Committee Hearings Today On HR 4089 - Sportsman's Heritage Act Of 2012

The House Natural Resources Committee is holding hearings today on H.R. 4089, the Sportman's Heritage Act. Included in the bill are significant protections for access to Federally-owned public land for the purposes of recreational shooting.

The NSSF is asking people to contact the committee and urge the passage of this bill out of committee.

The U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources is expected to vote later TODAY on the “Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012″ (H.R. 4089).

The bill combines four legislative priorities that will expand recreational hunting, shooting and fishing opportunities while also protecting the firearms and ammunition industries from detrimental regulations under the Environmental Protection Agency.

NSSF urges that you call the House Natural Resources Committee IMMEDIATELY and urge members of the committee to support H.R. 4089. Call the Republican Committee Staff at 202-225-2761. Call the Democrat Committee Staff at 202-225-6065. Readers can also help by sharing this blog post on Twitter, Facebook and other social media outlets.

Included in H.R. 4089 is the Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting Protection Act, which is the firearms industry’s top legislative priority. The bill amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to clarify the original intent of Congress to exclude traditional ammunition with lead components from regulation by the EPA, and also excludes fishing tackle from the EPA’s jurisdiction. The bill is a response to anti-hunting and fishing organizations, as well as extreme environmental groups, that are actively seeking to ban these products even though wildlife populations have not been negatively impacted by their use. Banning traditional ammunition will drive the cost of ammunition up by as much as 190 percent and curtail wildlife conservation funding supported by the sale of ammunition. For more information about the critical importance of this bill, click here.

H.R. 4089 includes other key legislative priorities of the sportsmen’s community:

The Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage Opportunities Act, which requires federal land managers to support and facilitate use and access for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting.
The Recreational Shooting Protection Act, which requires National Monument land to be open to access and use for recreational shooting.
The Polar Bear Conservation and Fairness Act, which will allow the importation of polar bear parts taken in a sport hunt in Canada, if legally harvested before certain dates.

In addition to calling the staff on both sides of the House Natural Resources Committee, it is important that you also call your Congressman/woman (202-224-3121) to urge them to support H.R. 4089.

My congressman, Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC-11), is one of the co-sponsors of the bill. While there are a number of things I disagree with Heath about, he has always stood solid on Second Amendment issues as well as hunting and fishing. He is not going to seek reelection and I just hope the Republican contenders will be as solid on the Second Amendment as he has been.

Woods Roamer Survival Knife

This parang-style knife was created by Arturo Longoria-Valverde, a bushcraft blogger down in south Texas, for use in "thorn country". All I can say is that I want one! It looks to be an eminently practical knife with more oomph than a machete and a more usable length. I say that as one who has quite a few machetes around the house.

So Absurd I Don't Know Where To Start

Yesterday afternoon, Edward McClelland, the Ward Room blogger for NBC Chicago, had a post entitled "Let's Follow the Entire Second Amendment." The post was so absurd, I really don't know where to begin.

McClelland starts by attacking what he calls Second Amendment Absolutists.

Frequently, I hear gun owners describe themselves as “Second Amendment Absolutists.” By this, they mean they should be able to own any gun they want -- a potato gun, a .22-caliber pistol, an elephant gun, a bazooka -- and take it anywhere they want, hidden inside their pants. As justification, they point to a clause in the Second Amendment, declaring “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

McClelland says "Second Amendment Absolutists" cited this language in the McDonald case and in the suits against the State of Illinois concerning concealed carry. He accuses gun rights supporters of ignoring the complete language of the Second Amendment by leaving out the prefatory clause, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state", regularly. He then goes on to state his understanding (or misunderstanding) of the Second Amendment.

As I read it, the amendment guarantees Americans the right to keep and bear arms so they can form a militia. Yet very few Second Amendment Absolutists belong to militias, or even look as though they’re in shape for combat.

He then takes this a step further and makes a proposal to Gov. Pat Quinn and Attorney General Lisa Madigan regarding carry laws in the State of Illinois.

if the Second Amendment Absolutists are going to hold you to the second half of the Second Amendment, hold them to the first half: tell them they can carry any gun they want, anywhere they want, as long as they join the state’s militia, the Illinois National Guard. It would require one weekend a month of training, plus the possibility of active duty if the United States becomes involved in a war.

McClelland undoubtedly thinks he is being smart. Or a smart ass. He even calls it a win-win for the State of Illinois as the "National Guard could solve both its manpower shortage and its firepower shortage. The new recruits would all bring their own guns. "
Of course, he ignores 10 USC § 311 which defines the militia - both organized and unorganized.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

It also ignores the holding of the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller which found that the Second Amendment was an individual right and that the prefatory clause neither limited nor expanded the right in the operative clause.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

Fortunately, these is not one comment to the entire post that agrees with McClelland's so-called interpretation of the Second Amendment. Yet, I can imagine some people who do read it will be shaking their heads in agreement and that is sad.

Glock Is First Gold Level Sponsor Of SAF

Glock, Inc. has stepped up and become the first Gold Level Sponsor in the Second Amendment Foundation's corporate sponsorship program. Unlike the Joyce Foundation who continues to throw their money away on the gun prohibitionists, Glock's money is going to an organization that is actually winning. Of course VPC (and others) will be quick to call this "blood money" but I think Alan Gottlieb will be equally as quick to just laugh in their face over that claim.

From the SAF news release:

GLOCK FIRST GOLD LEVEL SPONSOR IN NEW SAF CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM

For Immediate Release: 2/24/2012

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today announced that Glock, Inc. has joined the SAF’s new corporate sponsorship program at the Gold level. Glock’s continuing support of the Second Amendment Foundation and of SAF’s on-going litigation efforts in defense of firearms civil rights is rapidly becoming legendary.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb made the announcement, noting that Glock remains the largest corporate contributor to the Foundation – largely in recognition of the important legal efforts SAF has mounted and will continue to pursue.

“The generosity and dedication of management and ownership at Glock continue to impress me, and I want to thank them and all the Glock employees who make our partnership with Glock possible,” said Gottlieb.

“SAF’s victory in McDonald v. Chicago opened up many legal opportunities for us to move forward against a wide variety of unreasonable and often unconstitutional limits on firearms rights,” he continued, “and we must continue to expand our legal challenges with all possible speed. The substantial support of our corporate sponsors significantly broadens our ability to respond quickly and effectively to legal opportunity.”

“Glock’s latest support comes at an important time,” Gottlieb added. “Most of our members and supporters make contributions in the $10 to $25 range, and Glock’s significant additional support as a sponsor makes a major difference in our efforts to win back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

Gottlieb urged SAF supporters and all Americans who are concerned about firearms freedoms to support Glock and other companies that support their Second Amendment rights.

“There are times in the history of any movement, and in the lives of every person, when it is important to stand up and be counted,” Gottlieb said. “Glock has, more than once, stepped up to the plate when it really does count, and we will be eternally grateful for their generosity and their unwavering dedication to the Second Amendment.”

Cameras And Shooting

Andrew at the Vuurwapen Blog has just posted a video on using a camera to help improve your shooting. He gives some tips on what sort of video camera you should buy as well as technique. Capturing your shooting on video will let you see where you are making mistakes in technique.




Long before there were digital video cameras, I had been given the same advice by fly casting instructor Macauley Lord about using a video camera to improve my fly casting. Improving technique is improving technique. It doesn't matter if it is handgun shooting or fly casting. It is interesting - long before I knew what dry fire practice was, I knew how to practice doing a double haul without a fly rod in my hand. It is still all about building muscle memory.

Operation #EFAD

Those who have read Matthew Bracken's Enemies Foreign and Domestic will understand when I say that when I first heard Operation Fast and Furious I thought of that book. It, too, featured an ATF operation aimed at increasing the call for gun control. Given that it was published in 2003, the author was remarkably prescient in his view of elements within ATF.

