Thursday, January 31, 2008

Using your cell phone for self defense

Are you too busy with life to spend any time learning to use a gun effectively for self defense? Are you unable to find a Police Officer who is willing to go with you everyplace you go? Unable to afford the cost of paying a team of armed security guards like the team that Rosie O'Donnell uses to watch over herself & her family?

Well never fear. When seconds count, and Police are minutes away, you can always use your cell phone as a crime deterrent device:

Free 8 1/2 x 11 targets at

There are many fun shooting games to play while shooting at the range other than the standard bulls eye type target. My boys & I have had all kinds of fun shooting at paper targets that I downloaded & printed out for free from Just to name a few of our favorites they have stars, milk bottles, bowling pins, birds on a wire, balloons, tic tac toe, billiard balls, fish in a barrel (just like gun free zones), & many more.

Check it out before your next trip to the range. You're sure to have barrels of fun. :)

If any of you have other similar sites you like to use to get your paper targets please let me know via the comment link below.

BB gun club denied approval to hold event at school

In State College Pensylvania, a BB gun club sought approval to hold a BB gun sports event at a middle school in the State College Area School District. They needed the school board to grant a one time exception to their existing "Zero Tolerance" Gun Policy so that the children who wish to participate in the event could bring their BB gun with them (It would be difficult to hold the event without BB guns). The current policy states that weapons and replicas of weapons are prohibited at all School District buildings.

The idea alone has already divided the school board, with some members saying they are worried about sending mixed messages to kids about bringing BB guns to school.

“We have had expulsions that have involved this policy,” said Lou Ann Evans, one of three board members who voted Monday against putting the proposal on the agenda for the next meeting.

I for one think it would have been a great event for the children to teach them gun safety & allow them to participate in a fun shooting sport. Shooting a BB gun is a lot safer than many popular sports played at schools such as Football (nothing against Football of course), so why can't they hold a BB gun shooting event at the school?

Unfortunately the board met this past Monday on Jan 28th & decided to NOT allow the exception:
After much discussion and community comment, the board voted not to make an exception to the district weapons policy for the BB gun championship competition’s request to use district facilities.
I say SHAME on THEM! Yet another example of Zero Tolerance with Zero Intelligent Thought!

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

John Stossel Links Gun Control to Higher Crime Rates

20/20 ABC anchor John Stossel links Gun Control to higher crime rates & discusses common myths of gun control.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Yet more Zero Tolerance Idiocy

Say Uncle & Bruce reported yet another example of Zero Tolerance Policy idiocy. A child was suspended for 3 days because he was writing with a pen that had a Glock logo on it in Georgia. Yes that is right - suspended for having the name Glock written on a pen. What exactly does that school administrator have against a perfectly nice Austrian family name? The boy was suspended for 3 days on Friday Jan 18th, 2008 (I took the liberty of correcting a few spelling errors):

. . . So, my phone rings Friday afternoon. It's the vice principal from my son's school saying that he needs to discuss a serious situation about my son. When I asked him what was going on, he tells me that a pen bearing a Glock logo is forbidden by school policy and that I need to come and pick up my son because there is a mandatory 3 day suspension because of the violation. Apparently, one of my son's teachers saw him writing with the pen during an assignment.

While I have the VP on the telephone, I retrieve my son's student handbook. Flipping though it, I see that weapons, replica weapons, pictures of weapons, and weapon images on keychains or other items are forbidden. The pen I had given him was one I picked up at a law enforcement firearms competition last year - which bore only the Glock logo, but not an image or rendition of a firearm. Nowhere does it say that a firearm company logo is restricted by school policy. I explain this to the VP.

So, the VP gets his handbook and looks through it. He was in agreement that the pen did not directly violate the policy, but that the Glock name was commonly known to be a firearm and therefore it technically was in violation . . .
After the boy, his father, and their attorney met with the Superintendent on Tuesday Jan 22nd, the suspension was overturned:
Well, the verdict is in...

I arrived at the superintendent's office at about 8:45am. He was already in his office and readily met with my Uncle Bill (my attorney), my son, and myself. He seemed to be rather nice and agreed that the suspension was uncalled for because the pen was not a physical or graphic representation of a weapon. He admitted that it was a bad judgment call on the VPs part which should have been thought over a little more; especially since my son does not have a disciplinary record. He apologized for the problem and told us that my son could return to school and that the disciplinary would be removed.

I took my son to school and met with the VP. This guy is about 30 years old and looks like a poster child for gay bathhouses. He did apologize lightly, but did not seem overly happy about it. Apparently the superintendent called him about 5am this morning and told him to 'make it right'. Our meeting very short. The VP ran off and left us with a receptionist. She apologized; returned the pen and gave us the disciplinary that removed from his record. I made sure by looking in his record folder while in the office that it was gone. I have all three copies of it now (white, yellow, and pink) - so there is not another copy of it in existence.

