Todd Tiahrt's Editorial on the Tiahrt Amendment

Rep. Todd Tiahrt, author of the Tiahrt Amendment, wrote an editorial letter to the Witchita Eagle (his hometown newspaper) explaining in plain language what the amendment does do, does not do, and strikes down the opportunistic attacks from Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns:

It comes as little surprise that liberal political bloggers, along with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, continue to heap criticism on the Tiahrt amendment ("On gun-privacy rights," Dec. 3 WE Blog excerpts). Now permanent law, the Tiahrt amendment protects the privacy rights of legal firearm owners and ensures that undercover agents and their investigations are not compromised.

The latest smear campaign spearheaded by Bloomberg and Mayors Against Illegal Guns brazenly casts blame on the Tiahrt amendment for the Fort Hood massacre. One of their primary solutions to prevent another Fort Hood tragedy is, of course, to repeal the Tiahrt amendment.

But the FBI already has 90 days to maintain firearm sale records related to terrorist watch list suspects and can also place holds on such transactions to allow further review by field agents when needed. The Tiahrt amendment does not affect background check outcomes, does not affect who is permitted to own a firearm, and does not restrict local law enforcement officials from accessing firearm data for criminal investigations.

Protecting the privacy of law-abiding citizens by preventing a national firearm registry, while at the same time ensuring law enforcement officers have all necessary resources to combat terrorism and crime, is the balance the Tiahrt amendment strikes. But don't expect to hear this anytime soon from those on the left who want to expand the reach of the federal government.

U.S. Rep. TODD TIAHRT

R-Goddard

That is the best summation of the amendment that I have seen to date, which makes sense since it is written by the author.

TPM Doesn't Like Guns, But At Least Get the Law Right

Kudos to TalkingPointsMemo.com. While their tone clearly is biased against owning/carrying guns, at least they have the decency to note when someone open carrying is well within the law and acting in a peaceful manner. They reported today that a protester in New Hampshire was open carrying a firearm outside of an event that President Obama was attending. While their first post was a bit alarmist, the updates to the article were surprisingly honest. It seemed they initially wanted to paint the OC activist as some sort of homicidal loon, but later reported that he was acting peacefully and was not in the direct vicinity of the president:

The local police tell MSNBC that the man is legally carrying the gun, is nowhere near where the President will be, and is "under constant surveillance."

Again, I am not thrilled with the picture they were trying to paint when the article began. They identified the protester as being: "Apparently not a law officer, but a civilian." Egads! Someone not from the government displaying a symbol of power and self-reliance. They also refer to the concealed carry laws of the State of New Hampshire when the picture associated with the story (pictured here) illustrated a man open carrying. Not great attention to detail, but there rarely is such a thing when people are fear mongering.

A second update even featured a quote from the protester sounding quite reasonable:

The gun-wielding protester was interviewed by Chris Matthews late today: "I'm not advocating violence," William Kostric said. "I'm advocating an informed society, an armed society, a polite society."

TPM is free to dislike guns, as is any (modern) liberal website. But I respect them for at least setting the record straight, pointing out that the protester was in full compliance with the law, and posting a quote without any snarky retorts.

UPDATE: It looks like the folks over at msnbc are not quite as up to speed as the TPM crew. While covering this (apparently) very important story, the reporters act shocked that the man is allowed to openly carry a gun in New Hampshire, on private property even. They do cover the laws of the state, but seem as though they have never heard of open or concealed carry. (despite the fact that over 40 states have some form of open carry law). The anchor goes on to suggest that with all the lawyers on the ground, they should be able to file an emergency injunction and infringe on the man's right to carry.

Philly Gets it Wrong on National Parks Carry

Elmer Smith at the Philadelphia Inquirer is furious at his Senators and the NRA for a rider in the Credit Card bill that reinstates the right to carry within National Parks. His view of the bill is limited to his local National Historic Park that is run by the Park Service - Independence Hall. He attempts to scare readers with the "threat" of not only armed citizens with concealed pistols, but also visitors walking around those hallowed grounds with "AK-47s and other assorted assault weapons."