If you haven't read the book, now is your chance as it will be offered FREE on Kindle from March 1st at 1:00am until Monday, March 5, 2012 at 11:30pm. Remember, even if you don't own a Kindle (which I don't), you can still read the books using a PC, an iPhone, an iPad, Mac, Blackberry, Android, or a Windows 7 phone.

Matt is explicit about his goal in offering the book for free on Kindle for the maximum five days allowed:

My goal is to make the spike in the number of free Kindle downloads for Enemies Foreign And Domestic so dramatic, that the national media will notice the passionate interest in this "dangerous and seditious" novel among the bitter clingers. But this is just the first step of a jiu-jitsu move. The light thrown on EFAD's sudden nationwide surge in popularity will then be mirrored back onto the federal government's most egregious usurpations and abuses, and on the mainstream media itself.

The idea is to force open a long overdue national conversation that the elite MSM very much wants to ignore. In large strokes, it is about our federal government morphing into a socialist tyranny before our eyes, a tyranny that is no longer soft, but getting harder with every passing month. Which is it to be: freedom, or tyranny?

About the book:

BULLETS RAIN DOWN UPON A PACKED FOOTBALL STADIUM, killing dozens, and triggering a panic stampede which leads to a thousand more deaths. A police marksman kills the sniper, a mentally unbalanced Desert Storm veteran holding a smoking assault rifle. It's an open and shut case, or so America is led to believe...

In the aftermath of the stadium massacre, an outraged public demands an end to the threat posed by assault rifles, and Congress passes emergency legislation banning their private possession. American gun owners have one week to turn in their semi-automatic rifles, or face mandatory five year federal prison terms.

Jimmy Shifflett, the alleged stadium sniper, is linked to a shadowy "gun club" in southeastern Virginia, which the FBI believes is a cover for a secret right wing militia terror group. Those who knew Shifflett the best don't believe he was a member of any militia, or that he was guilty of the horrific mass murder.

But if he didn't fire the "assault rifle" into the stadium, who did, and why?

A small band of Virginians, thrown together by fate, is forced to undertake a desperate odyssey through a minefield of government blackmail, official deception and covert death squads, to discover the truth behind the stadium massacre, and save their own lives.

ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC is about one of the several fault lines dividing the world views that co-exist uneasily within the United States today. One side of this ideological divide believes that American gun rights are a dangerous anachronism, and that firearms ownership should be strictly regulated, and as far as possible curtailed by the government. This side of American society desires to see all firearms registered with the government, and many classes of firearms banned.

The other side considers the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights to be an unbreachable wall, guarding the freedom of all Americans from steadily encroaching government tyranny. This side believes that it has learned a bitter lesson of history, and will never follow the tragic example of other peoples who have been disarmed, and then in many cases slaughtered by their own governments.

The firearms-intolerant side in America fails to appreciate that the God-given right to keep and bear arms is a bedrock core belief for tens of millions of Americans. This anti-firearms group seeks to elect those who would enact laws that may cross the constitutional point of no return for those millions of Americans who will not be disarmed without a violent struggle. The Americans who cherish the Second Amendment will refuse to be disarmed, regardless of what unconstitutional laws are passed, just as blacks would disobey any new laws which attempted to send them back into slavery.

The main thesis of Enemies Foreign and Domestic is that cynical manipulators, who understand both world views, could easily shape events to create a violent crisis in America between the two camps. This could easily be done as depicted in the Prologue, with a large-scale massacre blamed on a suitable villain, or by other means.

I have read all three books in the EFAD triology and like them all. I have also read his latest, Castigo Bay, as well. Bracken's book are very much in the same vein as John Ross' Unintended Consequences with ordinary Americans saying enough is enough. Giving that I liked them, I guess that makes me an insurrectionist.

I Just Love Parody

In the last couple of weeks, a supposed gun blog appeared out of nowhere saying it was going to be the new paradigm. I think it was called Choke and Blunder or something like that. Part of the marketing campaign for this blog included insulting well-known bloggers, setting up "profiles" for nonexistent (and unwilling) participants, and posting many over-the-top comments when criticized. Suspicion has grown that this is a false-flag operation run by one of the gun prohibitionist organizations.

Thanks to some enterprising souls who shall remain nameless, a parody of this suspect blog has now appeared.

The parody blog, Smoking Blunder, can be found here. Share this link with your friends.

The German - A Short Film

The Complementary Spouse's uncle sent me this yesterday. Given that the Oscars are tonight, I thought the timing was appropriate.

It is a short film featuring aerial combat between an RAF Spitfire and a German ME-109 during WWII. What makes this film so unique is the surprise ending. That and the attention to detail including the Webley revolver and the SMLE rifles.

The short film is approximately 10 minutes long. If you want to know more about the movie and how it was made go here.

The German from Nick Ryan on Vimeo.

Like I Said - An Attractive And Effective Spokesperson For Gun Rights

Emily Miller of the Washington Times was on Fox and Friends Weekend this morning to speak about the rise in gun ownership and gun use by women. I think she is correct when she attributes it to the desire for increased self-protection.

I think she did an excellent job in her interview. As I wrote earlier in the week, the unintended consequence of D.C.'s draconian gun laws was the creation of a new spokesperson for gun rights.

I Volunteer!

A legislator in the state of Utah, Rep. Brian Doughty (D-Salt Lake City), is proposing a law that would require that at least a minority of their Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control be drinkers. This currently would mean two of the five members would be imbibers. His concern is that the DABC doesn't have a clue about their customers which I think is quite valid. Reportedly, his bill has been passed out of committee.

In any other state than Utah, this would not be an issue. However, Utah is not your normal state in this regard given the aversion to alcohol by the majority of residents due to their religious faith.

If they are having trouble finding qualified candidates, I will gladly volunteer if the price is right and if it includes moving expenses. I might have some trouble adjusting to their arid climate but given their gun friendliness, I'm sure I could manage it.


 

Quote Of The Day

The quote of the day comes from Bitter at Shall Not Be Questioned. By now, I'm sure most people have heard about the Canadian father who was arrested because his four year old daughter drew a picture of a gun at pre-school in Kitchner, Ontario.

As Bitter notes there is a lot of people to blame over this travesty including the cops, the school principal, the teacher, and the social workers. She asks the logical question as to why no one stopped to ask the right questions and then put a stop to it before it spiraled out of control (which it obviously did.)

Ultimately, I do think that someone should have stopped the process and really inquired just what the hell actually happened in regards to the drawing and how the teacher asked questions about it. However, depending on how stories are passed along, concerns about a potential crime could continue to be blown way out of proportion. Ever played a game of telephone? Yeah, same thing, only with real lives on the line.

But, when we have a bunch of bureaucrats who believe they are there to do good no matter what impact it might have on innocent people and who fear not following an exact protocol that makes no accommodation for stopping to ask questions, then things like this will happen more often regardless of the country. At some point, we have to demand accountability from those who allow these things to get out of hand. Unfortunately, that’s not something that’s easy to do, especially with many protections in place for staff in these various jobs.

Interesting Statistic

John at the Boats and Bullets blog had the fortitude both to read through a Media Matters article and then to find something useful in it. He's a better man than I!

The MMFA article was quoting "research" by well-known anti-gun Harvard researchers David Hemenway and Matthew Miller regarding firearms used in suicide attempts. What John found was interesting.

Let's read that last sentence again... "Attempts involving drugs or cutting, which account for more than 90% of all suicidal acts, prove fatal far less often." So guns are used less than 10% of the time... and they're the biggest problem? Interesting...

As the "Coffee Talk" lady used to say on SNL... "Talk amongst yourselves."

Go and read John's blog post for the full story.

Now This Is An Interesting Question

Local reporters in Arizona are asking whether guns, ammo, and cash found in a raid on a "stash house" are tied to Operation Fast and Furious. The story is from CBS 5, KPHO, out of Phoenix.

The items were found in a raid by the AZ DPS Gang Task Force. The house was reportedly by used by a "rip crew." If you'll remember, it was a rip crew that got into the shootout that left Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry dead.

