It is Time to Dust Off The Old Blog...

...and start posting again.  The Anti's have embark upon a full frontal assault on our rights.  They are emboldened by the fact that they have an anti-gun president who is not worried about re-election and has no real loyalty to his party members who may want to be re-elected.  Obama has proven that he will do what Obama wants to do, period.

The Second Amendment is under attack from all sides.  The Media, the Administration, the Justice Department, the Anti's in Congress and the Fudds are all slobbering at the bit to impose a new and improved Assault Weapons Ban and a nation wide firearm registration upon us.  Banning private sales of firearms and even confiscation are also on the short list of what this Administration wants to accomplish in the very near future.

To all this, I say fuck 'em.

More on Immigration Reform

From News 5 (Phoenix AZ)

Woman Loses Leg, Dies In Collision With Deputy

PHOENIX -- A 46-year-old woman lost her leg Tuesday night and later died after she was hit by an undercover Maricopa County sheriff's deputy who was trying to stop another car.

Phoenix police said the deputy saw a man later identified as Guadalupe Perez-Borjorquez, 26, throwing beer cans out of a moving car. When the deputy pulled up next to the car, police said, Perez-Borjorquez started ramming the deputy's vehicle.

Police said the two vehicles continued swiping each other as they made their way down Durango Street.

Perez-Borjorquez later admitted he was using maneuvers he learned by watching American TV shows, authorities said.

Near 27th Avenue, the deputy's vehicle collided with another car.

Police said the deputy suffered minor injuries and burns, but the woman driving the car was taken to St. Joseph's Hospital in critical condition. Her leg was amputated at the hospital and she later died, according to police.

You know what is coming next.

Perez-Borjorquez faces aggravated assault and second-degree homicide charges.

The sheriff's office said information gathered by immigration-trained deputies revealed Perez-Borjorquez has entered the U.S. illegally at least five different times and has been deported five times.

Deported five times? Does anyone else see a problem with this? One of the few duties of Congress is to protect our sovereignty. Instead of demanding that Homeland Security, the Border Patrol, INS, and state police enforce the rule of law, they are debating a bill that would legitimatize folks who entered this country illegally. This bill would legitimatize Perez-Borjorquez's presence in the United States. Does that bother you? If so, contact your senator and demand that he or she vote against the upcoming cloture vote on the immigration bill. We desperately need to keep this bill from coming to a vote in the Senate.

There are a few senators who are doing the right thing:

From the Houston Chronicle:

By Julie Hirschfeld Davis

GOP Seeks More Immigration Enforcement

Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison and Georgia Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson have all said they would oppose the effort, despite the fact that proposals by Hutchison, Chambliss and Isakson all won coveted slots on a list of two dozen amendments that would be considered before the bill is completed.

A note thanking these senators for their support would be appreciated. They are going against the Administration and the GOP to do what is right, and they should be commended. A vote for cloture is a vote for this bill. A few senator's with an R behind their name are planning on voting for cloture and then vote against the bill itself. If the cloture vote passes, the debate is ended. The Dem's own the Senate and they have enough votes to pass this bill.

Close the borders. Enforce current law. Then discuss immigration reform.

Thanks to Matthew (a reader) for the article from Phoenix.

Credibility Issues?

Just Here to do the Work That Americans Will Not Do?

Illegal aliens are considered "illegal" due to the fact that they disregarded American law and entered this country without proper documentation. They broke the law. They continue to break the law while they reside in the United States by using false documentation to obtain jobs, stealing (or purchasing stolen) identities of American citizens, and living every day as a lie. It seems that the Administration is willing to overlook this minor and inconvenient truth as it seeks to bestow legitimacy upon these very illegitimate, illegal aliens. I guess these are not "real" crimes in the eyes of the Administration and many in Congress. But what about the ones that commit "real" crimes, what do we do about them?

From the Houston Chronicle:

By Renèe C. Lee

Man in Magnolia confesses to molesting 13 kids

MAGNOLIA — A 29-year-old man is in jail on a charge of indecency with a child after he slit his wrist and confessed to police that he sexually assaulted 13 children, police said.