As is often the case in anti-gun editorials, Smith leaves out many facts about the issue at hand. The most important is that the bill will simply remove the Federal ban on concealed carry with National Park land, and return control of the issue to the States that are host to these parks. For example, Independence Hall would simply follow the very same gun laws that the entire other 46,500 square miles of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are subject to. Smith believes that this will somehow lead to more violence, and does not afford any protection to the people. But as the law currently exists, a man with a valid PA carry permit could travel the entire State with his family. If they were visiting the city of Philadelphia, he could continue to carry if he felt the need to protect and defend himself and his loved ones. But if he wants to cross the imaginary line between Independence Hall and the rest of the city, he cannot carry his weapon. He may be forced to secure the weapon a great distance from the Hall, and could leave him vulnerable that entire time. This disenfranchises him of his right to carry within the state. Furthermore, it is foolish to believe that the current Federal ban on firearms would somehow stop a criminal from entering the building and causing harm to people or the property.

Smith's local perspective on the bill is also quite myopic. While Independence Hall comprises only one building and a small piece of property, there are parks - especially in the American West - that are comprised of hundreds of remote under-patrolled areas.

If Smith is so gravely concerned about the carrying of concealed weapons at Independence Hall, he should lobby the state of Pennsylvania to change its laws. Relinquishing control to the states means that PA could easily add a park ban (or bans on specific areas such as Independence Hall), or remove state preemption and let Philadelphia make the decision on its own.

Armed College Students and Crossfire Risk/Reward Ratio

An interesting story out of Georgia. College students are at party when two masked gunmen invade. After corralling the victims, the gunmen count their bullets aloud to determine if they have enough to kill everyone, and then proceed separate the men and women held captive. One of the male victims retrieves his own weapon from a bag and fires on the gunman that is guarding them. That gunmen flees, and the armed citizen then goes to find the women. It is alleged that the second gunman was preparing to rape them women. The citizen fires on that gunman, who dies of gunshots wounds to the face and arm.

One of the women being held hostage was shot and injured in the crossfire. Media outlets and anti-gun forces have asserted that bystanders in the crossfire are one of the reasons it is too dangerous for citizens to be armed. While it is very unfortunate the woman was hurt, the risk/reward ratio needs to be examined on a case by case basis. In this case, if the citizen did not act, the group could have been raped and murdered. How many lives were saved and sexual assaults averted?

Interesting to see how this plays out in the media, and if it will get nationwide attention.

An Anti-Gunner Comes Clean: 28th Amendment Only Way to Try to Curtail Gun Rights

Chico News and Review guest commentator Stephen W. King has guts. He also has a healthy respect for the Constitution. Yet I completely disagree with him. In his column, Mr. King cites a number of recent high profile shootings to make a case for increased gun control. But then he does what few anti-gunners have been able to do: admit that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, even outside of formal militia involvement. In doing so King plants the seed that the 2nd Amendment has outlived its usefulness, and much like the practice of only landed white men being able to vote, should be amended out of our Constitution:

...the Constitution does enshrine the “right to bear arms,” participation in a militia notwithstanding. The Constitution also asserted that only landed, white men could vote and has been amended 27 times. Would a 28th amendment dealing with guns be the end of American exceptionalism as we know it, or would it help us avert another million deaths, offer the world an example of America’s response to changed realities, and improve the lives of Americans?

Naturally, I have some qualms with his line of reasoning. First, the idea of white men being the only persons with voting privileges is exclusionary, and from a historical perspective racist and sexist. Secondly, in that case we amended the constitution to broaden people's rights, not restrict them. Mr. King also fails to state specifically what this amendment should entail. If it is a basic wish list of the anti-gun groups such as the Brady Campaign or the Violence Policy Center, there is little evidence that these "common sense" laws would do anything to reduce or prevent gun violence.

