Friday, March 30, 2007

Its time to stop Rosie

The anti gun hypocrite Rosie O'Donnell's latest antics on ABC's "The View" should outrage all normal Americans. She spent her energy once again claiming that 9/11 was an American conspiracy and that Great Britain just set up their own sailors to create a new pretext for war.

Send an e-mail to ABC's owners at and let them know what ABC should do with Rosie.

ABC and the other TV media giants do not give anyone with any conservative perspective a full blank check to spout propaganda on daytime TV....(cable is different). The sad part is that untold numbers of mind numbed females actually watch this show and may be dumb enough to believe this fat dumb ass.

Disney ....who owns ABC needs to hear from us.

Technorati Tags:, , ,
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Why the Feds don't push for more armed pilots

Ever wonder when your flying if the pilot is armed?

Well don't wonder too much because the odds are that no one in the cockpit is armed.

It seems that the TSA and others have gone to great lengths to make it hard for pilots who volunteer to be armed.

Some say that it's all part of the bureaucracy's anti-firearm bias.

Here is an article that takes a hard look at the issue and what is being proposed in Congress to deal with it.

Technorati Tags:, , , ,
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

More Outing of CCW Holders

The disgraceful trend to publish the personal information of Concealed Carry Permit holders continues.

Perhaps we need national legislation to stop this.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Senate to take up D.C. Gun Ban

Senator Fay Hutchison has introduced legislation to undue the D.C. gun ban.

For details and to track this bill see:

It will be interesting to see how this bill fares over the coming months in view of the recent Federal Appeals Court ruling striking down the District of Columbia's gun ban.

Many on the Second Amendment front due not want to see this legislation enacted since it might jeopardize a definitive Supreme Court ruling on the issue.

Technorati Tags:, , , ,
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

How to Improve Your Pistol Shooting

About six months ago, I bought my first air pistol, a Beeman P3 Pneumatic single shot.

This gun looks like and feels like the real thing (Walther P99) and the accuracy is amazing.

With standard pellets fired at 30 feet I had no problem getting 10 shots in less than 1 inch, using a standard two hand hold, standing with no other support. Note the two inch target on the paper plate below.

The Beeman P3 can be had for around $170. It is extremely well made and comfortable to shoot.
The sights are fully adjustable. Practicing with an air pistol several times a week can definitely improve your ability on the range and its relatively cheap practice at that.

Castle Doctrine Momentum

The Governor of Texas just signed the Texas version of the Castle Doctrine into law.

The timing is right to pin down the current crop of Presidential hopefuls about their support or lack thereof for this type of legislation. Of course state legislatures make the decision here, but there is nothing wrong with learning the opinion of the current hopefuls to better ferret out their true Second Amendment beliefs.

On another note;

Senator Webb of Virginia will now have to untangle the mess created by his aide, who now sits in a District of Columbia lockup. The Senator is not allowed to carry in the Capitol building. Guns must be packaged and unloaded. The gun brought in by the Senator's aide was neither.,2933,261583,00.html

Is it ironic that Senator Webb is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment and yet has authored legislation that would stop funding for any effort to confront Iran?

Well at least we can say he is a principled guy.

Guns are like Apple Pie

Various bloggers and others have stated that the Constitution's framers had very narrow interests in creating the Second Amendment. To determine if they intended the "right to keep and bear arms" as an individual or as a collective right many say we must examine how firearms were used at the time the Constitution was drafted.

The following article from the Washington Times, discusses Clayton Cramer's book, "Armed America: The Story of How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie,".

Sounds like a must read.

Monday, March 26, 2007

Roanoke Times Apology

This from the Virginia Citizens Defense League:

The Roanoke Times has issued an explanation about their publishing the CHP holder database. But they don't explain equating concealed handgun permit holders with sex offenders, for example.

While I'm glad the Roanoke Times has said they don't want to repeat their mistakes, if the Roanoke Times thinks that their explanation, which still justifies much of what they did, is an apology, they are greatly mistaken.