I returned the Glock pen to my son to use until it dies. At which point the pen becomes inoperable, I will be giving him another Glock pen. As far as I am concerned, he can use Glock pens forever . . .

As many have said, Zero Tolerance=Zero Thought

Update: Some have asked where to get their own glock pen that they can send to school with their children. This is actually a better pen than the promotional pen that they give away at events, I plan to order one myself.

Monday, January 28, 2008

Armed wheelchair bound man alive & well

Thanks to the fact that he was armed & prepared to defend himself, an armed man bound to a wheelchair in Atlanta Georgia, was able to fight off a man who attacked him just outside his home. He is alive & uninjured, but the status of his attacker is unknown other than he was taken to the hospital with gunshot wounds in his arm & chest. I'm very glad that he made the correct choice to be prepared to defend himself. Otherwise the headline probably would have been "Man in a wheelchair murdered by a thief."

Update: Additional coverage here.

Friday, January 25, 2008

AZ Legislation to remove ban on CCW weapons in schools

New legislation has been proposed in Arizona to exempt CCW permit holders from the existing Arizona ban on having a weapon in public establishments, polling places, and schools. Currently in Arizona anyone who gets caught bringing a weapon onto school grounds who is not a Police officer will go to jail. This is of course a violation of the 2nd Amendment to infringe on the rights of citizens to bear arms, as well as a violation of our God given right to self protection wherever we are legally allowed to be.

The net effect of this legislation if it is passed & does not get vetoed by our current liberal Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, would be to allow citizens 21 & older who have gone through the process to get a CCW permit: taken the required training, passed the local Police & national FBI background checks, been fingerprinted, passed the shooting competence test, etc, to carry concealed on school grounds. That would at least partially get rid of the existing Arizona school gun free zones, more aptly called "defenseless victim zones" that currently exists in all schools in Arizona. I know that I for one, would rest easier knowing that perhaps a teacher or a principle at my children's Elementary school would be allowed to have the means to defend themselves & my children from any madman who might walk onto campus expecting to find defenseless victims.

This does not of course reach the ultimate level of freedom that I desire but it is at least a step in the right direction. If you live in Arizona, please contact your legislators & ask them to support Arizona HB 2628. Another good bill with similar changes introduced in the Arizona Senate is SB 1214.

You should check out the discussion taking place related to these bills here & here. It is rather heated.

Update: Also be sure to participate in this related poll. No registration or e-mail address is required to participate.

Update2: Check out this AZCCC interview about SB 1214.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

.223 ammo scarce?

I often buy ammo at Walmart & was dismayed the other day when I went to Walmart to buy a few boxes of .223 rounds to do some plinking with my AR-15 at the range, and they only had one 20 round box left. I picked up their last box & asked when their next shipment would come in, and was told that their warehouse was all out of stock. He didn't know when more would be coming in.

Luckily I ended up finding an even better solution - I ordered 1200 rounds of 5.56 193 spec ammo including shipping online for considerably less than the Walmart price on the .223 rounds I had been using & the package will arrive on Monday via UPS ground. My boys & I will have a lot of fun shooting our AR-15 at the gun range once it arrives. Hopefully it will last for at least a few evenings of fun before I need to order my next batch. :)

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

2008 Arizona Legislative Session

It's that time of year. There are many good & bad bills that have been introduced in the Arizona Legislature. Go to the AZCDL News page for updates.

Many great bills in there this year that we should support, and some very bad bills that we need to fight. Just to list a few good bills:

Here Lie Disarmed Victims

Gun rights proponents outnumbered gun grabbers 3 to 1 & held up signs saying "Here Lie Disarmed Victims," "Life is precious. Guns protect it," and "Freedom is not a loophole," while the gun grabbers held a "Lie in" to represent the Virginia Tech victims in support of a bill to prevent Virginia citizens from being able to sell their own firearms to other citizens while at gun shows (a practice that gun grabbers fondly like to call a "gun-show loophole". I guess they want the citizens to instead have to arrange to meet at the local Coffee Shop after the Gun Show to close the deal instead of simply finishing up while still at the Gun Show. Anything that gun grabbers can legislate in an effort to make the lives of law abiding citizens more complicated is not too low for them to stoop.

Those in favor of yet more useless gun control laws are ignoring the fact that the CDC (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention) executed a study on existing gun laws & found absolutely zero evidence that ANY gun control regulations have reduced violent crime anywhere that it has been enacted. It is also interesting that they want to prevent law abiding citizens from being able to buy & sell their own guns at gun shows supposedly to prevent a future VT like shooting in face of the fact that the madman did not even secure his weapons in such a fashion.