The Unintended Consequences Of Putting Up Roadblocks To Emily Getting Her Gun

I doubt the District of Columbia City Council knew what was in store for them when Emily Miller started her path towards gun ownership. She just wanted a handgun for protection and they made it incredibly hard. Little did they realize that the roadblocks that they had erected to prevent gun ownership in the District would create such an attractive and effective spokesperson for gun rights.

If getting a handgun in the District had been as easy as it was in Virgina, Emily may have written one story and that would be that. The unintended consequence of their recalcitrance has been a 30-part series in the Washington Times, television interviews with Fox News and News Channel 8, testimony at a Council hearing on gun policy, and multiple interviews in the gun media ranging from NRA News to Tom Gresham's GunTalk Radio.

Emily's latest interview aired today on Bret Baier's Special Report and is now the featured story on the Fox News site as I write this. The DC Council is reaping what they sowed.

Gura Appeals The Fee Award In The Heller Case

The Legal Times is reporting that Alan Gura and Clark Neily have filed notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. They are appealing Judge Emmet Sullivan's award of only $1.17 million in fees for the Heller case.

Last December, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said Gura is entitled to $1.17 million in fees and nearly $4,900 in expenses. Sullivan rejected Gura’s request for more than $3.12 million in fees and expenses.

“Sensitive to the fact that the fees in this case will be paid by the taxpayers, this Court is left with the difficult task of closely scrutinizing plaintiff’s fee petition to determine what is fair, reasonable, and just compensation for the legal services of plaintiff’s attorneys,” Sullivan said in his decision.

Judge Sullivan in setting the lower hourly fee for the attorneys who represented Dick Heller and the rest of the original plaintiffs agreed with DC's contention that small firms should command lower fees than the mega-firms. He also rejected the contention of Alan Gura that a fee enhancement was due to the plaintiffs' attorney for "superior lawyering" saying, in part,

Finally, the Court is not persuaded that plaintiff’s success in this action was attributable to the superior lawyering of his counsel. As plaintiff is well aware, “superior results are relevant [to a request for a fee enhancement] only to the extent it can be shown that they are the result of superior attorney performance.” See Perdue, 130 S. Ct. at 1674. In this case, the Court finds that the lawyering on both sides was excellent. The Court therefore concludes that plaintiff has failed to present this Court with the specific evidence necessary to overcome the “strong presumption” that the lodestar figure is reasonable.

I guess winning only the second case that dealt directly with the Second Amendment and changing the course of Second Amendment jurisprudence in the process doesn't count.

By filing the appeal, Gura and Neily are seeking a second opinion as to the reasonableness of their request. While Gura was not available for comment, Clark Neily had this to say:

Neily said in an e-mail that "settlement discussions between the Heller’s legal team and the District of Columbia are ongoing, and we have filed our notice of appeal in order to preserve all available options."

I've always held the District of Columbia City Council were a bunch of cheap bastards in dragging out their payment to Alan Gura and the rest. And I think Judge Sullivan is dead wrong in his assessment that superior lawyering didn't win the case for Dick Heller.

Quote Of The Day

The quote of the day comes from Tam. After driving past dead strip malls and boarded-up restaurants, she notes that the stock market has rallied on news of (another) Greek bailout.

Meanwhile, the TeeWee talking heads are cooing at the Dow passing 13,000 again. Investors, they say, are excited about yet another Greek bailout. Let me get this straight: Germany has taken out another cash advance on its maxed-out credit card and given it to its deadbeat cousin, Greece, who swears that this time they'll use the money to get a haircut and a job, instead of wasting it on hookers and blow again, and investors take this as a good sign?

Every time I hear the words "Leading economic indicators are..." come out of a newscaster's mouth these days, I expect them to be followed by "...from the planet Mars."

As a ,  I have to say I agree with Tam. Despite the mainstream media playing up the spurious numbers coming out of the Obama Administration, I don't see glad tidings on the horizon either.

Why Do I Not Trust This?

The George Mason University Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy is holding what a "Congressional Briefing" today in the Rayburn House Office Building on the topic of "Reducing Gun Violence" (sic).

Our upcoming Congressional Briefing, Reducing Gun Violence: Lessons from Research and Practice, will be held on Wednesday, February 22, 2012 and led by Dr. Christopher Koper, Associate Professor in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society.

Briefing Summary: This event will feature several leading firearms experts from criminology, economics, and public health who will discuss the findings and policy implications of current research on gun violence patterns, illegal gun markets, and the effects of policies and practices to prevent gun violence. The briefing will also address needs and future directions for research that can inform efforts to address this costly problem.

 Maybe the reason I am so skeptical of the whole thing is because of their speakers. When you see the names Jens Ludwig, Garen Wintemute, and Daniel Webster of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, red flags appear immediately. Add to this a series of Tweets by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic) about the research being presented and you know that those red flags are justified.

Their agenda lists such presentations as Daniel Webster's "Firearm Seller Accountability Measures and the Diversion of Guns to Criminals" and Jens Ludwig's "Underground Gun Markets".

The Center presenting this is headed by Dr. Christopher Koper, formerly of U. Penn's Firearm and Injury Center, who lists among his current research a study being funded by the Joyce Foundation.

Need I say anything more?

If They Are Going To Call Us Insurrectionists, Might As Well Get The T-Shirt

The gun prohibitionists love to characterize those of us who care about our Second Amendment rights as "insurrectionists". This is especially true of Ladd Everitt and Josh Horwitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic).

Frankly, if standing up for one's Constitutional rights makes one an "insurrectionist" then I wear their epithet proudly. So proudly in fact that I bought the T-shirt.

The quotation on the shirt is from Thomas Jefferson and reads, "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." That works for me.

The T-shirt is available from Gadsden and Culpepper in black and coyote for $12 plus shipping.

And for the FTC bureaucrats who have too much time on their hands, my only relationship with Gadsden and Culpepper is as a customer and I bought my coyote Militia of One T-shirt at retail.

More On The Budget Cuts For The Federal Flight Deck Officer Program

Cam Edwards of NRA News interviewed Mike Karn of the Federal Flight Deck Officers Association and Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations on Monday about the budget cuts for the FFDO program. Karn made some interesting points about the program and its cost efficiency.

First, each pilot who enrolls in the program spends approximately $10,000 of their own money to participate.

Second, these cuts would mean no new pilots would be enrolled in the program and it calls into question what happens when they have to requalify.

Third, having multiple layers of defense against terrorists and air pirates works better than the Maginot Line defense that the TSA proposes (my words.)

Finally, it costs about $15 per flight to have a FFDO on board versus about $3,000 to protect the flight with an Air Marshall.

In California, Much Ado About Nothing

The Humane Society of the United States' California branch is all bent out of shape because the President of the California Fish and Game Commission, Dan Richards, went mountain lion hunting in Idaho. While mountain lion hunting has been prohibited in California since 1990, it is perfectly legal in Idaho where Mr. Richards also owns a cabin. Indeed, California is the only state from the Rockies to the Pacific that bans hunting of mountain lions. The prohibition that began in 1990 was not the result of scientific study by wildlife biologists but rather the result of Proposition 117.

Mr. Richards had posted this picture and story in the Western Outdoor News about his hunting trip to Idaho.

NEW COMMISSION PRESIDENT CELEBRATES A SUCCESSFUL HUNT – California Fish and Game commissioner Dan W. Richards travelled deep into the wicked terrain of Idaho’s Flying B Ranch to fulfill a long-held goal. “It was the most physically exhausting hunt of my lifetime. Eight hours of cold weather hiking in very difficult terrain. I told the guides I appreciated the hard work. They were unbelievably professional, first class all the way,” he said. Richards said he took the big cat over iron sights using a Winchester Centennial lever action .45 carbine. Asked about California’s mountain lion moratorium, Richards didn’t hesitate. “I’m glad it’s legal in Idaho.”