Furthermore, is this really a fight that Mr. King and the anti-gun crowd want to pick? Proposing an amendment to restrict gun rights is sure to get a lot of attention, but the rigors of the amendment process would be much more difficult than passing something like the assault weapons ban (which they are having trouble reinstating). As a matter of fact, talk of an anti-gun amendment might spark the idea of a pro gun rights amendment. What better way to settle any remaining debate about the reach of the 2nd Amendment by clarifying it even further? If we take a quick look at the US Constitutional amendment process and the state of gun rights across the nation, an amendment supporting and defining gun rights is much more likely to gain formal proposal and be ratified.

First let's take a look at the amendment process:
Though almost every Constitutional Amendment to date has been proposed by Congress, there is a path for 2/3 of the State Legislatures to do so. Ratification by either method is accomplished most often by the approval of the State Legislature, this time by a 3/4 majority. Now let's take a look at the current gun laws across the nation. A good barometer is the acceptance of "shall-issue" concealed carry permits among the states. Here is the map as it exists today:

39 of 50 states currently must issue (or do not require) a permit to carry a concealed handgun for lawful citizens. That is 78% of the Union, which is 11% more than 2/3rds needed to propose an amendment and 3% more than needed to ratify. While that is far from a guarantee, the inverse starts to look grim for those who wish to impose more gun control via amendment.

Ratifying a(nother?) pro-gun amendment would depend greatly on what rights were included and how they were defined. What would be a wish list of those rights was recently passed in the legendarily pro-gun state of Montana. Montana, home to a Democratic Governor and two Democratic Senators, specified in detail the self-defense rights of lawful residents:

This new law (HB 228) clarifies the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm in plain view and to present the firearm for defensive purposes when threatened. Additionally, the law puts clearly into statute existing Montana case law providing that, when threatened, a law-abiding citizen has no duty to retreat if the person is in any place he or she has a legal right to be. Other provisions include expanding existing law to allow the use of force in defense of an occupied structure and preventing landlords and hotel operators from restricting self-defense rights. HB 228 is a victims rights measure that further places the burden of the judicial system on the criminal. Any individual who acts in self-defense, and is able to prove that he or she acted in self-defense, will now be able to shift the burden of proving the absence of justification to the prosecution.

Add a national right to carry to that and places like California and Washington D.C. suddenly become desirable places to reside. Perhaps Mr. King is onto something. I agree that a 28th amendment needs to be proposed, but I and the people of 38 other states are going to have quite a bit to say about what it will entail. Careful what you wish for Mr. King...

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Court Incorporates 2nd Amendment in Nordyke v. King

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which formerly held a collectivist view of the 2nd Amendment, has ruled today that the 2A is "incorporated" to the states via the 14th Amendment. This means that the Heller decision (which states that the 2nd Amendment affords a personal right to keep and bear arms) applies to not only the Federal government, but the states as well.

"The right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition…. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental...We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments."

This proclamation by the 9th Circuit was included in the ruling for the case Nordyke v. King. Unfortunately, the remainder of the ruling came down against Nordyke, et al, who claimed that a blanket ban of firearms on Alameda County property violated their 2nd Amendment rights. Nordyke and the other plaintiffs were the organizers of a now-defunct gun show which took place on county fairgrounds. The court said that this was a reasonable restriction that did not impair one's ability to defend themselves or their homes. Additionally, it claimed that all County property could be considered a "sensitive area" under the Heller ruling, which stated:

"(the ruling) should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings..."

David Hardy over at Of Arms and the Law has conjectured that since Nordyke lost the overall decision they are in control of the next move. Alameda County cannot ask to have the ruling heard en banc (and potentially have incorporation overturned), and Nordyke can craft the appeal when asking for a writ of centiorari from the SCOTUS. On the other hand, since incorporation has effectively been taken off the table, the high court is less likely to hear the case. Hardy also notes that two of the three 9th Circuit judges ruling for incorporation were Democratic appointees. One from the Carter Admin, and one from Clinton.