The real cause of the VT shooting other than the obvious madman himself is the Gun Free Zone policy at VT or in other words the "Defenseless Victim Zone," "Fish in a Barrel Zone," or the "Disarmed Victim Killing Zone" which are much more fitting terms for the ludicrous disarming policy at VT & many other colleges in the US. VT disarmed its law abiding students without any regard to their God given right to have an ability to defend themselves & in so doing left them at the mercy of a madman with nobody around to protect them.

It isn't the guns you gun grabbers should fear, it's the crazy folks & the criminals we let out on the streets EVERY DAY on Parole. Lock them up in a padded room when it is possible, but since we don't currently have the ability to predict who the next madman will be with enough certainly to lock them up as a preemptive strike, it is important that we instead prepare ourselves to defend our families & our lives from both the crazies as well as the convicted criminals who are currently walking our streets looking for their next victim while out on parole.

Colin Goddard, a VT survivor was quoted as saying:

"There are people within our society who we deem capable and correct, our police forces who are supposed to protect us — and I put my full trust in them."
I hate to break it to you Mr. Goddard, but even VT Police Chief Wendell Flinchum stated what should be obvious to all of us: "We obviously can't have an armed guard in front of every classroom every day of the year." You're welcome to place your full trust in the ability of the Police to protect you from every possible crazy man or criminal out on the streets just as the other victims who did not survive their encounter with the madman may have, but instead you may want to consider the fact that their unfounded faith in such an ability, (if such faith they did indeed have, as we can't exactly ask any of them that question now) did not save them from that madman.

On the other hand, a gun in the hands of just one of the intended victims would have leveled the playing field on that fateful day, especially since the madman would not have known who would be armed, giving the armed student a distinct advantage. I can't prove that a gun in the hands of a victim could have saved many lives at VT, but you can't argue with the fact that it would have increased the odds in favor of the victims. There were also the two other school shootings that were cut short by citizens with guns long before Police could arrive. Not to mention the recent Church shooting cut short by an armed citizen. But don't let the facts get in the way of your one track minds. Hoplophobia, Crazies, and Criminals are not your problem. It's the law abiding gun owners that you need to attack.

To find out how you can help fight this proposed Virginia legislation contact the VCDL. It is scheduled for a vote tomorrow, Wednesday Jan 23rd.

Update: Other responses: Armed & Safe, Bitter, Nicki, Sailor Curt, Snowflakes. & War on Guns.

Friday, January 18, 2008

Good news Arizona Game & Fish Decided Against Lead Ammo Ban

Good news in Arizona - The Arizona Game & Fish Commission met today & Decided Against the Lead Ammo Ban. Below is the NRA-ILA update:

Friday, January 18, 2008

Thank You for Your Attendance and Vocal Opposition to the Ban!

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission met today to discuss a number of issues related to the firearms and hunting community, but most importantly the impact that spent lead ammunition has on wildlife.

According to NRA representatives who attended and testified before the Commission, the room was filled with NRA members and hunters who were there to make sure that a California-style lead ammunition ban wasn't brought forward. The members of the commission made it clear that they had no plan for a ban and that they supported the voluntary compliance program currently followed in Arizona (a description of the program can be found on the AZ Game and Fish website at website).

Thank you to NRA Board of Director Don Saba who gave a very powerful presentation debunking the "junk science" put forth by the advocates of the California lead ammunition ban. Thanks to Board of Director Todd Rathner, who spoke on behalf of NRA's official position, and all the NRA members who took time out of their busy schedules to attend the meeting and voice their opposition!

Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Great tools for planning travel with a weapon

These are some of my favorite online tools for planning travel in the US with a weapon, in order to determine how I am allowed to have my weapon as I cross state borders. If any of you have other sites that you like to use for this let me know via comment tool & I'll add them to this post:

Thursday, January 17, 2008

The Nanny Police State

Say uncle has alerted us to yet another attempt of government to be our Nanny.

This is yet more evidence of what happens when the Government thinks it is our Nanny. First they want to tell us what kind of guns we’re responsible enough to own, or that we have to take our child to the ER when all he needs is ice, and now they want to decide what kind of pets we’re responsible enough to own. They also want to tell us what temperature we can set our thermostat to & what kind of card games we can play in our homes.

As for myself, I don’t need no stinking Nanny. All I want the government to do is maintain the roads & keep the illegals out of our country (I’m fine with legal immigrants, it’s the illegals that I worry about). Is that so hard? Get the heck out of my life Mr Nanny, I can brush my teeth by myself!

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

I would prefer to bring a gun to a gun fight

Women in Albany, GA are learning Tae Kwon Do or Karate so that they can defend themselves against increasing crime:

News of an increase in violent crime may encourage you to learn how to fight back. Some Albany women are doing all they can to make sure they don't become crime victims . . .

when it comes time to defend herself, she knows it's no laughing matter. She's one of a growing number of women signing up for self-defense classes . . .