Until they issue an apology for slurring the reputations for 140,000 gun owners by equating permit holders with sex offenders and until the paper holds someone at the RT accountable for the damage they have done to many permit holders' lives, the RT has not settled the issue.

BTW, to show what we are dealing with here, Christian Trejbal now has an article that says when driving he won't yield to anyone who has a political bumper sticker he disagrees with.

So everyone's safety comes second to Trejbal's politics? Well, at least he is consistent in his view that the world revolves around him.

We still need another one hundred people to sign up for a VCDL license plate (you do so on the VCDL web site), before we can order them.

Don't you know that Trejbal would love to see one of those license plates in front of him as he is driving down the road! ;-)

Here is the Roanoke Times' explanation of their actions on publishing the CHP holder database:

Also: VCDL now indicates that CNN is still working on their story on this incident and it should air sometimes this week, most likely on Friday at 8 PM EST.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Virginia Concealed Carry Issue on CNN

Update: The issues surrounding my previous post about the Virginia Roanoke Time public outing of CCW Permit holders has now move to the national news and will be aired on CNN sometimes this week, perhaps Friday at 8 PM per the latest information supplied by the President of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

From an e-mail by the VCDL:
I was interviewed about the recent Roanoke Times debacle by Kyung Lah of CNN on Friday at Vinney's Italian Restaurant in Midlothian. The restaurant was very hospitable, setting us up in a large corner so that all the camera equipment could be spread out.

The interview went very well and was done professionally. Ms. Lah asked some of the questions that were posed by Mr. Trejbal in his article - such as, "Don't I have a right to know if you are carrying a gun?"

I had been standing up talking to Ms. Lah for couple of minutes after I arrived. She looked at me and said, "Since you have a concealed handgun permit, aren't you allowed to transport a handgun?"

I said, "Yes."

She said, "Er, do you have one in the car then?"

I said, "No, but I have one on my hip."

A little embarrassed for not having noticed, she then looked down and saw that I was open carrying.

I explained Virginia Law to her about having to open carry in restaurants that have a license to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption.


This is TOO good! I asked Ms. Lah if someone was going to interview the Roanoke Times management and Christian Trejbal (the columnist who wrote the story about Virginia 'sunshine' laws, and who obtained and helped publish the CHP holder list).

Ms. Lah said that BOTH Mr. Trejbal AND the Roanoke Times Management are REFUSING TO BE INTERVIEWED!!!!!!!!

What about all that 'sunshine,' you were celebrating Mr. Trejbal?
What about it Roanoke Times? Surely you would want to lead the way by letting a little light shine on the damage that you did by publishing the CHP holder list?

I got a real chuckle when she told me about their refusal.

I guess I have been doing this too long as I wasn't surprised. I have dealt with people like Mr. Trejbal many times before.


Ms. Lah is also going to interview a parole officer who had THREE parolees show up at his residence, one while only his wife and child were at home! All three admitted to getting his address from the list published on the Internet by the Roanoke Times.


Thanks to those who volunteered to be interviewed. I shared your stories with Ms. Lah and some of your emails will probably be used in the story. Ms. Lah assured me that your name and other private or identifying information will be redacted when emails are shown on screen. Only the part of the email that talks about how your life has been endangered will be highlighted and visible to make the point.


The story is going to air THIS Monday at 8 PM EST on the Paula Zahn show on CNN.

VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL).
VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The membership considers the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to be an essential human right.

VCDL web page:

Hopefully, this publicity will help ensure legislation is passed in all respective states that protects Concealed Carry Permit holder's identities from disclosure.

Technorati Tags:, ,
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Democrats Hate Guns More Than They Love Democracy

A couple of days ago, Democrats in Congress were forced to pull back on the District of Columbia representation vote when a skillful move by Republicans attached an amendment that would require D.C. to allow their citizens to own firearms, just like most other Americans.

The article below expresses a very interesting perspective which makes sense if the Supreme Court is ever going to get a chance to resolve the Second Amendment debate (Individual vs. a Collective Right).