Full 9th Circuit opinion HERE.
Second Amendment Foundation press release HERE.

UPDATE: John Lott & Others Respond to 20/20 Report

Respected firearms scholar and researcher John Lott posted a blog entry on Fox News where he too responds to the rigged "experiment" produced by 20/20. I am happy to say that Prof. Lott and I came to similar conclusions about the nature and tone of the program. He illustrates how 20/20's methods were poor and their summations biased (and perhaps disingenuous):

The show ends with this claim:

“If you are wondering where are all the studies about the effectiveness of guns used by ordinary Americans for self-defense, well keep searching, we could not find one reliable study and the ones we found were contradictory.”

Yet, “contradictory” is an overstatement. There have been 26 peer-reviewed studies published by criminologists and economists in academic journals and university presses. Most of these studies find large drops in crime. Some find no change, but not a single one shows an increase in crime.

Dr. Ignatius Piazza, of the acclaimed Front Sight firearms training school, also responded to the 20/20 story. While he uses the ill prepared students as a plug to advocate training at his schools, he clearly states what 20/20 casually overlooked:

Even though you may...fall into the category of the 99% of people who are not yet mentally or physically prepared to win a gun fight, the chances are your opponent is not trained either — so having a gun and some training is still better than not having a gun!

More importantly, Piazza provides a nice list of articles and videos about concealed carry holders defending themselves and stopping violent crime. Here is that list:

• Concealed Weapons Permit Holder Stops Bank Robbery
• Off Duty Copy Gets Jumped but Protects Himself with Handgun
• 69-Year-Old Man Shoots Intruder
• CCW Gun Fighter Shoots Two Armed Assailants
• Grandmother Holds Bugler at Gun Point
• Surviving a Gun in Your Face
• Armed Robber stopped by CCW Holder
• Armed Watch Maker Stops Multiple Robberies
• Armed Citizen - Nashville, Tennessee
• Armed Homeowner Shoots Robbers During Daytime Invasion (AZ)
• Woman With Shotgun Kills Rapist in Self-Defense (MO)
• Robber Killed by Clerk
• Pizza Shop Owner Shoots Armed Robber (OH)
• Houston Self Defense Shooting CCW
• Clerk Shoots Crook
• Holdup victim kills gunman in Manheim
• Armed Citizen - Buffalo, New York
• Armed Citizen - Kinsey, Alabama
• Gunman killed in robbery attempt
• Armed Citizen - Canton, Michigan
• Brave store clerk shoots back
• Armed School Teacher Shoots Armed Invader in Self-Defense (FL)
• Man who shot robber at AA gathering

20/20: A Gun Wouldn't Necessarily Get You Out of Shooting; Us: But it Can't Hurt!

ABC News and 20/20 are running a special entitled: "'If I Only Had a Gun': 20/20 Examines Gun Violence in America." In addition, they have posted a companion article on ABCnews.com called: "Carrying a Gun Wouldn't Necessarily Get You Out of a Shooting".

The mainstream media we know and love are finally getting back to their anti-gun bias now that there have been some high-profile shootings in the news. The article and the 20/20 segment are clearly and openly framed as a rebuttal to those that believe concealed carry is the best way to stop, or at least severely limit the deadliness of, so-called 'spree shooters.' The title of the article itself should be enough of a warning that 20/20 is only looking to display one side of the argument.

First, some inaccurate conclusions are drawn based upon the view that many sates have of concealed carry as a right:

Opponents also point out that most people are ill-prepared to handle a gun. Only six states, for instance, require any kind of training before issuing a routine permit to own a gun...