"With crime rates increasing, I worry about my safety," she said . . .

"Women being hurt, thrown in the trunk of the car, end up in their demise and its very important they know some kind of self defense," Robinson adds . . .
I think it is very good to learn Tae Kwon Do, Karate, or other hand to hand combat skills, but I hope they also plan to get handgun self defense training, apply for their CCW, & to carry a gun that they can use in a gun fight. Hand to Hand combat skills are very helpful in hand to hand combat, and it is true that statistically everyone is better off fighting back than submitting no matter what tools they use. However, a gun is a much better tool for use in a gun fight, and bringing a gun to a gun fight will increase your odds exponentially over only bringing your bare hands. After all, jumping out of the way of flying bullets usually only works in movies like The Matrix.

A gun is a great equalizer - a gun in the hands of a 120 Lb woman makes her equal to an armed 250 Lb attacker, and with some training she can easily become superior. As the old saying goes: "God made man and God made woman, but Samuel Colt made them equal."

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

NSSF Working to Educate the Media

Check out the below video of the NSSF & Tom Gresham (Host of Gun Talk Radio & Personal Defense TV) working to educate the Media about the AR-15 platform. The video starts out with a posted flyer titled "Black Sheep No More." During the interviews of the newly converted press members you can hear the sweet sound of the AR-15 being fired by members of the press at the outdoor gun range. So much fun, so little Ammo.

Goofball thinks limiting magazine capacity would "save lives"

Zachary Kurpias thinks limiting magazine & revolver capacity to 4 rounds would save lives. There are more holes in his argument than the last target I used at the gun range.

We can reduce the level of fear in America.
Start with yourself, since you appear to have a severe case of hoplophobia. It would make much more sense for you to fear the criminal rather than his gun. To reduce your fear of criminals you should support legislation that puts criminals where they belong, behind bars, and I don't mean for 6 months followed by 5 years of probation. Even better, get yourself some self defense training and good tools to have for your own defense. Guns are the best tool for the task because guns are used on average every 13 seconds to prevent crime, 98% of the time without even needing to fire a single shot (from The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995). It makes sense because when they look down the barrel of an armed "victim" & possible death, most criminals would much rather either go to jail or run away to live to find a new victim another day.
There are pistols on the market that will give the shooter 19 shots before reloading. Recharging the weapon only requires pressing a button, dropping the used clip and inserting a fresh clip holding another 19 rounds. That can be done in less time then it takes to read this sentence.
First of all it is called a magazine, not a clip. If you want to attack guns at least learn the proper terminology. Secondly, as you mentioned, exchanging magazines can be done very rapidly with only a small amount of practice, so there is little difference between swapping out ten 5 round magazines, five 10 round magazines, & four 12 round magazines. Depending on the level of experience there might be as little as 5 to 10 seconds added to the total time to account for the required magazine exchanges with roughly the same number of shots fired down range, so limits on magazine size would not reduce the lethality of criminal activity with guns even if it were possible to get rid of larger magazines.

JOE CITIZEN should be able to perform a one-for-one free exchange of their clips, magazines, ammo tubes or revolver cylinders, at any gun store in the United States. Law-abiding citizens who agree to practice responsible gun ownership should not be charged or penalized for making this sacrifice.

The devices that are turned in should be given to certified law enforcement officers in the public and private sectors. Let those who have taken on the liability and responsibility to protect us have the firepower they need to perform their mission.

Actually the Supreme Court has found that law enforcement is not responsible nor liable for the safety of individual citizens. They are tasked with providing as much safety as possible for the public at large, but are not able to guarantee the safety of individual citizens. Often their task is to gather evidence at the crime scene after the criminal has already completed the crime, and they will then try to determine who the criminal was & then attempt to find him. If the criminal is later caught, the Prosecutor will attempt to use gathered evidence to prosecute & place the criminal in jail for a period of time, but that is of little benefit to the victims who were left in the wake of the criminal's path, nor to future victims waiting to be victimized during the upcoming parole period.
I have questions to ask concerning this ammunition capacity issue. Why do we, average citizens, need weapons that will fire six to 50 bullets before reloading? What kind of hunters are we that can’t drop a bear, or other vicious animal, with four rounds? What kind of self-defense problem do we have to face that our weapon of choice can have the capability to kill 10 to 20 human beings? . . .

I am of the opinion that the number of rounds a weapon can fire before reloading should be four. This is regardless of the type of weapon.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting, nor does it specify what is "needed" in the way of arms & what is not. It simply states that the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not state that only the right to bear weapons with magazines that only hold 4 or less rounds shall not be infringed. Aside from that, if you were to ever find yourself in a situation of being under attack by one or more criminals you would probably rather be in a situation of having more rounds than you need than to be in a situation where you run out.