Congress Urged to Move Carefully on DC Gun Ban
Cybercast News Service ^ | 3/23/07 | Randy Hall

Posted on 03/24/2007 9:25:49 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim

Attempts by "well-meaning members of Congress" to repeal the 1976 Washington, D.C., gun ban could backfire by keeping the case out of the U.S. Supreme Court, said attorneys representing six D.C. residents in a high-profile Second Amendment case.

"We appreciate that the Second Amendment's many friends in Congress want to express themselves on the D.C. gun ban, and there are ways in which Congress can have a tremendously positive impact," said Alan Gura, lead counsel in Parker v. District of Columbia, which challenged the 1976 D.C. gun ban.

But "Congress has to act very carefully," Gura told Cybercast News Service after a panel discussion of the case.

"A congressional repeal of the D.C. gun ban right now could erase the recent court victory," he said, referring to the March 9 ruling by U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

"All of our hard work would be wasted," Gura warned.

"We have to work with the members of Congress to make sure that if they want to express themselves legislatively on the D.C. gun ban, they can do so in a way that preserves the issue for litigation, Gura said.

Second Amendment supporters have waited many years for the right case to bring before the U.S. Supreme Court. Their goal is for the highest court in the land to interpret the Second Amendment in a way that reinforces the constitutional right of individuals to own guns.

Gura said Congress can "implement the Parker decision without killing it" by allowing interstate handgun sales and forcing the District to accept normal instant background checks.

Robert Levy, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the case, noted that Parker v. District of Columbia "considered the question that has divided Second Amendment scholars for decades: Does the right to keep and bear arms belong to us as individuals or does the Constitution merely recognize the collective right of the states to arm their militias?"

Levy, who is also senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, stated that the "D.C. government has been totally ineffective at disarming violent criminals, but at the same time, the government has done a superb job of disarming decent and peaceful residents."

Noting that he and Gura represent "six plaintiffs who live in the District, pay their taxes in the District and obey the laws in the District," Levy stated that "D.C. says if somebody breaks into their house, their only way to obtain remedy is to call 911 and hope that the police arrive on time."

"That's not a good enough remedy," he added. "The right to keep and bear arms includes, of course, the right to defend your property and your family, and most of all, your life.

"There have been more than three dozen challenges to the D.C. ban," Levy said, but "mostly, they've been filed by criminals who are serving longer sentences for gun possession."

Gura agreed that "the history of Second Amendment litigation brought by criminals is very poor compared to what we have achieved. The question is not whether the Supreme Court will decide the issue, but whether it will do so with our case -- or the next common criminal who's presenting the Second Amendment in an unfavorable light."

"It's sad, I think, for us to have a basic, fundamental right defined within the lens and context of a criminal proceeding," Gura added.

'The Constitution is on our side'

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's decision on Friday, March 9. Senior Judge Laurence Silberman and Judge Thomas Griffith stated in their opinion: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."

"We could not have asked for a more unequivocal and explicit statement," Levy declared. "The Constitution is on our side."

Looking to the future, Gura said he expects the District of Columbia to ask for review of the case by the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. "We're not super concerned about this being overturned by the full court, and of course, we're fairly confident and hopeful that the Supreme Court can read the Constitution as well," he noted.

Levy added that those involved in the case "want the problem to be solved nationwide," another reason they are against Congress repealing the gun ban in the nation's capital. "That would do nothing outside of Washington, D.C.," he said.

Gura noted that he and Levy "have been spending a lot of time on the Hill meeting with people" about the need for careful action by Congress, "and we think the message is getting through."

Gura said that he and Levy met on Thursday with leaders from the National Rifle Association, "which had been pushing this legislation" to eliminate the D.C. gun ban, but "we believe that they've seen the light. They've given us their assurances that they are not interested in ruining the case."

"And [NRA President] Wayne LaPierre told us we can take that to the bank," Gura said.