A grand jury is expected to hear the case next week.

Mauricio Ojeda told police about the assaults when they responded to an emergency medical call at his house on April 29. Ojeda had self-inflicted cuts on his wrist and no pulse, said Magnolia Police Chief Ronald Cunningham.

Once emergency medical service personnel revived Ojeda, he said had been ''a bad boy" and had sexually assaulted 13 victims who had lived in the house with him, Cunningham said...

...Ojeda was held in federal custody in Houston after he was treated and released from a local hospital because of his illegal status, Cunningham said. The Montgomery County District Attorney's Office later issued an arrest warrant and he was booked into the Montgomery County Jail on May 2, where he remains with bail set at $50,000.

I have a question. If we had secure borders and if we were serious about enforcing our current immigration laws, would this predator have been in the United States? The answer, of course, is most likely not. This is why we have immigration laws, to keep goblins such as this out of our country.

Another question - Why does an illegal alien have the opportunity to make bail?

Just think, under the proposed immigration reform bill, goblins such as Sr. Ojeda will become legal residents of the United States.

If this bothers you, contact your Senator and let them know.

Our President Continues to Push the Illegal Immigrant Amnesty Bill

Okay Mr. President, you are most definitely stepping on my last nerve. The American people gave you a gift, a gift you have abused and pretty much trashed. We gave you the presidency of the United States, and we gave you a Republican Congress to go along with it. We expected to see liberalism put in it's place, the Democrats were on the run and their party was in disarray. In your short tenure as president you have destroyed what we worked so many years to achieve. The Dems have retaken control of The Hill, and worse yet, you have given the Clintons another shot at the White House. You really should be ashamed at the way you have abused our trust. Your attempt to legalize 12+ million illegal aliens is the last straw for many of us.

From the Houston Chronicle:

By Julie Hirschfeld Davis

Bush urges Senate GOP to revive immigration bill

WASHINGTON — President Bush pressed divided Republicans today to support him on immigration overhaul, saying "status quo is unacceptable."

Yes Mr. President, I agree. The "status quo" is unacceptable. Our open borders, and the lack of any real enforcement of current laws concerning illegal immigration and the hiring of illegal immigrants is unacceptable.

The American People have made ourselves clear. We raised our voices prior to the last election, and we have spoken once again. Close the border. Close the border NOW! You signed a bill to build a fence, build the bloody fence. Direct the Justice Department to enforce current law. Fine and/or imprison companies that make a habit of hiring illegals. Fine, imprison and then deport (as is current law) any illegal aliens discovered in routine traffic stops, criminal investigations, or in workplace audits. If it is determined that an individual is in the United States illegally, take action under current law.

This is not too much to ask.

We have a day worker program. We have a Green Card program. We have means for folks who wish to work in the United States to legally do so. The folks who follow the rules and use these programs should be commended. Those who do not are criminals.

Punish the criminals. Do not reward criminal behavior.

Crucial test vote on immigration bill fails in Senate

Good job folks. This is the second time that "We the People" stopped legislation that would provide amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. It should be noted that we shut down legislation that was desired by both a Democrat majority in the Senate and by the Administration. This goes to show that when enough voices are raised in unison, the folks on the hill take notice.

Crucial test vote on immigration bill fails in Senate

From the Star Telegram:

By Dave Montgomery:

WASHINGTON -- Warnings surfaced throughout the day Thursday that a far-reaching immigration bill was in trouble in the Senate. By late night, prospects for passage collapsed...

...The 627-page bill was taken off the Senate floor at the end of a bitterly contentious day that saw the bill's sponsors desperately trying to resolve differences between Democrats and Republicans over GOP demands to offer additional amendments.

Senators voted overwhelmingly Thursday night against a motion to end debate, prompting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to pull the bill.