Just because the majority of states do not require a class for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights does not mean that people who regularly carry are automatically "ill-prepared" to handle a gun. Though anecdotal (which is about as good as any evidence presented by ABC News in this article), the group of 2nd Amendment advocates that I associate with are all proud of their extensive knowledge of firearms, the hours of range time they put in, and the advanced training that they partake in. In addition, gun safety and education courses are booming aroundcountry. So, state mandated training in itself does not necessarily make one more or less likely to be able to handle a gun in an active shooter situation.

ABC News quotes a Bethlehem, PA police investigator who gives his opinion that having a gun will not be of any assistance in a dire situation:
the

"Rounds are coming back at you," Benton said. "You've got outside environments, people are screaming, running. It's too much for a normal person who's never been trained to deal with. It's overwhelming. What happens is that you get so jacked up you forget how to do the simple things," Benton said. "Because your [heart rate] elevates, your fine motor skills deteriorate, and you can't get your gun out. And you're thinking, 'Oh there's a gun; I'm getting shot at.'"

ABC also quotes a firearms instructor who states that if a stray bullet hits a bystander you are legally responsible for that action. We are then told that those who have survived active shooter scenarios are those who have played dead or fled to potential exits, such as windows. What is not addressed is that it is not always possible to play dead or to flee. If a shooter enters a room and starts executing people at point blank, unfortunately the only option may be to become a victim - unless you are armed. Choosing between attempting to defend yourself and your colleagues/classmates, or dying, I think most people would attempt to overcome the risks of being 'jacked up' on adrenaline and fighting through poential tunnel vision. Also, if multiple people are being executed in a small area, bystanders being injured from defensive gun fire (an extremely rare phenomenon despite the fear mongering) will be on the lower end of concern when considering possible negative outcomes.

At the same time that they claim armed defense would be impossible due to the physical and mental state of the armed citizen, they suggest complex planning and strategy as the best way to survive:

"Get on the cell phone, tell people, barricade these doors, and wait it out." Stanton said there are three immediate steps to take if you're suddenly in the middle of a deadly shooting: "Identify what's going on, recognize the situation, and have an exit strategy." When they do a post interview of all these different people (spree shooting survivors), you'll see a, a general commonality: 'I knew I had to live.'"

So, having a will to live helps you think clearly. And the 'experts' suggest calling authorities, barricading doors, and planning exit strategies. Sounds like complicated work, especially if "Rounds are coming back at you," and when "you get so jacked up you forget how to do the simple things." How can someone get their cell phone out of their pocket and dial with fine motor skills if they cannot even upholster a weapon? The double standard being applied here is obvious and dripping with bias.

Additionally, while the 20/20 article quotes a number of 'experts' speaking against the possibility of civilian intervention, the only dissenter that they briefly refer to is the head of a local chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. 20/20 should have looked at recent research by police trainer Ron Borsch. When training officers, he advocates that they act as soon as possible, even if they are by themselves, because active shooters add to their death toll by the second. He makes a number of observations that indicate an armed citizen could slow or stop the massacre :

• 98% of active killers act alone
• Despite heavy armaments...they have an average hit rate of less than 50%
• They strike “stunned, defenseless innocents via surprise ambush. On a level playing field, the typical active killer would be a no-contest against anyone reasonably capable of defending themselves.”
• They generally try to avoid police...and “typically fold quickly upon armed confrontation.”
• 90% commit suicide on-site. “Surrender or escape attempts are unlikely.”

Borsch concludes that quick confrontation by a single individual can often be the best way to save lives and end the situation:

They choose unarmed, defenseless innocents for a reason: They have no wish to encounter someone who can hurt them. They are personally risk- and pain-avoidant...If pressed, they are more likely to kill themselves.