If you disagree, feel free to arm yourself with only 4 rounds, after all, we do live in a mostly free country. As for me, I like to have 1 in the barrel, 15 in the magazine, and a spare 15 round magazine as a backup with me at all times where I'm legally allowed, plus some extra spare magazines in my car & in my home. I hope to never need to use my gun for defense of myself & my family, much less to need all 31+ rounds. However, if the need ever does arise, the need would be great, and I'd rather be prepared with extra backup rounds than to be found lacking in a moment of great need.

Miami Herald spreading lies & misinformation

The Lamestream Media is at it again - The Miami Herald is spreading lies & misinformation.

The article is so full of misinformation that I don't know where to begin. What I really want to know is how people "made a few bucks" by spending around $600 to $1,000.00 plus sales tax to buy legal semi-automatic AK-47's at gun stores & then turning around to sell them on the black market for $100 or $200? Sounds like such criminals would be out of business very quickly.

''Someone will go in and buy a number of these weapons, legally, and then they'll turn around and sell them out of the trunk of their car, illegally,'' said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. ``It's a fast and easy way to make a few bucks.'' . . .
According to Miami's police chief . . .

''They're everywhere,'' Timoney said. ``At $100 or $200, everyone can afford one of these killing machines.''

Monday, January 14, 2008

Petition to Save the Second Amendment

Everyone should sign this Save the Second Amendment petition. This is in response to the Solicitor General's filing.

Saturday, January 12, 2008

US Government supports DC Gun Ban?!

My jaw hit the floor when I read the twisted argument made by the US Solicitor General in support of reversing the DC Court decision to hold the DC handgun ban as unconstitutional.

Quick read: Gov't says, yes, it's an individual right. BUT we join with DC in asking Court to reverse the DC Circuit, because it applied strict scrutiny to the DC law. It should only have applied an intermediate standard. That is, the legal position of the US is that DC CIrcuit was wrong, a complete ban on handguns is NOT per se unconstitutional, it all depends on how good a reason DC can prove for it.
I guess I should not be surprised since Bush has already said he would not veto a renewal to the ban on semi-automatic rifles that have removable magazines & two or more "evil features" such as a barrel shroud (shield to protect shooter from burning his or her hand on rifle barrel) or a pistol grip (helps shooter have good control of the gun) if such a bill were to be approved by congress. Bush is WAY too liberal for my taste - a so-called "moderate" as the Liberal press likes to call him which to me means Liberal who is a Republican in name only. Our country needs a true conservative who is in FULL support of individual liberty & the 2nd Amendment to be elected in our next election. Anything less is not acceptable.

H/T to Sebastian & Of Arms & the Law.

Also see related commentary from Front Sight, Press, The NRA, Say Uncle, Alphecca, The Liberty Sphere, The Liberty Zone, Red's Trading Post, John R Lott, & David Kopel.

Update #2: Much stronger reaction from the NRA.

Update #3: Reaction from the Second Amendment Foundation.

Friday, January 11, 2008

Dial 911 and Die, or Defend Yourself

Audio from a 911 call was released yesterday of a woman in Hammond, Indiana, who had dialed 911 last November 12, 2007 to report that alleged stalker Ryan Lee Bergner was in the process of breaking into her house. She then locked herself in her upstairs bedroom with her gun, and waited for either the Police to arrive or for the stalker to break into her bedroom. Which do you think came first? You guessed it, he broke into her bedroom before Police could arrive. Lucky for her she had her gun & was able to stop his attack with 3 shots. Ryan Lee Bergner did not survive his gunshot wounds. Police have ruled the shooting to be Self Defense & no charges will be filed.

See news report here & here.

Images used in video are from A Human Right.

Hat tip to The Real Gun Guys & Oleg Volk for finding this.

Catch the Fox News Jan 10th GOP debate

This is 1 of 10. To see remaining 9 use the "more from this user" option at youtube.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

SAF, NRA, & others win lawsuit against San Francisco & its Gun Ban

Good news: San Francisco gun ban struck down for violating California State Law. Below is the SAF Press Release:

Second Amendment Foundation
12500 NE Tenth Place • Bellevue, WA 98005
(425) 454-7012 • FAX (425) 451-3959 •
For Immediate Release: 1/9/2008

In a unanimous decision today, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the City of San Francisco’s handgun ban is illegal under state law, upholding a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and several other groups.

“This is a great day for gun owners and civil rights in California,” said SAF Founder Alan M. Gottlieb. “This is the second time we successfully fought a gun ban in San Francisco, and what this demonstrates is that the city’s leadership is as horribly out of touch with the law as it seems to be out of touch with reality.”

SAF was joined in the lawsuit by the National Rifle Association, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, California Association of Firearms Retailers and several private citizens.