The bill has been removed from the Senate floor. This is great news. It is somewhat amazing to me that these Senators (Dem and GOP alike), thought they could get this garbage past us with just a wink and a smile. These long term politicians have absolutely no idea about life in America outside the Beltway. They have no idea about how having 12,000,000+ uneducated invaders who have little or no grasp of the English language and a total disregard for our laws is affecting Middle America. Somehow they believe that with the stroke of a pen they can create a serf class in America, a class of people who will be appreciative of their status in society, and maybe vote for them in the future.

Our representatives on the hill need to be reminded that this is America. America is the land of the free, and the home of the brave. America is not populated by serfs and subject, but by free citizens. Attempting to create a secondary class of citizen, will only cause extreme civil unrest and breakouts of violence of a magnitude potentially greater than the recent riots in France. A restrained and regulated immigration policy was a key factor in building this country during the industrial revolution, and remains an important (if ignored) policy today.

Have the open borders, amnesty granting Senators given up?

...leaders refused to proclaim the bill dead.

...But Reid and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., both expressed hope of resuming work on the bill if they find a way out of the deadlock.

The prospects for reviving and ultimately passing the bill appeared uncertain, but supporters insisted it could be done.

"We're still open for business on this bill," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., a leading Republican supporter of the measure.

...Supporters on both sides of the aisle insisted that the bill could be resurrected.

"Oh, no, it's not dead," said South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican member of the bipartisan coalition.

Our work is not yet done. Until this bill is truly dead, we need to keep pressure on our respective senators.

OBTW: You folks who are represented by the likes of Graham, Specter and McConnell; the rest of us are counting on you to do something about these guys. The next time they are up for re-election, you need to use the primaries to get them the heck out of office.

Controversial Gun Bill Getting Roadside Attention

I have to admit that I smiled when I saw that image. Too bad that it does not reflect the policy of the local leadership of the GOP.

From Fox Carolina:

By Lidia St. Mark

Controversial Gun Bill Getting Roadside Attention

...A sea of signs once polluted a median on Interstate 26 and Highway 221 in Spartanburg County. Now, only one sign remains. The sign reads: "Vote Yes - Make guns legal in public schools - Vote Republican."

Although the sign insinuates Republicans are in favor of a controversial gun bill moving through the state legislature, Spartanburg Republican Chairman Rick Beltram said most Republicans are against the idea. "I think the signs are ugly. I think we also found that they are illegal, immoral and unethical," Beltram said. "They're trying to send a message that the Republican party is endorsing these issues."

This is just one more example of why the GOP is no longer grand. The bill that is alluded to in this article is H.3964. This bill, as originally written, would allow a CHL holder to carry a firearm on school property. The bill was recently amended to only authorize a CHL holder to carry a firearm on school property while the CHL holder remained in his or her vehicle.

So, according to Mr. Beltram, the Spartanburg Republican Chairman, most Republicans in S. Carolina are against the idea of a CHL holder carrying a firearm when dropping off or picking up their children from school. Mr. Beltram would have free citizens, parents, continue to make a decision between protecting their children, and breaking the law.

If you are wondering about my views on this issue, read these posts:

32 And Counting...

Mass Slaughter in our Schools: The Terrorists' Chilling Plan

Thanks to Grassroots Gun Rights for the update on S. Carolina law.

As is, immigration bill a recipe for failure

Senator John Cornyn on the proposed immigration bill.

From the Star Telegram:

By Sen. John Cornyn:

As is, immigration bill a recipe for failure

As Congress debates overhauling our broken immigration system, the bottom line should be this: Will the new system be enforceable and restore respect for our laws? Or will it be unenforceable and lead to even more illegality in the future?

This is not a minor matter. America is successful because it is a nation of laws. We now have a situation in which some laws are routinely ignored. If we approve yet another law that promises reform yet again fails to deliver on its promises, our precious heritage as a nation of law will be in serious jeopardy...

Head on over and read the rest.

Day By Day

In Other News...

With the news focusing upon Virginia Tech, you may have missed this little bit of action that occurred in Houston.

From the Houston Chronicle:

Rolling gunfight on Southwest Freeway kills 1

By ROBERT CROWE and KEVIN MORAN

At least one man was killed and several were wounded when rival immigrant-smuggling gangs engaged in a noontime gunbattle that started on the Southwest Freeway and ended on the feeder road, police said.