However, "the anti-gun people are a different story," he stated. "We have gotten word that at least one group is now trying to push for a legislative appeal because, frankly, they don't want this in the Supreme Court, and the reason they don't want this in the Supreme Court is because they're going to lose."

But the optimism expressed by Gura and Levy on Thursday apparently didn't extend to Capitol Hill, where Democrats sidelined a bill that would have granted the District of Columbia voting rights in the House of Representatives because it contained a measure repealing the D.C. gun ban.

Instead of moving ahead, Democrats indefinitely postponed a vote on the entire package. Supporters of D.C. voting rights accused Republicans of injecting a poison pill (the D.C. gun ban) into the legislation.

Levy had some advice for Americans who believe that an outright gun ban is necessary for public safety. "The way to go about that is to change the Constitution. We cannot simply ignore the Constitutional provision and act as though the document does not exist.

"As a nation, we have chosen to have a written Constitution, and it has served us well for more than two centuries," he added.

I would not be surprised if the District of Columbia does not appeal this decision - the Anti Gun folks have too much to lose if the Supremes get the case.

Technorati Tags:, , ,
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Friday, March 23, 2007

Fox News"Fair and Balanced'"?

Gun Enthusiasts Mobilize in Blogosphere in New Era For Grassroots

Friday, March 23, 2007

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

This is the article that appears today on the Fox News Web Site.,2933,260492,00.html

The article looks "Fair and Balanced" but look at the photograph that the editors shows to use.

The firearm in the photo might be a semi-auto but it looks like it also might be a machine pistol, or a MAC 10 and it's clearly not representative of the kind of firearm that Second Amendment advocates are talking about.

To the general public it looks like Fox News is saying through its symbolic use of this picture, that the pro Second Amendment bloggers are trying to protect their rights to this kind of weapon. While it may be true that legal ownership of sub-machine guns or semi-autos that look like them, are a component of the overall issue, they are a very small ingredient in the debate.

So why did Fox News choose to use this picture, if not to represent and "unfair and unbalanced" perspective that colors their "fair and balanced" article.

Winchester Legacy in 357 Magnum

A couple of years ago I indulged my fancy for lever action rifles by picking up a new Winchester Legacy in 357 Magnum. The gun was bought at Wal-Mart and the price was right.

Over the next two years I would occasionally take it out and try my luck at 100 yards, using stock S&B 158 grain ammo. The gun's open sights consistently did very well.

But none of my recent results matched those I achieved yesterday.

Maybe it was the balmy 75 degree temperature. Or maybe my eyes are just getting better.

Here are a couple of targets reflecting great groups fired from a sandbag at 100 yards, using the gun's stock iron sights.

These results exceed what I get from my Winchester 94 in 30-30.

I have never used the gun for hunting, but I am encouraged that out to 100 yards it would do a fine job on deer. Unfortunately, with the close of the Conn. Winchester plant, the Winchester 94 is currently out of production. My gun will now cost you almost twice as much "new" than I paid. Hopefully, someone will take on the Winchester legacy and start producing these again.

Technorati Tags:, ,
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Thursday, March 22, 2007

In Search of the Second Amendment

There is a new documentary out for purchase on DVD - its likely the first of its kind to fully explore the Second Amendment issue.

You can learn more about it here:

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Why they hate guns

Ever wonder why the anti-gun folks hate guns?

Here are a few possible reasons.

1. They fear violence and feel impotent to deal with it, resenting those who are not afraid to confront violence with violence.

2. The powerlessness they feel is projected onto the object of the gun instead of the behavior of humans, since its easier to vilify the tool rather than deal with the abuse of the tool.

3. They feel superior to others who would use a weapon for defense, offense or sport because in their view of the world people who use weapons are unsophisticated and lack the moral discipline to refrain from violence to humans or other living creatures. They view hunters as blood thirsty, beer drinking, red necks or hicks that are an outdated remnant of our past.

4. They don't trust themselves to handle a deadly weapon and they therefore don't trust you.

5. They could handle a weapon but see no need to in a civilized society and they don't trust you because you are not a civilized as they are.