Photo courtesy of Dan Richards

This prompted the Humane Society of the US-California chapter to start a campaign to get Mr. Richards removed. They posted this on their Facebook page:

Posing with this dead mountain lion is California's new Fish and Game commission president Dan Richards. Since mountain lions are protected in our state, he went to Idaho to bag this trophy. As a hunter friend of mine said when he saw this photo, "That's not right. You don't kill what you don't eat." I agree. If you do too, drop a (polite) email to the folks at the Fish and Game Commission and ask for a new president: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/contact/

Dan Richards is what these so-called environmental and animal rights groups hate - a Republican hunter who is a life member of the NRA who refuses to bend to their will.

A San Bernardino County Republican appointed to the five-member commission by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2008, Richards has been its most outspoken advocate for expanding hunting, often clashing with environmental and animal welfare groups.

As president, Richards can set the commission's agenda on a range of issues including endangered species protections, ocean fishing rules and all types of hunting regulation from rabbits to black bears. If he were to bring the dead mountain lion back to California from Idaho, he would be in violation of state law.

As such, given our new political climate, he must be destroyed. Unfortunately, they have willing allies in the media and with certain Democratic legislators. The news report below, while it emphasizes the hunt was legal, devotes most of its time to Jennifer Fearing of HSUS-California. Ms. Fearing has compared Richards' legal hunt to an American drug czar using drugs in a country where it was legal.



And, according to a report in the Mercury News, Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, chairman of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, may introduce a resolution in the California Assembly to have Richards removed. Richards cannot be removed by Gov. Jerry Brown but can be removed from office by a majority vote of both houses of the California legislature.

"He's thumbing his nose at California law," Huffman said. "He's mocking it. Frankly, I think he should face the music and step down. He's done something that's a disgrace to his position and to responsible hunters in California."

The comments by Assemblyman Huffman are a joke. What Mr. Richards did would be the equivalent of me going to the Rockies to hunt elk. While elk have been reintroduced to the Smoky Mountains, they are a protected species.

The mountain lion or cougar is an apex predator. While humans may be above it in the predatory hierarchy, as many reports show, the mountain lion will attack humans. They are not the big kitty that fears man and just wants to be left to live its life in peace as the anti-hunting groups would have you believe.

I, for one, shed no false tears of moral outrage over Dan Richards killing a mountain lion after a long and arduous hunt. Rather I would congratulate him on his successful hunt and nice trophy.


UPDATE: The Outdoor Wire today published an editorial from Bill Karr of the Western Outdoor News in response to the HSUS campaign to remove Dan Richards. It is an excellent read and points out that Jennifer Fearing of the HSUS-California is nothing but a carpetbagger. She arrived in California 3 years ago from the DC headquarters of HSUS. Other animal rights activists are siding with Richards on this one.

This all comes from two people, and an organization, that has had no physical presence in California whatsoever until the past few years. The HSUS headquarters is in Washington, D.C., and that is, in fact, where the California head of HSUS, Jennifer Fearing, came from just 3 years ago to try and influence California politics. And the crying shame is, they found some success with the gullible, left-leaning California majority.

It seems to me, though, that HSUS has gone way out on a limb with this one, though. Even other animal rights activists disagree with HSUS. In comments to the San Jose Mercury News, Eric Mills, Coordinator for Action for Animals out of Oakland had this to say about Richards: "The anger here is misplaced. Commissioner Dan Richards did nothing illegal. Mountain lion hunting is not against the law in Idaho. Nor was this a 'canned' hunt, as some have claimed. Dan Richards is not the enemy. He's an avid outdoorsman, hunter and fisherman, which has been well-known for years. No one has a right to be surprised by this hunt."

Mills even went so far as to say "I've found him to be honest, thoughtful, articulate, fair and outspoken."

I've Done My Part - Have You?

The team over at Ammo.net has come up with a great infographic showing the rise in gun and ammo sales for the past few years. It is part of a report called "The Greatest Gun Salesman In America: President Barack Obama." With this sort of success, you'd think Obama would be touting his contribution to the growth of a $4 billion industry but, of course, he hasn't.



Via: Ammo.net

A Review Of The Mossberg MVP

The Mossberg MVP rifle caught my eye at the 2011 NRA Annual Meeting. Like the Ruger Gunsite Scout, it is a bolt-action rifle that uses detachable magazines. Unlike the Ruger, the MVP takes off-the-shelf AR-15 magazines. Later this year, Mossberg is supposed to release a shorter barreled Scout version of the MVP. Not that I need another rifle in .223 or even another varmint rifle but this one intrigues me.

This video review is from the Kentucky Gun Company. I don't know these folks but they seem to do a good job reviewing the rifle. I just wish they didn't have their store logo cluttering up the screen so much.

One thing that caught my eye was the difference in the grouping of the Prvi Partisan ammo versus the Remington UMC. I think I'll be buying some of the Prvi Partisan to test out.

The 2012 SHOT Show In 90 Seconds

Since most of us couldn't get out to Las Vegas to attend the 2012 SHOT Show, here is what we missed....in 90 seconds. I think these time lapse videos are really cool.

Cutting The Federal Flight Deck Officer Program Because TSA Is So Good?

In the FY 2013 Federal Budget, the Obama Administration proposes to cut $13 million from the Federal Flight Deck Officer program. This is the program which trains those airline pilots that volunteer and qualify to be armed in the cockpit. The current funding for FY 2012 is $25 million.

The justification for this cut is that improvements in TSA procedures have "enhanced" airline security to the point where the FFDO program is barely needed.

Justification

The Administration proposes to reduce funding for the FFDO program (i.e., deputized, armed pilots) in 2013. As the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) focuses its aviation security activities on programs that mitigate the highest amount of risk at the lowest cost, the Budget has prioritized funding in the same manner. The voluntary FFDO program was created as a "last defense" layer of security at a time when comprehensive aviation screening and other physical security measures were not fully developed or deployed on a system-wide basis. Since 2001, however, there have been a number of enhancements to aviation security. TSA now conducts 100 percent screening of all passengers and their carryon items, has overseen installation of reinforced and locking cockpit doors on aircraft that operate in U.S. airspace, and has increased passenger and flight crew awareness to address security risks. Combined, these improvements have greatly lowered the chances of unauthorized cockpit access and represent a comprehensive and redundant risk-mitigation strategy that begins well before passengers board the aircraft.

Are we talking about the same TSA? The one that engages in security kabuki theater while a number of its agents have been found to have been stealing from checked luggage including firearms. If they are corrupt enough to steal, they are corrupt enough to be able to be bribed by terrorists.

If TSA has really made flying so safe, then why not go the whole distance and discontinue the FFDO program entirely? Either the program is needed or it isn't. I, for one, think having armed flight crew is an excellent idea and more cost effective than many of the procedures currently used by TSA.

Taking Liberties With The Law

When the North Carolina General Assembly passed the omnibus HB 650 which contained many changes in the state's gun laws, they included a provision that would allow concealed carry in state, municipal, and county parks. However, thanks to an amendment by former Rep. David Guice (R-Transylvania) they allowed cities and counties to continue to ban concealed carry at recreational facilities if they so chose. Guice justified the exemption for recreational facilities by saying "I've seen firsthand the violence on the Little League field."

From Section 21.b.:

A unit of local government may adopt an ordinance to prohibit, by posting, the carrying of a concealed handgun on municipal and county recreational facilities that are specifically identified by the unit of local government. If a unit of local government adopts such an ordinance with regard to recreational facilities, then the concealed handgun permittee may, nevertheless, secure the handgun in a locked vehicle within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within or on the motor vehicle. For purposes of this section, the term "recreational facilities" includes only the following: a playground, an athletic field, a swimming pool, and an athletic facility."

As can be seen above, the law was very specific as to what constituted a "recreational facility". Moreover, the prohibition applies only to that facility and not to the park within it resides.

Unfortunately, certain cities within North Carolina have started to take liberties with this exemption.The latest to do so is the City of Greensboro. The Greensboro City Council will consider an ordinance amending their law on Tuesday. According to the supporting memoranda from city staff, they are construing the exemption to include the entire park in which the recreational facility is located. The ordinance itself is somewhat vague though given how it is presented by city staff I think it may be reasonable to expect they mean the whole park.