Authorities suspect one gang was attempting to steal a load of immigrants from the other...

...About noon, the occupants of two trucks — one carrying at least 10 people — exchanged gunfire while heading northbound on the freeway, Elliott said. The vehicles exited at Bissonnet and ran a red light before one truck crashed into an older model Honda Accord that was not part of the chase.

Elliott said the occupants of the two trucks "then proceeded to get out of their vehicles to have a shootout."

Incidents like this have been happening out in the desert for quite awhile now. The fact that the coyotes are getting so bold as to pull this stunt in the city says a lot for the contempt in which they hold our law enforcement organizations.

While I do not often comment on our need to secure our borders, I have mentioned the lax attitude of a certain police chief when it comes to illegal aliens.

Officer slaying adds to immigration debate

I have also mentioned that it is...

It is Well Past Time to Secure Our Borders

Do not forget the most important reason to secure our borders, terrorist. As horrific as the Virginia Tech shootings are, Beslin was much worse. In Beslin 338 were killed by Muslim terrorist. Our schools are not only an easy target for terrorist attack, they are a preferred target. Read more here.

It is appalling that our elected officials have done very little to secure our borders. Secure borders are one of the primary responsibilities of our federal .gov, and they ignore it. Playing politics for what they see as future votes from a new servant class of "citizen". Just another action to add to their list of shameful acts.

From The Fifty Caliber Institute

The Fight to Protect the .50 BMG has Started:

In early March the battle to protect our rights as law abiding gun owners began again in earnest in the state of New Jersey with the introduction of a 50 caliber ban in the form of adding a new definition of a "Destructive Device" to an existing law. Senate bill 1498 and Assembly bill 3998 both add to existing law a new definition of what a destructive device is.

Illinois Follows Suit:

At the same time the state of Illinois introduced two anti-50 caliber bills of their own. HB 873 was initially introduced as an expansion of their existing Assault Weapons Bill and it added the fifty caliber rifle (and many others) to that existing law. After a short period of time SB 1471 was introduced which is a stand alone bill just banning the 50 caliber rifle.

FCI Joins Forces With Other Groups:

Since before this battle began FCI has been working in conjunction with several other gun rights organizations to do everything we can to educate the legislators of both Illinois and New Jersey to the rights of law abiding gun owners. In both states we are facing tremendous odds simply because of the changes that resulted from the elections last November. Each state has Democratic majorities in both houses and are known for their anti-gun political posture.

In IL SB 1471 has been voted out of committee already and can be brought up onto the Senate floor for a vote at any time. The identical bill HB 873 on the House side of the legislature has also been voted out of committee and can be voted on any time.

During the week of March 19th both of these bills were intensely lobbied by many people within the fifty caliber community. Ronnie Barrett, owner of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing and Mark Westrom, owner of Armalite Inc. led a delegation of representatives from the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA); the ILA Office of NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) to educate legislators on the real facts relating to the fifty caliber target rifle. On Tuesday March 20th they spent the entire day meeting with state senators in an effort to garner the support to kill this devastating piece of legislation. Each member of this delegation was present to provide information at the hearings on HB 873 on Wednesday morning. Regardless of the information presented, HB 873 and two other very serious anti-gun bills passed out of committee when voted on that day.

Both of these bills now present a serious threat to the law abiding owners of fifty caliber target rifles in IL. These bills can be called to the floor of either legislative body at any time for a vote. Right now is the time for all gun owners in IL to get involved and call their legislative representatives and voice your opposition to these bills.

We are asking everyone who is a member of a shooting sports organization to forward this email to as many email addresses as you can and to share this message on as many gun rights forums as you can. We need to send a crystal clear message to the legislature in IL that we will not tolerate another debacle like what happened in CA four years ago. Law abiding gun owners need to stand together on this issue and fight to keep our right to enjoy our sport. If we don't, the next rifle they come for will be your scoped deer rifle.

For more information on The Fifty Caliber Institute, go here.