There is no reason to believe that this effectiveness would not translate from a single patrol officer to a determined armed citizen who "knows he has to live." The 20/20 video seems set on ignoring this possibility, and attempts to disprove it with mock scenarios that clearly set the participants up to fail. They create a situation where individuals who volunteered for firearms training are given real firearms with simulated rounds. Then, during a classroom lecture, a police officer poses as a shooter and opens fire on the teacher and fleeing students. In addition, this attack happens when the subjects of the test are wearing protective gloves, neckwear, and helmets with face shields. Then, when these first day shooters do not have perfect results, 20/20 reacts derisively. Some have trouble getting the gun out of the holster, some freeze, and some get shot while engaging the shooter. But while the program states that this is a reenactment of a real scenario, they do not state that the deck has been stacked against the subjects. Let's take a look at how this does not accurately represent an armed citizen/active shooter scenario:

• The perpetrator does not fit the profile of an active shooter as described above (a pain-avoidant coward), and is not in that state of mind - he is actually a trained police officer prepared for the situation
• The subjects do not represent an accurate cross section of concealed carry holders and their varying skill levels. Only one the participants shown claimed to have firearms experience and most were barely comfortable wearing and operating a holster.
  
• Participants were wearing heavy cloth gloves and a helmet with full face shield for protection. This clearly impedes their motor skills and potentially obstructs their vision.
• The police officer "perpetrator" knew which person in the classroom was armed and was able to target them for the purposes of the 'experiment.' In addition, most of the other people in the lecture were either officers or involved in the setup. They quickly moved away from the subject which allow for easier targeting.
• Though the subjects claimed the scenario felt very realistic, they knew before hand that everyone was using simulated rounds, including themselves. This means the armed students were less likely to flee and use the firearm to protect others while hiding or taking cover - a tactic often taught in firearms and self defense classes.
  

One of the subjects shown, "Danielle", does manage to unholster her weapon, take aim, and score a hit despite of the circumstances. 20/20 then points out that she took a hit to the head and chides her for striking the perp in the leg when she though she also got off a headshot. Last time I checked, the femoral artery was one of the least desirable places to be shot. Also, in this scenario almost every other person in the room was able to escape.

So, 20/20 says that having a gun won't necessarily get us out of a shooting, but I don't think that people who chose to carry concealed believe that arming themselves guarantees anything. What it does do is level the playing field. And from the profiles of past active-shooter scenarios to even the stacked experiments on 20/20, we have seen that intervention from a single armed individual can make a difference. At the very least it can distract and delay the shooter, which in itself could save lives. In the best scenario, it can end the confrontation and save countless lives. Having a gun won't necessarily save you, but not having one surely won't.

Holmes Norton Says DC Gun Rights Greatest Threat to Homeland Security

During a hearing on the House floor concerning the DC Voting Rights Act, non-voting Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton referred to the loosening of Washington DC's gun laws as the greatest risk to Homeland Security. What has gotten Holmes in such a fury is the Ensign Amendment tacked onto the bill that strips the District of the privilege to create and enforce its own gun laws. This amendment restores gun rights to the citizens of DC and forces compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling in DC v Heller, which the city council has done just about everything to skirt.

Now that we have the background, let's get on with the outrage that has been absent in the media. The Representative's lack of respect for her constituents Constitutional rights and her lack of respect for the enormity of our national security concerns are reprehensible. Does she truly believe that allowing law abiding citizens to own arms, as is exercised legally and safely in the vast majority of this nation, is more of a threat than Iranian nuclear enrichment, North Korean missile tests , or border drug violence? This is the politics of fear on blatant display.

Norton goes on to make her case against the amendment, not with facts and figures, but with scary adjectives and fear-based tactics:

...would allow military style weapons, including .50 caliber armor-piercing guns to be legally possessed, without limit on the number, in the nation’s capital...

While Holmes wants to link possession of these weapons to terrorists, she does not make the case as to why this could not already happen within the borders of Washington DC. Terrorists have little regard for law, and committed ones would have no problems purchasing weapons elsewhere and bringing them into the city. She also fails to mention that the current restrictive laws and the past prohibition have failed to curb violence in the city or restrict availability of guns to the criminal elements that desire them. According to The Washington Post, "a recent survey depicts an urban D.C. environment where 80 percent of youths are 'highly exposed' to gun violence."