Grass Roots North Carolina has issued an alert on the changes in Greensboro.

Like some others, Greensboro is being rather creative in their reading of a clearly laid out law. The ordinance they will be considering Tuesday night takes the following interesting liberties with the new law:

1. It bans whole parks which *contain* recreational facilities;
2. Tries to say the legislature "changed" the word "parks" to "recreational facilities;" and
3. It fails to specifically name the "recreational facilities" where guns are banned.

If we were too polite with the above, let us be clearer. These are the ways they will be BREAKING THE LAW if allowed to go forward with this plan. Now in the creative logic they are applying in reaching these conclusions, they may not even be aware that they will be breaking the law. It is up to you to make them aware of this.

They are asking for people to contact Greensboro City Council to make their displeasure known and the link above has a pre-written message.

I can't say I'm surprised by the actions of the Greensboro City Council. I grew up in the city and it has changed significantly since I left it after college. Though I still own the house I grew up in, the author Thomas Wolfe was right when he said you can't go home again.

Breitbart On The Media Ignoring Operation Fast And Furious

Andrew Breitbart was interviewed by Ginni Thomas (Mrs. Clarence Thomas) for the Daily Caller regarding Operation Fast and Furious.

Fast and Furious happened, Breitbart explained, “for the purposes of creating a narrative that they could use in America to try and thwart our Second Amendment constitutional rights. I don’t think the most sinister screenwriter could imagine a government that would abide by that, let alone the media to cover that up.”

A teaser for the full interview is below. The article notes the full interview will be available on Monday.

NRA-ILA On Obama's FY2013 Budget

When President Obama told Sarah Brady that he planned to fly under the radar on gun control, he wasn't kidding. Having looked at the Federal Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 for the last couple of days, I can assure you that the average person would have a hard time finding what is buried in it.

However, the NRA-ILA has people on staff that have the expertise to muddle through the budget. Below is their response posted yesterday:

Barack Obama’s careful effort to hide his anti-Second Amendment agenda is starting to come undone. The latest evidence is found in the budget he sent to Congress this past week.

As we reported last fall, NRA was very successful in having a number of provisions included in the annual spending bills that are important protections for our rights. Obama grudgingly signed the Fiscal Year 2012 spending bills that contained those “riders,” although in his signing statement, he announced his intent to defy some. Now, in Obama’s FY 2013 budget, he proposes eliminating many of them outright.

One of the most egregious is the deletion of a provision first added for FY 2012 that prohibits any future “Fast & Furious” style operations. In an official summary, the administration says the restriction is “not necessary.”

“Not necessary”? Obama may trust Eric Holder and the senior officials at the Department of Justice, but Congress and the American people certainly should not. Holder’s refusal to fully cooperate with congressional investigations is proof enough that this sort of reckless operation should be specifically banned.

Two other provisions first passed for FY 2012 were also put on the chopping block. One prohibits a ban on the importation of shotguns deemed by the BATFE to be non-“sporting.” Congress passed this to block an Obama administration plan to expand the use of the “sporting purposes” test once again, this time to ban the importation of many popular defensive, target shooting and hunting shotguns. Removing this provision is clearly a first step toward implementing a new import ban.

The other new provision for 2012 was a ban on the use of tax dollars to lobby for new gun laws. Obama signaled that he would take this step when he announced at the bill signing for the 2012 legislation that he and his administration would not be bound by that provision. And in his budget, Obama would get rid of that restriction entirely.

Another provision deleted was a prohibition on the use of funds for anti-gun research at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control. These prohibitions have been passed by Congress to stop these groups from funding junk science “studies” in support of new restrictions on gun rights.

Obama also wants to get rid of the provision that stops the Department of Defense from destroying surplus M1 Garands and M1 carbines—a provision that has been in place for over 30 years. And he wants to drop a provision that stops the destruction of spent military brass. Without these protections, thousands of surplus rifles could be destroyed instead of being sold to law-abiding Americans through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and millions of recyclable brass cases will be melted down as scrap rather than being made available to reloaders.

There is good news for gun owners, though. No one—not even Obama or his closest allies—believe this budget will be passed, and it may not even be brought up for a vote.

So why oppose these provisions now? Is it an election-year signal to his anti-gun base voters? Or is he finally showing his true beliefs and giving up his pretense of support for the Second Amendment? Whatever the answer may be, gun owners should expect nothing but more anti-gun action on the part of the Obama Administration.

Clearing An AR-15 Double Feed

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is back with another one of their video training tips. This one features Gunsite instructor Bob Whaley showing how to clear a double (or more) feed in your AR-15. As Whaley notes, slamming the bottom of your magazine to make sure it is seated can sometimes cause the rounds to "volcano" as he puts it.

The Bradys - The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight

The Brady Bunch aka the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (sic) is confused. They don't seem to know who leads their organization.

On February 6th, they announced with great fanfare that Dan Gross had been "elected" President of the Brady Campaign.

Washington, D.C. – The Board of Trustees of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center today announced that Dan Gross, the co-founder and Executive Director of the Center to Prevent Youth Violence (formerly PAX), has been elected the new President of the nation’s largest gun violence prevention organizations....

Dan Gross replaces Paul Helmke, a lawyer and former Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, who stepped down July 10, 2011. Dennis Henigan, Vice President for Law and Policy at Brady, served as acting president in the interim.

They even got USA Today to buy into Gross being elected as opposed to hired and Paul Helmke stepping down as opposed to the reality of not having his contract renewed.

Youth anti-violence advocate Daniel Gross has been elected to head the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center, the Washington-based organization promoting gun control plans to announce Monday...

Gross is cofounder and executive director of the Center to Prevent Youth Violence and was elected to the Brady post by the organization's board of trustees. He replaces former Brady president Paul Helmke, former mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., who announced in June he would step down on July 10. Helmke's resignation followed a five-year commitment he'd made to serve the organization starting in 2006.

So it was interesting to read the February 16th press release where the Brady Campaign announced their 2011 state-by-state "scorecard" which ranks states on the degree of oppressiveness of their gun control regime. It had this tidbit in it.

"Guns don't fall from the sky into the hands of criminals," said Brady Acting President Dennis Henigan. "All too often, crime guns come from gun dealers in the states that stubbornly refuse to enact common sense, lifesaving gun laws. Every day, a river of illegal guns flows out of the states with weak gun laws, victimizing families in states that are doing their best to protect their residents. It is no accident that the states with the weakest gun laws are the exporters of death and injury."

Has Dan Gross said to himself after being on the job 10 days "Omigod! I can't take any more of these losers! It is worse than I expected and I wasn't expecting much." Or is it that the memo that the Bradys have a new president just not get out to all their PR staffers? Regardless, I'm glad they remain the gang that couldn't shoot straight.

The Seven Varieties Of Gun Control Advocate

Gus Cotey, Jr. in an article posted on the JPFO website has classified gun control advocates into seven categories. He goes into detail about the characteristics of each category. The seven varieties are:

1. Elitists
2. Authoritarians
3. Criminals
4. The Fearful
5. Ideological Chameleons
6. Security Monopolists
7. The Dysfunctionally Unworldly

 As he notes about these classifications:

Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.

In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.

I think Cotey's post is well worth a read since it is essential to know our opposition if we are to preserve our gun rights.

Andrew Traver - Seeking That Rocky Mountain High?

I'm not sure how I missed this but Katie Pavlich is reporting that Andrew Traver, SAC of the ATF's Chicago Field Division and Obama's nominee to head ATF, is transferring from Chicago to be the SAC of the Denver Field Division.

President Obama's pick for ATF director, anti-gun Andrew Traver, has been transferred from his position as special agent in charge of the ATF Chicago Field Division, to head up the Denver division. According to sources, the move came after Traver felt frustrated his confirmation for ATF director had been stalled in the Senate for nearly a year. The estimated cost to transfer Traver is nearly a million taxpayer dollars, all because his feelings are hurt.