To read the latest issue of the FCI newsletter, which includes a report of the recent match which took place in Waco Texas at Tiger Valley, go here.

Texas Workers Protection Legislation!

There are several bills floating around the Texas Legislature that attempt to deal with the issue of employers firing CHL holders if the employer discovers a firearm in the CHL holders vehicle. This is a good idea that would not be necessary if it were not for corporations overstepping their bounds when trying to control all aspects of the lives of their employees. There is a small problem though, the idea has gone sour with the bills that have the most likelihood of passing.

Senate Bill 534 (SB 534) and House Bill 992 (HB 992) are companion bills titled "Relating to certain rights and liabilities of an employer regarding an employee's access to a concealed handgun."

It all sounds well and good. The NRA-ILA has sent out the mass mailing requesting Texas firearm owners to contact their legislators and urge support for these bills and HB 220 (I will comment upon HB 220 shortly).

This is how the NRA-ILA describes these bills:

All three bills would allow Concealed Handgun Licensees to transport and store handguns in their locked, private motor vehicles while parked on their employer’s property. HB992 and SB534 also provide employers with protection from civil liability for the unforeseeable acts of criminals.

Sounds great doesn't it?

There is one major flaw with two of these bills. Let us see if you can pick it out -

Sec. 52.061. PENALIZING EMPLOYEE FOR ACCESS TO OR STORAGE OF A CONCEALED HANDGUN.

(a) A public or private employer may not discharge, discipline, or penalize in any manner an employee because the employee:

(1) applied for a license to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;

(2) holds a license under that subchapter; or

(3) transports or stores a handgun the employee is licensed to carry under that subchapter in the employee's locked motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees if the handgun is hidden from plain view and the employee has filed with the employee's immediate supervisor:

(A) a written statement signed by the employee stating that the employee:

(i) is licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;

(ii) intends to store a concealed handgun in the employee's locked motor vehicle while parked in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees; and

(iii) may not remove the handgun from the employee's vehicle for any purpose other than self-defense in the immediate parking area; and

(B) a copy of the employee's license to carry a concealed handgun issued to the employee by the Department of Public Safety under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.

Okay, so I gave you a hint.

The requirement for an employee to inform the employer in writing of his or her CHL status pretty much renders this law useless for many. CHL holders who work for companies or individuals who are anti gun, are not going to notify them, in writing, that they have a firearm in the car. CHL holders are not stupid. Texas is an "at will" employment state, and the employer may not state that a CHL holder was fired for having a firearm in the car, but any other excuse will work. Future performance evaluations will be affected and promotions missed. These bills accomplish absolutely nothing for CHL holders, or for anyone else who happens to have a firearm in the vehicle (in Texas, it is legal to have a long gun in your vehicle at all times).

Yesterday, SB 534 passed the Senate. HB 992 (the companion to 534) and HB 220 have passed through the Law Enforcement Committee and are awaiting scheduling through the Calender Committee.

HB 220 is a much better bill. It contains no requirement for the CHL holder to notify the employer of his or her status as a CHL holder. HB 220 simply states:

Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, a public or private employer may not establish, maintain, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person licensed under this subchapter from transporting or storing a concealed handgun in a locked vehicle in any parking lot, parking garage, or other designated parking area.

The issue I have with this bill is the following verbiage:

A private employer may prohibit an employee from transporting or storing a concealed handgun in a vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees if:

(1) the parking lot, garage, or other area is completely surrounded by a gate and is not open to the public; and

(2) ingress to and egress from the parking lot, garage, or other area are monitored by security personnel.

A secure parking lot does not do any good for the CHL holder while they travel to and from work.

There is a third bill sitting in committee. HB 1037 effectively addresses both employee and employer issues as they relate to firearms in vehicles.

For the employee:

(b) A public or private employer may not discharge, discipline, or penalize in any manner an employee because the employee transported or stored a firearm in the employee's locked motor vehicle, regardless of whether the vehicle was located on the employer's property.

For the employer:

(g) A public or private employer is not liable in a civil action for damages resulting from an occurrence involving the storage of a firearm in the motor vehicle of an employee.