Norton also tries to scare people with the specter of guns being carried in public and allowed in employer lots, but her hysteria rings hollow in a nation where responsible concealed carry is the norm:

...employees could bring guns to a Wizards game at the Verizon Center, to a National’s baseball game at Nationals Park, to a national conference at the Convention Center, to Pepco headquarters, to law offices, and to other small and large workplaces throughout the city, to churches and other places of worship, to bars, restaurants and nightclubs, to hotels, to power plants and to all District government offices.

While this is all meant to sound threatening, laws permitting concealed carry in some or all of the types of places she listed tend to be the rule in the US, not the exception. The "wild west" argument she implies was based purely on speculation when it was first made over 20 years ago when states started to adopt carry laws. With the amazing record of safety and civility that permit holders have demonstrated, to raise the argument now borders on pure dishonesty.

Plaxico Follies, or: Infering the Wrong Lessons

In his latest column, Newsday's Wallace Matthews calls for a fair and honest sentencing for Plaxico Burress free of any celebrity clout - a reasonable request for our system of justice. But in doing so he shows his vitriol for firearms as a whole, ignoring vital statistics and resorting to tired stereotypes.

Before we go any farther, let us be clear on a few things. Burress, by carrying a loaded unlicensed firearm in a nightclub, broke a number of laws of the city and State of New York. Second, by not carrying his firearm in a secure holster and by mishandling it as it began to fall down his pant leg, he demonstrated an amateurish and unacceptable respect for the firearm.

That being stated, Matthews wastes no time in moving beyond the simple facts of the case and his desire for equal treatment under the law and into his general distaste for firearms.

• The very first sentence of his column that by carrying a firearm Burress was "thinking he was Tony Montana." So no one can use a firearm for the safety of themselves and their families without being reduced to a fictional and violent film character? Millions of concealed permit holders and their history of lawful behavior would beg to disagree.
  
• He also refers to New York's gun laws as "sensible." These "sensible" laws currently only see connected politicians and international celebrities arbitrarily being given a permit carry firearms within city limits. That is neither sensible nor is it equal application of the law to all citizens.
• "There's a reason the gun laws in New York were written the way they are - to ensure that people who shouldn't have guns don't have them." Again, the laws in New York are written to ensure that only those affluent in political connection and celebrity have them. There is no mechanism by which even a properly trained, tested, registered, lawful, fingerprinted, and background-checked average citizen could obtain a permit to legally carry a firearm within the city.
• "But even if we can laugh at Burress today, we wouldn't be laughing if that Glock 9 bullet had found some innocent bystander's head or chest instead of Burress' thigh." This tired argument is brought out in any place where concealed carry is proposed or any gun law is about to become more permissible, but studies and evidence show that concealed carry does not increase accidental/bystander shootings.
  
• "He strutted into that nightclub like some character out of 'Scarface.' He was wheeled out like some fool in 'The Pink Panther.' When his case is finally resolved, he'd better not walk out of that courthouse as if he's Michael Corleone..." Way to end on a high note Wallace. Instead of debating the merits of the legal system and the archaic and draconian patchwork of firearms laws in New York we can reduce the discourse to ugly characterizations.

Again, based off of the facts that have been disclosed, it appears as though Burress is guilty based upon the laws of New York as they currently stand. But much like an argument made against the drug war, we are potentially making felons out of otherwise upright citizens. I do not think that Burress was performing an act of civil disobedience, it is more likely that he was concerned about being a target due to wealth and status. But there is nothing to suggest that if New York had a process for lawful citizens to carry handguns that he would not have complied with such a law. If this were the case, we could be arguing about real 'sensible' issues such as the carrying of firearms in a place where alcohol is served, or the charges available if a person's negligence causes the accidental discharge of a weapon. Instead we are talking about a mandatory minimum sentence for exercising a right that is valid and cherished in a super-majority of the United States.