In its ruling, the court held that Proposition H, approved by voters in November 2005, is invalid as preempted by state law. Gottlieb said this was essentially the same case that SAF battled on its own 23 years ago when the city, under then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein, adopted a gun ban.

“We urged the city well in advance to drop Proposition H from the 2005 ballot, and warned them that if they pushed the measure and it passed, we would meet them in court,” Gottlieb recalled. “We kept our word, along with our colleagues at the NRA, LEAA and our friends in the CAFR.

“This has been a horrible waste of the court’s time, the city’s legal resources and the taxpayers’ money,” he added. “The only reason this case went forward after the ban was struck down by the trial court is that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board of Supervisors wanted to mandate their extremist anti-gun rights philosophy as public law.

“Every judge in every court that this and the earlier case went before has sided with us,” Gottlieb stated. “This is a battle that had to be fought, and this is a ruling that we expected from Day One of our lawsuit. This wasn’t just a fight over gun rights. It was really about defeating social prejudice against gun owners; a type of bigotry made even more insidious by the fact that it was fostered and defended by a city administration whose attitude toward gun owners is anathema to American values.”

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
Below is the NRA Press Release:
San Francisco Gun Ban Ruled Null and Void

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

NRA Wins Big in California State Court of Appeals

Fairfax, VA – The California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

“Today’s decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco,” declared Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist.

In 2005, NRA sought an injunction against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to prevent them from enacting one of the nation’s most restrictive gun bans. NRA won the injunction, but the City’s mayor and Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes in their own homes.

“We promised our California NRA members in 2005 that we would fight any gun ban instituted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and we haven’t given up that fight,” continued Cox. “Today we see our second win for the Second Amendment against the San Francisco gun ban. We beat them once in court and the City’s attorney appealed based on his personal disagreement with the court’s first decision to overturn the ban. Now we’ve beaten them again. The California State Court of Appeals has upheld the state preemption law.”

Today’s decision came in the form of a 3-0 opinion in favor of the lower court ruling overturning the gun ban.

“This decision is a thoughtful and well-reasoned legal opinion,” concluded Cox. “I'd like to thank our approximately 4 million members, including the hundreds of thousands of members in California, for their continued commitment to protecting our cherished freedoms.”


Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.

Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
You can also read the court order.

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Is the California Lead Ban coming to Arizona?

On Friday Jan 18th the Arizona Game & Fish Commission will be discussing issues related to gun owners & hunters in a meeting open to the public located at the Arizona Game and Fish Department at 5000 W Carefree Hwy starting at 8 AM. Item # 10 on the announced agenda is of particular concern to me because it is to discuss "issues associated with lead from spent ammunition":

10. Presenter: Ron Sieg, Flagstaff Regional Supervisor. Presentation and discussion regarding issues associated with lead from spent ammunition, current Department programs and ideas regarding any future program . The Commission will be provided with a presentation on issues associated with lead from spent ammunition, updated on current Department sport harvest programs and offered some ideas regarding any future program. The Commission may vote to provide direction to the Department on this issue .
The NRA-ILA has issued an alert asking all gun owners to attend the meeting to present our viewpoint.

Hat tip to Call Me Ahab.

Update - good news!

CWI - Carrying While Intoxicated

SayUncle has it right. There are too many States that ban carrying weapons while in Bars or even worse - while in restaurants that in addition to food & soda also happen to serve Alcohol. Arizona is one of those States.

It is a violation of the 2nd Amendment for a State government to tell me that I can't bear arms just because I happen to be in a location open to the public that happens to serve Alcohol. Not only that, but when I'm in a location that serves Alcohol I'm probably at greatest risk of being attacked by some crazy drunk guy. Making such locations a Gun Free Zone does not keep bad guys from bringing guns there, all it does is create yet another Defenseless Victim Zone.

I would propose that it would be far more acceptable & logical for States to ban the carrying of a weapon while intoxicated in public. They could call the infraction a CWI - Carrying While Intoxicated. The penalty could be somewhere between a simple fine & the current penalty system for a DWI. That way folks like myself can still carry & be prepared to protect ourselves & our families while we are in a public restaurant or other location that happens to serve Alcohol.

Of course an even better solution would be to simply say that it is illegal to do something illegal while carrying intoxicated. For example, it should be illegal to commit aggravated assault with a deadly weapon while intoxicated, but wait, that is already illegal. ;)

The Arizona Legislature passed SB 1363 in 2005 that would have allowed anyone to carry in restaurants or any other locations that serve Alcohol as long as the person carrying does not consume alcohol. It also had a provision to recognize private property rights & allowed businesses to ban weapons while inside their premises. However, our then and current liberal Democrat Governor, Janet Napolitano, vetoed the legislation.