HB 1037 is an excellent bill, that has no chance of passage in this legislative session. Personally, I am willing to wait until such a time as a bill such as this can be passed. But I acknowledge that we do need some employee protection.

So this is what I would recommend;

Contact your House Representative and let them know that you fully support HB 1037 and would like to see it released from committee for debate on the House Floor. Baring that, let them know that you would prefer they support HB 220 over HB 992. Give them good reasons why you are against HB 992 and why you would support HB 220.

In defense of the NRA's support of SB 534/HB 992 is the fact that this is the most contested piece of pro-gun legislation that has been put before the Texas Legislature. Castle Doctrine was a breeze compared to this. Many of Texas's largest employers have come out very strongly against these bills. The fact that SB 534 made it through the Senate is testament to the hard work of the lobbyist and Senators who are trying to get some protection for CHL holders. It is easy for me to be a hardliner when I am sitting at my keyboard. I do not want to minimize the work that is being done on our behalf in the legislature. If SB 534/HB 992 passes, the requirement to provide written notification, if abused by companies, can be fought in a future legislative session.

30.06

In the comments section of a couple recent posts, Fits has mentioned 30.06 Signs. I am sure that many of you who read this site have no idea about what a 30.06 sign is. I thought I should explain.

When Texas passed it's version of a Shall Issue Concealed Carry Law, a compromise was made that attempted to balance the right to keep and bear arms with the rights of a property owner. In Texas a business owner may prohibit concealed carry on his or her property. This was accomplished through the Texas Penal Code, Section 30.06.

PC §30.06. TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF LICENSE TO CARRY CONCEALED HANDGUN.

Basically a CHL holder is in violation of the law (Class A misdemeanor) if he or she remains on the property after proper notification that entry on the property by a license holder with a concealed handgun was forbidden. This notification can be either verbally, the owner or owner's representative asks you to leave, or by written communication. The written communication can be a card handed to the CHL holder, or a sign posted at the entrance of the property. The language of the written communication has to be exactly as follows (in both English and Spanish):

"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN) A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN."

"CONFORME A LA SECCIÓN 30.06 DEL CÔDIGO PENAL (TRASPASAR PORTANDO ARMAS DE FUEGO) PERSONAS CON LICENCIA BAJO DEL SUB-CAPITULO H, CAPITULO 411, CODIGO DE GOBIERNO (LEY DE PORTAR ARMAS), NO DEBEN ENTRAR A ESTA PROPIEDAD PORTANDO UN ARMA DE FUEGO."

Any other signage does not constitute proper notification and a CHL holder can legally enter the establishment with a concealed firearm. If a business owner posts a no guns sign other than the proper 30.06 sign, I see it as an invitation for a CHL holder to enter. Now if the owner determines that you have a concealed firearm and asks you to leave, you must leave.

One of my very first posts on Fit's site, Shooting the Messanger, concerned some comments he made about Texans and 30.06. I took a bit of umbrage to a post of his "The Neverending Sissification Of Texas...We Get Letters" and we have been commenting back and forth ever since.

There are very few 30.06 signs posted in Texas these days. Businesses have realized that CHL holders have money and are not the guys planning on a robbery. We are gaining momentum towards changing the Penal Code and doing away with 30.06, but it will be awhile yet before that happens

More information on 30.06 can be found here and here.

Killed by a Drunk Driver

Today's Houston Chronicle reports on a fatal accident involving a serial drunk driver.

By Cindy Horswell

Man held in 2 drunken driving deaths had prior DWIs

A Mexican national, charged with intoxicated manslaughter and failure to render aid in the deaths of a Porter woman and her pregnant daughter, had three prior drunken driving convictions...

According to investigators, Gomez-Gutierrez was speeding on the Eastex Freeway about 3:40 p.m. Sunday when his pickup truck slammed into the back of a 1998 Buick belonging to the Ortiz family. The two women were killed on impact near the entrance to Kingwood, investigators said.

Authorities say Gomez-Gutierrez fled the accident scene on foot but was captured further down the road after being hit by another car. He was not seriously injured....

