yahoo Gun Control Debate page. I also report on stories mentioned elsewhere.

As I write this intro, the Democratic candidates are in their final debate in Iowa and it inspired me to use a cap gun for the graphic this week. After all, if most of them had their way, that's probably the only handgun any of us would be allowed to own...

First up, from the AP was this story out of Ohio that the state legislature has passed a revised bill to allow concealed carry and Governor Taft has said he will sign it. That's great news and makes Ohio the -- I think -- 35th state to allow concealed carry. Thugs beware! Here's a quote:

Those who apply for the permits would have to pay a fee, undergo background checks and be trained in the use of a weapon.

The bill also makes the names of permit holders available to reporters. Taft's insistence on this provision had derailed the bill late last year.

The Senate vote was 25-8, and the House vote was 69-24.

Taft, a Republican, said in a statement that the bill was a reasonable compromise that "balances the Second Amendment rights I have strongly supported with public safety and public records concerns."

Back in early December when Taft threatened to veto an earlier version of the bill I said:

...Would Taft rather that folks just strap-on a gun-belt like in the old western days? And why should it be any business of my neighbor's whether I have a permit or not? Is it their business if I have a computer? How large my mortgage is? What magazines I subscribe to? Are they entitled to know my medical history, that I suffer from Gout? That my daughter had an abortion?

The decision to apply for and receive a permit for concealed carry is a personal one. Not everyone desires to take their protection into their own hands. What would a neighbor do with that info? Move away if they're opposed to guns?

I'm not sure why reporters should need to know who's packing heat but I guess Taft considers this a good compromise. Publicola reports that The Cleveland Plain Dealer is planning to publish the names of all permit holders. Hopefully you folks in Ohio who support the right to concealed carry will let that rag paper know that you will never purchase another copy if they do. The Smallest Minority reports on another newspaper's predictions of doom.

In any event, the end result of the law is what counts here and those people and families that choose to do so can now exercise some control over their personal protection. I wonder how the trigger-happy police in Cincinnati feel about this?

Of course, the AP story found the obligatory Democrat to criticize the bill, moaning that supporters of the law would soon "chip away" at requirements for the background check and the public nature of the records of permit-holders. Overall though, a good, no-nonsense story.

Last week I mentioned the article in the Christian Science Monitor about senior citizens totin' guns. Here's a quote from the Monitor story:

Reversing longstanding patterns in the US, residents ages 65 and up are now the mostly likely of all citizens to own a gun. "Personal gun ownership used to be highest among the middle-aged, but in our 2000 and 2002 survey, it was highest among the 65-plus age group. So there is a shift upwards in gun ownership," says Tom Smith, director of the General Social Survey, which is part of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.

In Arizona alone, the state's Department of Public Safety reports that more than 31,000 residents between the ages of 50 and 69 - including 6,200 women - have concealed-weapons permits. It's easy to understand why, says Mr. Batory. "Just read the papers. Older people are getting tired of being picked on by savages."

The article then mentions that the fear older people experience is mis-guided since crime is actually way down. As Glenn Reynolds asks:

That's certainly true, though I wonder why people are feeling this way now, when crime is actually down considerably? I suspect that there's a post-9/11 cultural shift underway here, not just a response to specific risks.

The fact remains that almost 170 thousand persons age 65 and over are the victims of violent crime each year. That's the population of a small city. And the simple fact remains that cops don't prevent crime; they clean up after it occurs. Also, most people, and that would include the elderly, know of someone who's been victimized. And when you are often alone, as many seniors are, the presence of a firearm can be quite a comfort.

The Monitor couldn't help themselves bringing up the fact that some liberals are worried about the elderly packing heat when they might also be suffering from diminished mental powers. Alzheimer's Disease is mentioned no less than six times in two paragraphs. Talk about "fear mongering!"

In the end though, I like the closing paragraph of this article:

In the end, "the best insurance seniors can have against violent crime is a well-armed citizenry," says Van Vibber, gripping his pistol. "Besides, it's a God-given right."

And not just for seniors!

Speaking of concealed-carry, some common sense from the New Mexico Supreme Court. From the AP:

The state Supreme Court on Monday let stand a new law that allows New Mexicans to be licensed to carry loaded, concealed handguns.

The five-member court rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the law filed by a children's advocacy group and a physician.

You might think I'd classify this short news story as a positive but it reeks of the same "fear mongering" of the previous story. Here's a quote:

"I think this will be a more dangerous place for children and other living beings," David Campbell, the lawyer representing New Mexico Voices for Children, said after the ruling.

As I said last week, this is flat-out wrong. Children and "other living beings" (in Roswell perhaps?) will be safer now that their parents are able to better protect them from the mutant predators out there.

A couple of weeks ago I reported the story of a man who heard an intruder in his home and dialed "911" to summon the police. In the intervening time, he was shot by the thug. At that time, I said:

The police can't be everywhere and frankly, we shouldn't want them everywhere. Their job is to clean up the mess and summon the coroner after the fact. Even in Merry Old England, where police have installe