If the anti-gun folks held sway around the time of Jesus, they would have advocated the banning of all knives, swords, axes, bows and arrows etc., which were the main means of offense and defense in those days.

They would ban edged weapons today if the gun wasn't conveniently available as the more visible object of disdain.

They refuse the see that weapons have always been used for defensive and hunting purposes and that humans would not be around today if they had not developed such tools.

The danger in their world view is they are eternally naive. They really think that the elimination of the tool will eliminate bad behavior. They would disarm you and hope that the bad guys would go away. They likely would support disarming in general, and hope that other countries learn by our example and play nice. In short, too often these anti-gun folks are just in denial about the reality of the world we live in.

The next time you meet someone who doesn't believe that you should have the means for your own protection, ask them, ....what would you do if you child or spouse was about to be murdered and you had the choice of saving their life by being armed or watching them die before your eyes, because your were impotent by choice.

Most normal folks would answer, saying something like....of course if I had a weapon I would try to save my loved one's life.

But most anti-gun folks would argue that the likelihood of the necessity to have the means for self protection are small and are far outweighed by the potential that the gun would be stolen, misused by a child etc. or would not be within reach when they will take their chances. They are in denial that it could happen to them.

They have the right to decide to place their family at risk, but they don't have right to decide that you should place your family at risk. This is the fundamental premise of the Second amendment. Individuals have an inherent right to self defense. It is not granted by any government. The Constitution merely articulates this natural right enabling it to stand in law so that the government is prevented from acting to deny this natural right.

Over the next many months, the people of the District of Columbia will debate among themselves if they are comfortable trusting themselves to legally own guns in their homes. When the legal issue is finally resolved, those that can meet the basic qualifications to purchase a weapon will be able to do so. The anti-gunners won't buy the guns. They will hope the police show up in time. The gun buyers will hope their guns stay secure and ready. The criminals may think twice about who to rob. Gun violence will likely continue, but at a reduce rate. But at least the people will have a choice.

Technorati Tags:, , , , ,
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Democrats Just Don't Get It

What follows is a description of recent legislation proposed my the anti-Second Amendment Democrats in the house.

It has no chance of passing before the Presidential elections in 2008.

If it gets to a house vote, I will be surprised, but Democrats being Democrats might commit political suicide by forcing a vote before the election.

The real issue is - they just won't stop with this the real danger exists that after 2008 with a Democrat in the White House, this kind of legislation might actually be approved.

This is from the NRA Legislative Action Web Page:

The Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Introduced In Congress; McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban

Saturday, February 24, 2007

On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, “to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.”
McCarthy’s verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by “assault weapons ban” is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.
With the nation’s murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy’s “other purposes” would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:
• Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)
• Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)
• All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have “any characteristic that can function as a grip,” and would also ban their main component, called the “receiver.”)
• All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have “any characteristic that can function as a grip.”
• Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 “Garand.”)
• Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn’t “sporting,” even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.
• 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.
H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned “assault weapon” with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.
Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to oppose H.R. 1022!
You can call your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.

Friday, March 16, 2007


No its not the name of a Russian Vodka.

The Makarov is a well respected pistol of Soviet design used mainly by Russia and former Eastern Block nations. Many have been imported into this country and have a loyal following among pistol enthusiasts.

I acquired a Russian Makarov in .380 with adjustable sights and an East German Makarov in 9 x 18 Makarov caliber. Both are well made, function without any issues and are accurate even out to 25 yards.

Bulgarian Makarov's are available for $200+ and East German's for around $325.

Here is a timely and great article about the Makarov's at

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Accuracy at a reasonable price

A few years ago, I purchased a Remington 700 VSF and scoped it with a Leupold 14X scope. At the time the total cost of the gun, scopes, rings etc. was around $1,000.

I use this gun solely for target shooting at 100 yards. Its in .308 so the effective range may be out to 400 or more, but in my area it's hard to find a place to shoot long range.

