RKBA

Rep. Lloyd Doggett’s response

/ hsoi

So that EPA lead ban thing came about.

I emailed my Congresscritters.

Today I received a response from my US Congressman, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D, 25th district of Texas).

August 30, 2010

Dear John:

Despite its many benefits, the Internet allows misinformation to travel swiftly. You have been provided such misinformation regarding the claim that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to ban all traditional ammunition. The EPA did receive a petition from an outside group, exercising its right to petition — a right available to you or any other citizen.  But this petition to ban lead in hunting ammunition was denied by EPA as not even being an issue within its jurisdiction.

Rest assured, as someone who grew up around guns and hunting here in Central Texas, I respect the right of gun ownership, though I frequently question the propaganda of groups like the one that promoted this misinformation.

Please keep me advised of any federal matter with which I may be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Lloyd Doggett

I love the snide overtones. I reckon if we changed the context of this to something he favored, like Obamacare, he’d respond saying we had no right to petition and object. Certainly he’s behaved in the past like he’s above us mere commoners.

I love the “I respect the right of gun ownership”. Bullshit. Explain your “F” grade from the NRA then. And I replied to him as such (well, I didn’t say “bullshit”).

From open children to open carry

/ hsoi / 7 Comments

It’s raining.

For whatever reason, that’s caused more ducks than usual to congregate around our house. More ducks means more distractions for the kids. 😉  Plus, one mother mallard has 6 chicks (hatched probably just a few days ago), so the cute is irresistible.

The kids were outside tending to the ducks. I was in my office working. Wife was in the kitchen. Kids come back in the house to tell us that an Austin Police Officer drove up, rolled down his window, asked them if they were where they were supposed to be, “We’re homeschooled.”, “Alright.” and off he drove. Will it amount to anything? I don’t know, but I doubt it. We did have another talk with the kids about how to handle such situations. But what got me was what I found myself saying.

You see, Wife was saying how one of our homeschooling mentors always avoided such issues by running her errands after normal school hours. I can understand. We’re doing nothing wrong, we’re doing nothing illegal, but we are doing something that most people aren’t familiar with and “breaks the norm” of what’s expected… thus it has potential to cause trouble and bring headaches and hassles into our lives. So mentor’s approach was to just avoid it because she didn’t want to hassle. Wife doesn’t do that, we don’t lock the kids away and only bring them out when children are supposed to be brought out, but certainly Wife prefers to avoid the hassle.

I found myself saying that no, we can’t do that; we can’t avoid the hassle. Not saying we should flaunt it and invite it, but that if the hassle comes, it comes. What we’re doing is fine, legal, normal; it may not be mainstream, but how are people ever going to get used to it, acknowledge it, accept it, and not flinch or find it strange if we always keep it hidden away? If we always work to avoid the hassle, no one will ever see or know. How does that help or improve the situation? If anything, it could serve to make the situation seem worse because it’s being hidden away and not just openly done.

And I found myself thinking about Open Carry.

It may not be mainstream today, but how else are you going to get it to be mainstream unless you make it so? To hide it away isn’t going to help. Look at any sort of “civil rights” be it homeschooling or gay rights or women’s rights or various ethnic groups. You don’t get to sit at the front of the bus by always hiding at the back of it (by force or by choice).

Still trying to figure out how I stand on open carry, but this little experience certainly has influenced me a bit.

I was inspired to write this due to a comment made by Linoge on Uncle’s website. Thanx, Linoge.

The Metal Detectors Cometh….

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

I heard this was a definite go but still had questions. While the Austin-American Statesman article has an obvious bias, it at least seems to answer the question.

And, under an exemption approved Tuesday as a part of a new security plan, Texans with a concealed-handgun license will be able to take their pistols into the statehouse as well.

So this sucks that we’ll have metal detectors, but at least CHL holders will not be abridged. Of course I don’t really care for that either because concealed means concealed. But as soon as you have to notify the guy working the detector, you’re going to stand out, you’re going to get some sort of special treatment (e.g. won’t have to go through the detector), and it’s going to make the sheep scared and cause problems.

*sigh*

And in the end will safety really be improved by this? No. It won’t be any more or any less safe. It makes some legislators feel better about themselves (tho, good for Rick Perry for being the only one to vote against this measure), but that’s all.