Update 1: Sayuncle has additional related info here.

Update 2: New 2008 Arizona Legislation introduced.

Update 3: New 2009 Arizona Legislation introduced.

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

All American Blogger & Concealed

I just listened to the 1/7/08 "Interview with Guy Midkiff of Concealed" episode of the "A Field Guide to American Politics" podcast by Duane Lester of All American Blogger. They had a great 2nd Amendment discussion, I highly recommend checking it out. If you have iTunes you can search for "A Field Guide to American Politics" to subscribe to his podcast. Or you can also listen to this specific episode online here.

My Car and its Contents are MY Private Property

A debate is going about whether or not a business owner who has a parking lot open to the public can tell his or her employees what is and what is not allowed to be within their cars while parked there. I personally think the answer is simple & straight forward. If a business has a parking lot that is not locked up & protected by security guards than the parking lot is essentially open to the public. If the public can park their privately owned vehicles with their privately owned contents than why can't the employees?

Trying to tell employees that they are not allowed to have a lawfully stored gun in their privately owned vehicle which is an extension of their own home is a violation of the private property rights of that employee.

Below is a related article by the NRA-ILA that sums it up quite nicely:

Parking Lot Gun Laws and the Right to Transport Firearms

Should people who lawfully possess firearms be able to leave them locked in their motor vehicles, on business property? Common sense would say, "yes." All 50 states allow the transportation of firearms in motor vehicles for all lawful purposes and 48 states allow the carrying of firearms in vehicles for personal protection, in some manner.1 More than one of every four of America`s 65-80 million gun owners carries a firearm in his or her vehicle for protection.2

The U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of 46 states protect the right to arms and/or self-defense.3 And since 1986, federal law has protected the right to transport firearms in vehicles interstate.4

However, over the last few years disagreements over the right of people to leave firearms locked in their vehicles on business property have arisen. As a result, five state legislatures have passed, and during their current legislative sessions additional states are considering passing, laws to protect that right.5

The issue began in 2002 in Oklahoma, when the Weyerhaeuser corporation fired employees for having guns in personal vehicles on company property. The Oklahoma Legislature responded, unanimously in the House and by a vote of 92-4 in the Senate, by prohibiting "any policy or rule" prohibiting law-abiding people "from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle."

Arguments raised against the right of people, particularly employees, to leave firearms in locked vehicles on business property are unconvincing:

* A business owner`s private property rights are not affected by a law preventing the micro-management of the lawful contents of a person`s privately-owned automobile. Moreover, an employer`s private property interests do not trump a person`s right to have a firearm available for self-defense, if needed, during the daily commute to and from work. As with all civil rights, employers and owners of commercial property may not act with disregard to the rights of citizens. Reasonable accommodation is the foundation of the protection of all civil rights.
* A commercial landowner is subject to numerous limits, imposed by the federal, state and local governments, on what may and may not occur on its property.
* Employees have a legitimate private property interest where their automobiles and their contents are concerned. In our legal system, property rights extend to property other than land.
* Most gun-related violent crimes in workplaces are committed by non-employees. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 84% of all workplace murders are committed by strangers; 7% are committed by current or former employees.6 Naturally, strangers and former employees are not bound by any company policy pertaining to employees.
* Anyone determined to commit a violent crime will not be prevented from doing so by a mere company policy against having guns in cars. This should go without saying, since criminals are already willing to break laws against murder, rape, robbery and assault.
* Laws protecting the right to leave firearms in locked motor vehicles do not authorize a person to have a firearm outside his or her vehicle.
* Laws protecting the right to leave firearms in locked motor vehicles on business property specifically protect the property owner from liability for any related injuries or damages. Also, if a business prohibits people from possessing the means to defend themselves in their vehicles, it is potentially liable for injuries and damages incurred for failure to provide adequate security.
* The problem of workplace crimes has been exaggerated. The nation`s violent crime rate has declined every year since 1991 and is now at a 30-year low, the murder rate is at a 39-year low, and workplace violent crime has decreased more than violent crime generally. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health says, "the circumstances of workplace homicides differ substantially from those portrayed by the media and from homicides in the general population."7


1. Only Illinois and Wisconsin do not have such laws.

2. USA Today/CNN/Gallup National Poll, Dec. 17-19, 1993.

3. The constitutions of the United States and all states except California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York protect the right to possess firearms for protection, recreation, sports, hunting, and other lawful purposes. Iowa and New Jersey`s constitutions protect the right to self-defense in general terms.

4. 18 U.S.C. sec. 926A.

5. In 1998, Kentucky`s Attorney General determined that state law prohibits employers from prohibiting people from having firearms in their vehicles. Minnesota`s Right-to-Carry law (2003) prohibits employers from prohibiting carry permit holders from having firearms in their vehicles. Laws protecting the right of any lawful possessor of a firearm to have a firearm in a personally-owned vehicle were passed in Oklahoma and Alaska in 2005, and Mississippi in 2006.