Traver will replace Marvin Richardson (no relation). According to the rumors at CUATF, Richardson will now be the Deputy Assistant Director of the Office for Public and Governmental Affairs replacing Scot Thomasson who is now the Acting SAC of the San Francisco Field Division.

Vincent Cefalu had this to say about the moves on Feb. 11th:

WORD IS:
Andy Traver’s feelings are hurt because he got played as a pawn for the Director job. He told ATF to make things right he wants to be the SAC in Denver. ATF is going to move out the current Denver SAC, who is known to ATF to have offered “lack of candor” answers to the questions of Federal investigators and make give him a spot in PGA, the DAD job recently opened when they moved out Scot Thomason.

FIRST, SINCE WHEN DO WE MAKE MULTIPLE MOVES TO APPEASE ANYBODY. MR. TRAVER, TWO WORDS. MOBILITY AGREEMENT. YOU PICKED CHICAGO NOW STAY THERE AND DO YOUR JOB.RICHARDSON, BE THANKFUL YOUR REPEATED LACK OF CANDOR AND MISMANAGEMENT DIDN'T GET YOU FIRED. YOU STAY IN THE JOB YOU ASKED FOR ALSO.NOW THOMASSON IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ANIMAL. HE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM ANY POSITION OF MANAGEMENT SINCE HE IS THE SELF PROCLAIMED HELLS ANGEL RICO EXPERT WHO ALMOST TANKED A GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION. AND NOT TO FORGET HE WAS COMFORTABLE (FULL WELL KNOWING BETTER), TOUTING THE COMPANY LINE THAT WE NEVER WALKED GUNS. Now, Mr. Jones and Mr. Brandon, what do we the field get for just saving the Bureau and the taxpayers the unnecessary expenditure of a million dollars?

I Can't Believe CNBC Bought This Nonsense

Yesterday, Elliot Fineman of the Brady offshoot National Gun Victims (sic) Action Council was interviewed by Melissa Lee of CNBC. The interview centered on his group's boycott of Starbucks due to their policy of neutrality on gun issues. Fineman said the boycott would be ongoing. Of course, no mention was made of the Valentine's Day BUYcott by either Fineman or CNBC.

The story was presented in such a way as to give credence to Fineman's claims that the boycott would impact Starbucks. When  pressed on how it would be determined that his group's boycott was hurting Starbucks' bottomline, Fineman said that they were using self-reported data from their supporters on how much they were not spending at Starbucks.

Excuse me but self-reported data from their "followers" is not exactly reliable data from which to make projections. Fineman then says that their Monte Carlo simulations show that 90% of the time their boycott will have "a significant impact on the Starbucks' stock." Having used Monte Carlo simulation with retirement planning for years, I understand the results you get are very dependent upon both the constraints and the input data. In other words, if you put garbage in, you will get garbage out and that is exactly what they are getting.

It is very hard to prove a negative unlike a positive. The results from the BUYcott can be shown by an increase in sales for February 14th. However, a decline in sales over time would be hard to attribute to just the boycott by Fineman's group. There are many other factors like the state of the economy and competitors (like McDonalds) which come into play which are much more significant.

Fineman goes on to say that institutional investors who own 357 million shares of Starbucks' stock should be able to make their own decision based upon his studies. However, they don't plan to go to the institutional investors to pressure them to pressure Starbucks.

If Fineman is so confident in his projections, then he should have no problem presenting them to investors nor have a problem with pressuring these same institutional investors. I would speculate the reason he won't be "pressuring" the institutional investors is because he knows he would be laughed out of the room.

The EPA Denies a Petition to Restrict Lead Tackle

The gun prohibitionists and anti-hunting/fishing groups are grasping for anything they can use to stop the lawful exercise of shooting, hunting, and fishing. In this release from the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, we see that the Center for Biological Diversity was stopped in their attempt to regulate fishing tackle due to lead. Unfortunately, I doubt they will stop their attempts just because the EPA told them to take a hike.

Science has prevailed. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has denied a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)—an anti-sportsmen group—that would have precipitated significant restrictions on lead fishing tackle all over the United States. The CBD wanted the EPA to use the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to heavily regulate anglers from using tackle they have long used even though science doesn’t support such a measure. The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) has been, and will continue to, fight such unscientific lead bans and restrictions at the state and federal level.

In a letter to the CBD on February 14, 2012 the EPA wrote:

After careful review, EPA has determined that, while the petition does provide evidence of exposure and a risk to waterfowl in some areas of the United States, it does not provide a basis for finding that the risk presented is an unreasonable risk for which federal action under section 6(a) of TSCA is necessary to adequately protect against such risks. Accordingly, EPA is denying your request to initiate a proceeding for the issuance of a rulemaking under Section 6(a) of TSCA to adequately protect against risks posed by fishing tackle containing lead of various sizes and uses that are ingested by wildlife…. Your petition does not demonstrate why federal action is necessary given the mix of regulatory and education actions state agencies and the Federal Government already are taking to address the impact of lead fishing tackle on local environments.”

When the CBD began its quest for this unwarranted restriction on fishing tackle in 2010, the CSF responded by working with the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus (CSC) in Washington, D.C., and with the National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses (NASC), which serves as the umbrella organization for launching and working with state legislative sportsmen’s caucuses now active in 39 state legislatures, to demand such regulations should be based on sound science and under state jurisdictions. The Executive Council for the NASC, and several state legislative sportsmen’s caucuses, wrote letters to
EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson asking that she deny the CBD petition. Meanwhile, the CSF rallied legislators in the CSC and in caucuses around the country to demand that any such ban be based on real scientific evidence; after all, the cost to anglers would be real if affordable tackle is taken off the shelves. The EPA subsequently denied the CBD’s first petition.

However, the CBD filed a new petition with the EPA in November of 2011. This petition asked the EPA to evaluate the unreasonable risk of injury from lead fishing tackle, and to begin proceedings for rule making under Section 6 of TSCA. The CSF stayed engaged at all levels of government. The NASC sent letters from various state sportsmen’s caucuses, including Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Oregon and South Carolina, to point out that state natural resource agencies are in a better position to respond to any localized concerns and that such a restriction is not biologically justified as no studies have shown that fishing tackle is impacting loon or other waterfowl populations.

Also, on April 14, 2011, the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act (S. 838 and H.R. 1558) was introduced into both chambers of Congress by the chairs of the CSC—Senators Jon Tester (D-MT) and John Thune (R-SD) and Representatives Jeff Miller (R-FL) and Mike Ross (D-AR). This legislation is another way the CSF has been working to prevent a federal ban on lead in recreational fishing tackle. It would clarify the TSCA exemption for ammunition and establish a similar exemption for fishing tackle. The Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act would put an end to attempts to over-regulate the recreational fishing and hunting industries and protect the rights of anglers and hunters who choose to sustainably enjoy their sports.

Jeff Crane, president of the CSF, says, “Sportsmen and wildlife won a big battle. Though we doubt the Center for Biological Diversity will stop this ideological attack on fishing, the EPA has decided against an unscientific restriction of lead fishing tackle. The state legislative sportsmen’s caucuses, under the umbrella of the National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses, have once again represented their angling constituents admirably.”

If the EPA agreed to this ban it would have been an unjustified fishing restriction at the federal level. Wildlife management in the United States has been a model to the rest of the world because we have successfully managed wildlife at the population level. There is no evidence that lead fishing tackle is causing negative population-level impacts, therefore forcing anglers to replace their lead tackle with costly alternatives would be an unnecessary burden to America’s fishermen and an impediment to fishing participation.

Other sportsmen’s groups, most notably the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), have also been instrumental in fighting back these unnecessary restrictions on America’s anglers right to fish. Click here for more on the conservation communities’ position on lead.

Grass Roots NC On Anti's "Eat In Peace" Campaign

North Carolinians Against Gun Violence (sic) are starting a campaign called Eat in Peace. The aim is to encourage restaurants to post their establishments against legal carry if HB 111 passes.

Grass Roots North Carolina is calling them out on some of their lies and misstatements.