Obama Says Science Over Ideology, But Does it Apply to Guns?

The Associated Press is reporting that President Obama signed a memorandum today "restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making." The president's statement included these words:

Today, more than ever before, science holds the key to our survival as a planet and our security and prosperity as a nation. It’s time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology. (emphasis added)

While many people across the nation, and perhaps the globe, breathed a collective sigh of relief, one has to wonder if this fact based scrutiny will be applied across the board or just to projects and special interests close the President's heart. This statement was released in conjunction with the administration's reversal of the Bush era stem cell research limitations, so clearly it applies to that. A bit of peeking into Obama's platform and some extrapolation would lead you to believe that it will apply to climate change as well.

So the question at hand is: will the restoration of science over agenda apply to less favorable issues such as firearms? As we have covered in the past, scholars such as Gary Kleck and John Lott have shown that more guns create less crime and concealed carry reduces crime rates. Those in opposition have at best been able to come to the conclusion that while laws such as concealed carry and castle doctrine may not reduce crime, they at the same time do not increase it in any way. The National Academy of Sciences also came to the conclusion that concealed carry at the very least does not increase crime or accidental shootings. (full disclosure: They do recommend additional research methods be undertaken to get more robust data. Conversely, one of the members in the study dissented with this finding, arguing that this argument is not made when the results more favorably support the Academy's position, i.e. capital punishment.)

If we take these studies, along with the evidence from the 38 States that have adopted shall-issue concealed carry, we would hope that President Obama will rethink his stated positions on "assault weapons" and concealed carry. We encourage the administration to err on the side of personal freedom and look to the scientific research we have on hand to support him when facing the anti-gun component of his party. Hopefully, with this new scientific rigor, we will never again hear the President make statements such as these, which so boldly fly in the face of science:

I am not in favor of concealed weapons, I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.

The Ruger LCP Recall

Since I am a happy owner of the Ruger LCP, I figured it could not hurt to mention that there is currently a recall by the manufacturer for all LCP's with the serial number prefix "370". It has been determined that, if dropped forcefully, the LCP could potentially discharge a round in the chamber, though no incidents have yet been reported.

The recall process is quite amazing and "370" owners should not hesitate to participate. The turnaround time is about 2-3 weeks, shipping is covered both ways by the manufacturer, and they throw in an additional magazine with finger grip for the trouble. There is even an 800 number you can call to speak with a live human being who can give you the status of your firearm.


The good folks over at Gunblast.com also have posted a review of the pre and post-recall LCPs.

Obama Agenda is Back with a Vengeance

A new dawn - for better or for worse. In his inaugural speech, the newly minted President told us that we should not judge government by its size, but by its results:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small but whether it works...

Essentially, the ends justify the means. For some that may be inspiring, for others foreboding. Who gets to be the 'decider' in determining whether a larger government is 'working'? Is it the American people? Or is it central planning?

Regardless, what sort of Federal government growth and oversight can we expect to see that will need to be judged? Let's take a look at Whitehouse.gov, where President Obama has resurrected his proposed attacks on the 2nd Amendment that we briefly saw on his Change.gov site:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

A few thoughts and counter-points:

• The President has said that science will have a new place of respect in his administration, even going as far as saying that “An Obama administration will make sure that the government does not distort the results of scientific research for ideological ends.” Yet all of the research on firearms and crime is continually ignored. He has stated that he does not believe that concealed carry has a place in America, even though it has been proven to not increase crime or make communities more dangerous.
  
• On the campaign trail the President stated that "What works in Chicago might not work in Cheyenne", yet he is proposing new legislation at a Federal level instead of leaving it up to the states.
• During his inaugural address President Obama stated, in reference to Guantanamo and the suspension of the 6th Amendment for terror suspects, that we do not have to make a "false ... choice between our safety and our ideals." Yet, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, apparently we can choose our perceived safety over our ideals. But don't worry, I am sure that the new administration will determine that this growth in government 'works'.