Out of the box, the gun produced 1 inch groups, but since I handload my results always been better than that. Using a load of 39 grains of Accurate 2015BR and a Sierra 168 grain match bullet, the other day I shot 20 rounds at 100 yards. My best group was 3/4 inch.Many shooters will by far more expensive guns to get this kind of accuracy, but clearly handloading has a lot to do with it.

The current version of this gun by Remington has a MSRP of over $1,000 but you can get it for around $800+.

Protecting your right to defend yourself

The Senate has passed legislation to prohibit local government from confiscating weapons during an emergency. The Associate Press reports. "Senate OKs bill to bar taking guns during emergency"


Associated Press

People could not have their guns taken away during an emergency under a bill that won first-round approval Wednesday from the Senate.

The legislation spells out that no government or individual can decide in an emergency to take away guns and ammunition from those who lawfully possess them.

"It's not adding any rights. It's just preventing the rights from being taken away from them," said Sen. Kevin Engler, R-Farmington.

The impetus for the bill is the response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in August 2005.

State and federal law enforcement officers there confiscated hundreds of guns after the levees failed and the city began to flood. Several pro-gun groups, including the National Rifle Association, sued, and the city last spring began returning the weapons to owners who had paperwork for them.

Since the hurricane, gun-rights groups have launched nationwide campaigns to prevent the seizure of guns during emergencies.

But one senator said the legislation goes too far and proposed various failed amendments that would have added restrictions to gun owners' rights.

"You have set up here an absolute right as broad as the ocean," said Sen. Joan Bray, D-St. Louis. "I don't think guns need to be such a big part of problem solving."

The measure eventually was approved on a voice vote. It needs a second vote to move to the House, where a similar measure is already pending.

It will be interesting to see how the current crop of presidential hopefuls in the Congress (e.g., Hillary Clinton, etc.) vote on this one.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

How to Support the Second Amendment

As the battle ground over the interpretation of the Second amendment moves potentially to the United States Supreme Court, it is an appropriate moment to consider ways to mobilize opinion and support for an individual right interpretation.

One way is to organize a "I support an Individual's Right to Keep and Bear Arms" campaign that asks businesses to display signs on their premises, in their printed adds, and on their Web Sites proclaiming just that.

With approximately 80 million plus gun owners, those that do take a stand on the issue may well gain some market share. Those that refuse can also be identified and targeted for boycott by those inclined to act with their wallets.

Now is a good time to take this concept seriously - and move on it with a broad based coalition of national and local gun rights proponents.

To gain broad acceptance, key national corporations would have to be brought on board early.

Maybe this idea can get some traction soon?

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Gun Permits on the Web

The protests of hundreds has shut down the Gun Permit database on the Roanoke Time's Web Site. The paper claims they took the data off because they had reasons to believe the data supplied by the Virginia State Police may not have been entirely accurate. They wanted to now be cautious to protect individuals who should not have been on the data base.

This excuse is as disingenuous as the their original stated purpose for publishing the data.

The paper was overwhelmed by the negative outcry and the likelihood that they now recognized their own potential financial liability if criminals ever used this information to target a permit holder for theft or other criminal acts.

Gun rights groups in Virginia reacted quickly to this situation and the immediate response of Permit holders was overwhelming.

Now a little lesson may have been learned in Virginia about attempts to unleash this kind of massive missile against law abiding gun owners.

But what happens if the Anti Gun lobby itself decides to use this as a tactic. What if the Brady Gun Control organization etc, requests the same data from the State Police. What if they publish it on their Web site.

Conclusion: We need legislation to prevent this abuse from happening again.

Monday, March 12, 2007

Roanoke Newspaper Puts CCW Holders on the Web

Yesterday to the amazement of many Concealed Carry Permit holders in Virginia, a Roanoke Newspaper "The Roanoke Times", put all 130,000+ CCW holders up on the papers Web site for all the world to know about.

The Web site created a searchable database to make it easy to find all holders by last name or view all holders for a particular locality.