North Carolinians "Against Gun Violence" is publishing lies to disarm law-abiding restaurant patrons.

On its website, NCGV blatantly and dishonestly claims that HB 111 will "...force family restaurants and bars to allow loaded, concealed guns." See promulgation of this flagrant lie below and here: http://grnc.org/gun-ban-advocates-lie-about-restaurant-carry.

The fact is that HB 111 will not prevent restaurant owners from posting against carry should they (unwisely) choose to do so. GRNC has always supported the property rights of restaurant owners while protecting the rights of gun owners.

Restaurant Association does not oppose restaurant carry

This is why THE NC RESTAURANT & LODGING ASSOCIATION (NCRLA) DOES NOT OPPOSE RESTAURANT CARRY AND HB 111! A letter documenting NCRLA's position on HB 111 is available here: http://grnc.org/ncrla-and-hb-111.

The only thing NCRLA ever opposed was an effort by anti-gun Rep. Deborah Ross (D-Wake, GRNC 0 star) to force restaurant servers to question patrons about whether they are armed - a hostile amendment GRNC removed from the bill long ago!

Republican lawmakers are deceived

The real tragedy is that Republican lawmakers have joined in NCGV's self-embarrassment by allowing themselves to be swayed by disinformation and tainted polls. As a result, HB 111 languishes in committee and has not been brought up for the hearing it deserves.

Will it require the deaths of more North Carolinians in Restaurant Homicides to force lawmakers to see the truth?

Danielle RIP

What about Restaurant Homicide?

Victims of Restaurant Homicide like Danielle Watson and her unborn child -- viciously stabbed to death just a few weeks ago by an ex-con in a restaurant where she was prohibited by law from protecting herself - indicate that a more appropriate slogan for NCGV's disinformation campaign is not "Eat in Peace, but rather...

"Rest In Peace"

How many more mothers and children will have to die in NC restaurants before the General Assembly rescinds dangerous laws mandating defenselessness?

The 5th Gen AK

Russia Today has a story and a video on the new 5th generation AK which is called the AK-12. The first thing I noticed immediately is that it has a much longer sight radius than the earlier versions.

From the Russia Today story:

The Kalashnikov makers claim its has better range, increased fire dispersion, better ergonomics, usability and a potential for configuration changes.

The new weapon is as reliable as the AK-74, the Izmash factory CEO Maksim Kuzyuk says, but the dynamic characteristics differ significantly. It considerably increases the accuracy of shooting. The rifle is capable of firing in three modes: single shot, three shots and automatic fire mode.

Also, AK-12 is capable of using magazines of various types and capacity.

The basic feature of the new rifle is its modularity. It will serve as a basic platform for designing of over 20 modifications of small-arms weapons of various purpose and calibre.

AK-12’s composition allows operating it single-handedly, and can be converted for left or right handed use.
The rifle can accommodate night vision and Holo-sights, target indicator, or a light grenade launcher.

The AK-12 is undergoing firing tests in extreme conditions which should be completed by the end of the year. The Russian Ministry of Interior has already agreed to test the AK-12 in its special police units after official certification of the weapon.

Steve at The Firearm Blog has some more comments on this new AK.

The Gunny On Voting

The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (sic) has been running a campaign of sorts where they try to dish dirt on NRA Board Members. The Gunny, R. Lee Ermey, is one of the Board that they've profiled. Of course what they call "dirt" is, for the most part, what the rest of the world calls normal.

Now here is something that should really get them peeved. The Gunny is pushing voter registration. I am sure that they will find someway to say that the Gunny is demeaning librarians and is only encouraging gun rights extremism at the polls.

As someone who has been registered to vote since the day I turned 18 - and yes, I did it on my birthday - I think what the Gunny is doing is fantastic. There is no excuse for anyone who is pro-gun rights not to be registered to vote. That county commissioner or city councilman can do as much or more to restrict your gun rights as anyone running for President. Think about that.

SAF Comments On The Robbery Of Justice Breyer At Machete-Point

Justice Stephen Breyer and his family were recently the victims of an armed robbery at his vacation home on the Caribbean island of Nevis. The robber was armed with a machete. The Second Amendment Foundation has released a statement regarding this incident.

BREYER’S ROBBERY ILLUSTRATES WHY RKBA SO IMPORTANT EVERYWHERE

For Immediate Release: 2/14/2012

BELLEVUE, WA – The recent robbery of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer at a vacation home in the West Indies should hopefully cause the learned jurist to re-examine his core beliefs about the individual right to keep and bear arms at places other than their primary residence, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

Breyer has voted with the minority twice in recent years against recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms, in both the Heller and McDonald cases. He was robbed last week, along with his wife and some guests, by an intruder wielding a machete, according to published reports. Justice Breyer was not harmed, but the robber got away with about $1,000 in cash.

“We’re delighted that Justice Breyer was not hurt during this incident,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and hopefully this case will give him a new perspective on the right to bear arms for personal safety. Police cannot always be around when you need them, even if you’re a Supreme Court justice. One does not leave his right of self-defense at the doorstep of his home when he travels.

“If this demonstrates anything to Justice Breyer,” he continued, “it is that crime does not happen just at someone’s primary residence, and criminals do not make appointments, giving someone time to unlock and assemble and load a firearm. You must be able to protect yourself, even on vacation outside of your home state, at a moment’s notice. That’s not just a civil right, but a basic human right.

“When Justice Breyer dissented in the Heller case,” Gottlieb recalled, “he expressed concerns about keeping loaded firearms in the home for personal protection. Faced with a machete in the hands of a criminal, one wonders whether Breyer might have quietly wished he had a gun with which he could have defended himself, his wife and their guests. We hope this incident gives him new insight with which to temper his views.”

I'm not sure if "machete-point" is a word or not but if I had been threatened by a robber who was wielding one, I'd definitely consider it a word. I'm sure Justice Breyer might agree.

As to the lethality of a machete, it was the weapon of choice in the Rwandan genocide. According to Wikipedia, "Even after the 1993 peace agreement signed in Arusha, businessmen close to General Habyarimana imported 581,000 machetes for Hutu use in killing Tutsi, because machetes were cheaper than guns." These machetes were used to kill somewhere between 500,000 and a million Tutsi in an approximately three month period of time.

A Win For Concealed Carry In Forsyth County, NC

The Forsyth County (NC) Commissioners voted 4 to 2 to allow concealed carry in all areas of county parks in the county. Unlike the City of Winston-Salem which is located within Forsyth County, the commissioners seem to have listened to their constituents.

From GRNC:

The approved ordinance not only allows concealed carry in all parks, recreational facilities, trails, greenways, etc., but also adds a provision for keeping one's gun locked in a vehicle in ANY county property - meaning county properties beyond parks.

The only exceptions to allowing concealed carry in parks are Tanglewood (where alcohol may be sold and consumed) and Triad, which is partially controlled by less-enlightened Guilford County.

Kudos to commissioners Debra Conrad, Richard V. Linville and Gloria D. Whisenhunt for their favorable votes. Particular thanks are extended to commissioner Bill Whiteheart who worked with pro-carry advocates in drafting this excellent ordinance.

Negative votes were cast by Walter Marshall and Everette Witherspoon.

Not content with crossing only the Second Amendment, Marshall seemed also to go after the Fourth by suggesting law-enforcement should be posted in parks to determine if concealed carriers are "good intentioned". Invoking the now tired contention of permittees "losing it," Witherspoon expressed concern about basketball games getting heated and violent. David R. Plyler previously spoke against park carry, but did not attend the meeting to vote.

Gun-owners are cautioned that this ordinance must now pass a second reading before it is enacted. The pressure needs to continue until final passage!

 And from news reports in the Winston-Salem Journal:

Several people in the audience spoke in favor of the concealed-carry ordinance. No one spoke against it.

Brian Reese, who lives in Kernersville, said it upset him that some feel that "no matter how good you are, no matter how law-abiding you are, we do not trust you to carry a concealed weapon."