6. "Violence in the Workplace, 1993-1999," Dec. 2001 ( The study also noted, the highest percentage of work-related murders occur between 8p.m.-12 a.m., when most businesses are closed.

7. "Violence in the Workplace," July 1996 (

Posted: 2/15/2006 12:00:00 AM

Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.

Monday, January 7, 2008

Great Editorial on Gun Free Zones by John Longenecker

A great article on gun free zones by John Longenecker was posted today on the Buckeye Firearms Association Website:

. . . Public places need to understand that individuals bent on murder will not listen to their gun ban. They never do and they never will. Murderers do notice where a target-rich environment is unarmed and unable to stop them in the few moments they need to kill. The few short moments they need is a lot less than six minutes . . .

You can't fight crime after-the-fact: you can chase it and maybe you can catch it, but only after it's come and gone . . .

Concealed carry anywhere anyone has a right to be must be made part of any serious-minded approach to fighting violent crime . . .
The full article is definitely worth reading.

The Truth on the expired Clinton Gun Ban (Assault Weapon Ban)

Glenn Beck on Gun Rights

Friday, January 4, 2008

Nail Gun Regulations?

Richard Williams was sentenced yesterday to life in prison without parole for murdering his wife with a nail gun. My heart goes out to their children & extended family members for their tragic loss. Richard's attorney tried to blame the murder on depression. That often works but did not this time. I was surprised he didn't blame it on the excessive availability of unregulated nail guns. It is after all the nature of anti gun folks to blame anything & everything for causing violence other than the actual criminal who performed the violence.

I suddenly wondered how often nail gun violence takes place, so I did a google search for "nail gun death" and there were about 197,000 results. With all of that nail gun violence out there, why hasn't the Brady campaign asked for legislation regulating nail guns? They are after all supposed to be interested in stopping all forms of violence are they not?

They could campaign for new legislation requiring the ATF (BATFE) to issue FNLs (Federal Nailgun Licenses) to all Nail gun dealers. The BATFE would be renamed to the BATFEN (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, and Nail guns), and nail gun dealers would be required to run a background check on all purchasers of Nail guns. All Nail guns would be issued a unique serial number that investigators could use to locate the original nail gun purchaser. The ATF could then harass all Nail gun dealers for allowing customers to place a Y instead of a Yes on their forms or for abbreviating the county name. BATFE agents can't be expected to know what a Y means after all.

But no, the Brady folks won't be calling for any such thing. Why? Because they know such tactics would not work to reduce violence. In fact, reducing violence doesn't even appear to be what they are actually after. They simply hate guns, and want them to be outlawed altogether. Why else would they be in support of the DC handgun ban which not only did not reduce violence in DC, but actually increased it?

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Disarming Pilots in 1987 Led to Tragedy

Great article by Tracy Price. Gun free zones & Gun free pilots prevented pilots from being able to defend themselves on September 11th:

. . . airline pilots flew armed in large numbers from the dawn of commercial aviation to 1987 with no record of incident. When the federal government disarmed pilots in 1987, many pilots predicted cockpit takeover attempts — including the late Captain Victor Saracini, who, in horrible irony, was the captain of United flight 175 on September 11, 2001 when his Boeing 767 was hijacked and crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. It was the disarming of pilots in 1987 that inevitably led to the September 11 cockpit takeovers . . .

Also see related info provided by the Airline Pilots Security Alliance: see read this & also this about their current efforts to arm pilots:
  • Years since Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act Passed: 3
  • % Flights protected by a team of armed pilots: Less than 1%
  • # Pilots avoiding the program due to mismanagement: 50,000
  • Aircraft defenseless against terror attack: est. 9 out of 10.
  • Cost to protect less than 5% of flights with air marshals: $688M per year
  • Cost to protect 98% of flights with standardized armed pilot program: $29M per year

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

Never Bring a Baseball Bat to a Gunfight

Yesterday morning (Tuesday Jan 1st 2008 in San Antonio TX), while two vehicles were stopped at an intersection a man got out of his car with a baseball bat to attack another man who was still in his car. Apparently the maniac assumed he was defenseless. It turned out that the man the baseball bat wielding maniac attacked was licensed to carry a concealed weapon. The CCW permit holder was able to use his weapon to stop the attack & lived to go home to his family. Unfortunately for the baseball bat wielding maniac, he did not survive the two gunshot wounds that were required to put a halt to his attack.

There will probably be a call to put a halt to baseball bat related violence. Next thing you know the Brady folks will probably call for new legislation to regulate baseball bats. The ATF would then create a new licensing division to hand out FBBL's - Federal Baseball Bat License's.