We’ll see how this pans out in reality.

Glad to hear it

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

About damn time.

LINCOLN – Attorney General Jon Bruning today issued an opinion finding that Omaha’s city ordinance requiring handguns to be registered does not apply to anyone with a state- recognized concealed handgun permit.

“The Legislature clearly intended the concealed carry permit process to be stringent,” Bruning said. “If you go through the steps to obtain a permit, there’s no reason for cities to make you jump through additional hoops.”

Nebraskans must undergo a background check, firearms training and fingerprinting, and submit a photograph and $100 to obtain a concealed handgun permit.

The Concealed Handgun Permit Act, as amended by LB430 in 2009, pre-empts municipal bans on the carrying of concealed handguns. The Omaha ordinance, which prohibits the possession of unregistered concealable firearms, violates this pre-emption as it applies to those who possess a valid carry permit recognized by Nebraska.

Given the wording of “state-recognized”, well… my Texas state CHL is recognized as valid (via reciprocity) within Nebraska.

This is all good. Omaha has been very anti-gun, but the only people that’s served to hurt are the law-abiding citizens. The gangs and other criminal element so prevalent in Omaha of course doesn’t give a fairy fart about any laws. So now removing barriers from law-abiding citizens, that’s a good thing.

Daley’s got a point

/ hsoi

Chicago Mayor Daley actually has a point.

The impression coming out of Tuesday’s SCOTUS McDonald hearing is that the US 2A applies to the states. Of course we won’t know SCOTUS’s decision for months, but that’s the impression. Of course, Chicago is directly impacted by this, and Mayor Daley, while not handling the potential loss all that well, actually makes a sound point:

Still, Mayor Daley isn’t giving an inch. In fact, he’s ridiculing the high court for affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms while sitting in a protective bubble.

“Why can’t I go to the Supreme Court and sit there with a gun and listen to the arguments? If a gun is so important to us on the street or someone’s home, why can’t I go to the Supreme Court and sit there with a gun? I’m not gonna shoot anyone. But, I have a right to that gun,” Daley said, his voice dripping with sarcasm.

“Why can’t I go see my congressman who doesn’t believe in gun laws? Why can’t I carry my gun into congressmen’s offices or go to his home and knock on his door and say, ‘Don’t be worried. I have a gun. You want me to have a gun.’ Why is it they want to be protected by all the federal money … to protect all the federal bureaucrats, but when it comes to us in the city” there’s no protection?

He is quite right. Why can’t law-abiding citizens carry into courtrooms? Why can’t law-abiding citizens carry onto Federal property? Why is there some sort of exclusivity for some and not others?  Granted, Daley doesn’t totally get it because he frames this as if law-abiding folks are suddenly going to turn bloodthirsty. But the general point is sound.

Of course, this is what people are wondering the most about what SCOTUS will say. While it seems a lock that 2A will end up being incorporated, the big question is how and to what extent. That is, could SCOTUS say “yes it applies, but the states are free to decide just how far it applies”. Think about how Heller expressly didn’t address notions of “reasonable restrictions” (whatever that is).

“When a child gets shot or killed, that is a failure of society. Adults should stand up and say, guns don’t solve things in homes or streets. If it was, then everyone here would be carrying a gun in our own corporations.” [said Daley]

Yes yes…. glad to see someone is thinking of the children. And guns don’t solve things? While certainly they aren’t the answer to every problem, they sure do solve some of them. There are decades of data supporting that.

Right now, we just have to wait and see what SCOTUS will say.

Good for him

/ hsoi

Colorado State University’s Board of Governors voted for a weapons ban on campus.

In response, Larimer County Sheriff James Alderden said he would undermine the ban in the interest of student safety. Read more here.

“I have told the CSU police chief I will not support this in any way,” Sheriff Alderden told The Gazette. “If anyone with one of my permits gets arrested for concealed carry at CSU, I will refuse to book that person into my jail. Furthermore, I will show up at court and testify on that person’s behalf, and I will do whatever I can to discourage a conviction. I will not be a party to this very poor decision.”