The ordinance would allow people with the proper permit to carry concealed handguns in parks. People also would be able keep concealed handguns in their cars parked in county parking areas, as long as the guns were securely locked away.

Our BUYcott Visit To Starbucks

We thoroughly enjoyed our caramel macchiato and cinnamon dolce latte at Starbucks this afternoon. It was a nice treat for Valentine's Day.

I stopped by the bank earlier today to get some $2 bills and made sure to leave the tip for the Starbucks' barristas using a $2 bill obtained just for the BUYcott.

 

The other thing I did was send an email to the District Manager for the Starbucks in Western North Carolina. I explained why we went to Starbucks today and thanked her for the company's policy of neutrality on gun issues. I also said we expected to partake of their fine coffees more frequently.

BUYcott Day

The Complementary Spouse and I intend to celebrate both Valentine's Day and gun rights by meeting at Starbucks after work for a nice coffee drink as part of Starbucks Appreciation Day. I also plan to stop by the bank to get some $2 bills to leave in the tip jar.

Those calling for the boycott aren't exactly happy that their attempt at publicity has been turned back on them. The National Gun Victims (sic) Action Council released a letter yesterday from a group of professional "peace activists." They freely acknowledge that those of us who believe in our rights will be sipping our coffees, teas, and hot chocolates today at Starbucks and that we will be creating a bump in sales for Starbucks.

We also hope to say “thank you” soon for leadership on the legislative front¬–the kind of leadership you are exercising with respect to marriage equality. So far, your publicized rationale in defense of welcoming guns in your stores has (been) simple: you state that Starbucks is just following the law, state by state. That means that in 43 states you welcome openly carried guns and other firearms, while saying ‘yes’ to concealed carry in 49 states. But the law in all 50 states allows you to ban guns from your stores. Starbucks can do more than choose between competing laws. Starbucks can help change the law! Starbucks can use its corporate clout, in cooperation with others to challenge the powerful gun lobby, end the impasse in Washington that has blocked any meaningful gun violence prevention legislation in the 18 years since the Brady Bill was passed.

What they are having trouble comprehending is that support for marriage equality and gay rights doesn't automatically correlate into support for gun control. Indeed, if they had looked at the plaintiffs in a number of important gun rights cases, they might have understood that many gay men and women have rejected being kept defenseless. That the right to self-defense and self-protection is a human right seems to have eluded the gun prohibitionists and the professional peace activist groups.

Historical Quote Of The Week

Given the lip service that politicians on both the right and the left pay to the Second Amendment, I thought this week's quote from Proclaiming Liberty was particularly apt.

Every time an advocate of gun control promises not to impair the recreational activities of hunters, he demonstrates his contempt for the values underlying the Second Amendment, implying that the issues at stake are trivial.

Sullum, Jacob. "Shooting Gallery." Reason Dec. 1995: 50-55. Print.

This quote is found on page 60 of Proclaiming Liberty which is available from Amazon.com for $12.95. The Kindle edition is now available for $3.95.

I'm Sitting On A Fortune!

The Complementary Spouse and I got tired of being cooped up in the house by the cold weather and went junking this afternoon. By junking, I mean we went to a bunch of thrift shops and antique malls in Asheville.

One of the places is a combination bookstore and interior design/art/antique mall called the Screen Door. At one booth, I found a dish full of used rifle and pistol brass.

The prices were $1.50 for used 7.62x54R brass and $1.00 for the pistol brass. That is per piece! They made a big deal over the rifle brass being "Russian" as if it was some sort of exotic thing. The brass wasn't made into jewelry or some other trinket. It was just used brass that could have been picked up at any range.

Given those prices, I think we gunnies must be sitting upon an immense fortune with all the empty brass we have!

Grass Roots North Carolina Refutes The NY Times Hit Piece On NC CHP Holders

Michael Luo of the New York Times wrote an article that claimed more than 2,400 people holding Concealed Handgun Permits from the State of North Carolina had criminal convictions. He says he came up with this number by comparing the names on the state's database of CHP holders with criminal records.

Sean Sorrentino of An NC Gun Blog started an email dialog with Luo. If you have been reading Sean's blog for any amount of time, you know he has been tracking the growth of concealed handgun permits in North Carolina and he has been following the background of those arrested for criminal misuse of firearms. As such, he has as good a feel for this as anyone and Luo's article struck him as wrong. So he contacted Luo and asked for the data.

After much back and forth, Luo told Sean he'd give the data to either a legislator or to NC law enforcement officials. This was the opening Sean was looking for and he contacted Paul Valone of GRNC seeking a friendly legislator to call Luo's bluff. The bluff was called with the result you'd expect.

So what do you say to an author who refuses a State legislator the data needed to do his job? When that legislator asked for the data, with a mind to crafting new and better legislation along with demanding answers from the State Bureau of Investigation, Luo refused.

Paul Valone, President of GRNC, has now responded to Luo's accusations with a point by point rebuttal. Somehow I doubt the "paper of making it up" as SayUncle calls it will respond. They are good about making claims about gun owners but not so good about making corrections.

“The fight is on and the NRA is ALL IN!” - CPAC 2012

NRA CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference being held in Washington, DC yesterday. In his speech, he served notice that the NRA and gun owners will make a difference on whether Obama wins a second term or not.

All of our Second Amendment liberty, all of the rights we’ve worked so hard to defend, all of what we know is good and right about America — all of it could be lost if Barack Obama is re-elected.

It’s all or nothing and I’m here to announce that gun owners, everywhere I go, are
signing on, joining up, and donating to our cause.

The fight is on and the NRA is ALL IN!

Let me put that another way.

Time after time, election after election when freedom is at risk, gun owners step up and make a difference. We’re stepping up again. We’re not backing down, and mark my words: when the sun goes down on Election Day, Barack Obama will have America’s gun owners to thank for his defeat!

He goes on to conclude his speech saying:

If you don’t remember anything else I say today, write this down: This is the most dangerous election in our lifetime. If Obama wins, we’ll go to our grave mourning the freedom we’ve lost.

This election is All In — all of our freedom, all of our rights. And that means all of you, ALL IN.

No one sits this one out. So stand up right now and you tell me, will you defend freedom with all your heart and might? Come on, stand up and let them hear you at the White House!

Will we fight to preserve our liberty and keep our nation strong and safe and free? Will we save America and our freedom? Will we save the Second Amendment from a second Obama White House?

We will not be denied our destiny, our place in the history of preserving American liberty! This is our time. Our election to rise up and fight for our rights!

We will defend our nation because we must.

We will prevail! We will prevail and we will stand for who we truly are.

WE ARE THE NRA.

WE ARE AMERICANS.

WE ARE PATRIOTS.

WE WILL DEFEND FREEDOM, AND IN THIS ELECTION WE ARE, BY GOD, ALL IN!

The video of the speech is below:

Quote Of The Day

The Today Show ran a new feature called The Rossen Report where their so-called investigative reporter Jeff Rossen was shocked(!) to find that people used the Internet to advertise guns for sale. Tam applies a industrial-grade smackdown as only she can do.

I demand that we close the Going Wherever You Want Loophole! If we checked everyone for government issued photo ID as they walked out their front door, we could prevent sidewalks from being superhighways for criminals, but the ACLU has vowed to fight any such legislation.

That's about the level of logic on display here, wherein some de-beaked, cage-raised Manhattanite makes the discovery that the barbarians in far-off free-range America, 'way across the Hudson, are allowed to sell their personal property to each other without going through an orgy of forelock-tugging and Mother-may-I down at the cop shop.

Suck it, media boy. I know this may come as a shock to you, but hardly anybody's even listening to you anymore. Maybe the steady hemorrhage of Nielsen ratings has caused an hypoxia-inducing vacuum in the studio, but even non-president Al Gore can tell you that you're on the wrong side of history on this one; I'm sure you have him on speed dial down there at msnbc, so call him and ask him.

For another fisking of this (non) story, can be found on YouTube here.  The last time anyone paid any attention to Jeff Rossen was when he appeared in Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Of course, it wasn't serious attention.