This is an example of the availability of a public record gone amok - these records were never intended for mass distribution, yet in Virginia a simple request to the state police and payment of a small fee, got them released on CDs, to this media outlet.

The intended purpose was to bring to light which neighbor or co-worker might be "packing" ...the kind of information the paper felt all Virginia's have a right to know about.

The author of this piece, Christian Trejbal, even suggests that Virginia should be the ones to publish the list just like they distribute the identities of convicted sex offenders.

Now that the list is on the Internet, it will be copied and posted elsewhere. The permit holders know that this information may be mis-used by;

- Criminals looking for the addresses where firearms may be available for stealing
- Employers looking to determine what staff member might be "packing"
- Neighbors who are just curious about the gun guy next door

In this world some people resent those who own, use and have the nerve to carry concealed handguns legally. These folks may use the information to discriminate against permit holders in social, political and work environments. This is unfortunate and in the case of employers poking about the database, could lead to actions against employees that impact their financial standing.

There are two key issues surfaced by this event.

1. Why are these records available for distribution to anybody? Shouldn't they be considered private records? Clearly legislation is required at the National and/or local level to fix this.

2. Why would a media outlet want to unleash this data on the Net?
Clearly to add to some notoriety for its authors and the newspaper to increase circulation!
But also, to continue a political agenda of trying to imply that citizens who legally posses handguns and have the approval of the State to carry those handguns are somehow suspect, and must cautiously be regarded as to the risk they pose in the larger society. This dovetails nicely with the larger cultural vision, of marginalizing gun owners in the society. Somehow 2% of Virginians who hold carry permits are too be considered "extremists" warranting scrutiny of the media, the public, and their neighbors (and criminals who care to notice).

The solution to the second issue cited is complicated. A indignant backlash by Permit holders would help. But only the combined power of firearm advocates will put a stop to this type of tactic. Legislation is the answer and lets proceed without delay.

Sunday, March 11, 2007

D.C. Gun Ban Coverage

Its fascinating following the news coverage of this federal court ruling. Most of the media is representing the issue as a potentially dangerous precedent that could unleash hoards of new guns into society.

Some in the media are trying to show the issue in a balanced way, and today's Washington Post had a balanced discussion (surprisingly) of the good reasons why the Plaintiff's joined in the court case.

One has got to ask a simple question. Why is it that since 1976 the government of the District of Columbia has seen fit to deny its law abiding citizen's the right and ability to defend themselves in their own homes. A right and capability enjoyed by the District's neighbors in Maryland and Virginia and in most of the country.

Could it be that this really is an inherently racist practice in the guise of well meaning legislation?

Most of DC's citizen's are black. Would this law banning the ownership of firearms in the home (handguns) be on the books today if the majority of the citizens of DC were white? I think not.

The black community is the predominate victim of crime committed in DC. Yet black community leaders are not proponents of the right to self defense. Why ? Are they also buying in to the incipiently racist viewpoint that more guns legally owned by blacks would produce more crime. That blacks can't be trusted to own and responsibility use handguns?

Its time to empower all the law abiding citizens of this great city to do what most of the rest of the country has long been able to do....namely, have the ability to defend their lives and that of their families.

The time has come for change.

It is time to trust the people's rights, not fear them.

Friday, March 9, 2007

Court Rules Against D.C. Handgun Law

This could be the beginning of the end for the anti gunners argument that the Second Ammendment is only a collective right for maintaining a Militia etc.

A federal Appeals court has now ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms. D.C.'s law preventing the ownership of a handgun violates the constitution.

D.C. will ask the full court to sustain the ruling, which was issued by a three member panel.

If they lose again, D.C. could ask the Supreme Court to intervene. It is not likely that D.C. would request a Supreme Court review because the Anti-Gun lobby has too much to lose if the court agrees with the Appeals court decision.

At this moment it is very likely that the full Appeals court would support the decision of its 3 member panel.....stay tuned because this could be the straw that breaks the Anti-Gun lobby's back.