It’s simple. This Sheriff has set aside emotions and looked at the hard facts:

Alderden said ban advocates have been unable to cite a single study or statistic to show that students will be safer as a result of a weapons ban. He’s convinced they will be much less safe as a result of the ban, which will leave most students defenseless. The ban establishes the campuses as “soft targets,” meaning armed criminals will have a reasonable expectation their intended victims aren’t armed.

“There are volumes of statistical and anecdotal data that show populations are safer when law-abiding citizens are permitted to carry concealed weapons,” Alderden said.

Six years after Alderden began issuing permits, he noticed the homicide rate in his jurisdiction had dropped.

Amazing that. But like I said, the ban is about emotion. Don’t believe me?

“I made the whole case, based in provable facts. The teacher said, and I quote, ‘I don’t care about the facts.’ She only cared about her emotional response,” Alderden said.

Amazing. Isn’t it interesting how in so many other areas of life people want facts, people want proof, people want evidence, but here they don’t want facts. How… odd.

John Lott on guns in National Parks

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

John Lott writes on the topic of guns in US National Parks.

Basically, it’s a non-issue.

But I wanted to mention the article because of one choice passage:

“You’re raising the level of risk in the parks, and the chance that people will use the parks less than they have in the past,” Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign gun control group warned during February 2009. As evidence for his claim, Helmke pointed to a New York school teacher who said that she would cancel school trips to national parks if guns were allowed. Helmke and others opponents have largely focused on permitted concealed handguns again being allowed in the parks.

Hysteria supporting hysteria. It’s a shame that logic and reason are victims here.

On personal defense

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

Most people are hip to the notion of defending your home. It’s your sacred and personal place in the world, one we don’t want to have violated. Pro or anti gun, aggressive or pacifist, you’ll find most people are fine with defending your home.

Could you not say that your own person, your own body… could you not say that place is even more sacred, even more personal?

Why then do some people have a problem with a desire to keep your own person, your own body from being violated?

The retort typically is “Of course I don’t have a problem with this”, especially if you paint that violation in a context of something like rape.  But if that’s the case, why are we taught to just “lie back and take it“? Why is the constant refrain to not fight back, to “just give them what they want”? Don’t forget how the words “Let’s roll” and the actions that followed changed the course of events on 9/11/2001.

Realize most violent crime occurs away from the home. If it’s acceptable to defend yourself at home, I would reason it’d be more important to defend yourself when you’re away from home! However, some people don’t think that.

“To force the general public to be exposed to the risk of loaded guns when they are out with their family in public areas is outrageous and has absolutely nothing to do with the right to defend the home,” [Jonathan E. Lowy, a lawyer with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence] says.

Source here.

You know…. the general public is exposed to the risk of loaded guns all the time. Last time I checked, the police carried loaded guns. When you’re out and about with your family in public areas, hopefully there are police around somewhere, right? Are their guns any different?

Jay is working his way through the police academy. Consequently, he has a fair perspective on the process. He recently wrote a 2 part article on the requirements to get into the academy. Part 1, Part 2. It’s a little long, but it has to be to provide the proper perspective.

Where is the difference between a cop and a CHL? You can argue training, but as I’ve already said previously, little time actually deals with firearms. You can argue psychological examination. However, as proven in the past, psych exams aren’t foolproof. They can be beaten and fool even some of the best in the psych field. You could argue firearms qualification, but the last time I checked, a CHL’s qualification is harder than that of a LEO.

That is why I push for less carry restrictions for CHL holders. Because in the end, there isn’t any real difference at all.

National Parks won’t change a whole lot today

/ hsoi

So today the new federal law change kicks in, where law-abiding citizens can continue to abide by the laws of their state.

Of course, much hysteria is coming with this, but I get the feeling this will be a lot like when concealed handgun licenses were coming about. All the predictions of death and destruction, OK Corral style shootouts in the street, and in the end the result was quite the opposite effect; in fact violent crime statistics went down. Gee.

One cool thing tho is the National Park Services website is to be updated to provide information on the laws of that particular state. In poking around this morning I’m finding the website to be inconsistent, some park entries having information and some not. If they are there, it tends to be under the particular park’s website, under Management, under Laws & Policies. Hopefully it’s just a matter of time before the entire website is updated.