Kahan said, "Part of the blame for this accident should be placed on the criminal justice system which punted, passed and kicked Gomez-Gutierrez out of jail, so that he could do what he does best -- drive drunk."

I am not going to comment on the fact that a Mexican National had been arrested and jailed three different times without being forced to leave the United States.

I did not pick this article to point out the failures of our justice system or question the light sentences that this drunk had received previously.

I am not even going to mention that the Houston District Attorney should be doing more to keep repeat criminals off of the streets and less daemonizing of law abiding gun owners.

Nope, I am not going to talk about any of that.

I mention the above article so I can comment on this other piece of news that is being reported today.

From WBAP, News Talk Radio 820:

Medlin Freeto Act Passes Texas House

AUSTIN-(WBAP)-A bill named after two fallen metroplex police officers has passed the Texas House of Representatives. The Darren Medlin and Dwayne Freeto Act increases penalties for drunk drivers who assault or kill peace officers, firefighters or EMS personnel while they are in the line of duty. The Act is named after Grapevine police officer Darren Medlin, who was hit and killed by a drunk driver in 2004, and Fort Worth Police Officer Dwayne Freeto, killed when his car was engulfed in flames after being hit by a drunk driver last December.

The legislation now goes before the Texas Senate.

Will someone please explain to me why the death of a police officer, firefighter or an EMS in this situation is worth more than the death of the two women in the first article?

I can understand increased penalties for killing or attempting to kill a police officer attempting to arrest a goblin. Legislation such as that may help to protect our police officers. This is different. A drunk who kills in a traffic incident is not killing a police officer because he or she wears a badge, the drunk kills them because they are where they are. The drunk would have killed anyone who happened to be in that same spot.

Do you want to increase penalties for intoxicated manslaughter? Go ahead, but increase them across the board. The three generations that were killed by the Mexican National, deserve the same justice as a public servant killed under the same circumstances.

Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Bill Signed Into Law

From the Star Telegram:

By Kelley Shannon:

Governor signs 'castle doctrine' deadly force bill

Gov. Rick Perry signed into law Tuesday a bill that gives Texans a stronger legal right to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, cars and workplaces...

...This is the first bill-signing this legislative session by the Republican governor. The law takes effect Sept. 1.

It is a done deal. On September 1st Texas will have a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law.

For more information on this law (including text), go here.

More Guns Banned by HR 1022

The most recent issue of American Rifleman has an article titled "Show Me What's New in '07". A good bit of "What's New in '07" could become "What's Banned in '07" should HR 1022 be passed.

Here are the firearms from the April edition of the American Rifleman that would be banned under HR 1022:

From Auto-Ordnance -

The Thompson 1927, The Thompson M1, and the Thompson 1927 Commando are banned by name in HR 1022. Auto-Ordnance is pretty much SOL if this becomes law.

From Berretta -

Beretta lists this as "The Beretta Rx4 Storm is the most advanced semiautomatic rifle ever designed. This .223 special purpose rifle emphasizes individual performance with ergonomic adjustment and ambidextrous controls." Well that barrel shroud would make this a banned firearm under HR 1022.

From Cobb Manufacturing -

I honestly do not know how badly Cobb Manufacturing would be hurt by a loss of pretty much all civilian sales due to the passage of HR 1022, but I think it would be a significant hit. Cobb had invested a lot of R@D dollars to perfect their MCR's, money down the drain if HR 1022 becomes law.

From D.P.M.S. -

DPMS is another company that will be severely affected if it loses civilian sales due to HR 1022.

From FNH-USA -

This beautiful semiautomatic shotgun has a fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds. This is way too much firepower for a free citizen to handle.

Barrel shroud, thumb hole grip, forward grip... All banned attributes of a firearm by HR 1022.

There you have it. Some of the best new firearms of the year would be banned if HR 1022 is allowed to go forward. These companies spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on research and development to improve upon firearm platforms, they need the civilian market sales to keep this research going. Why is this research important? It is important because our soldiers will benefit from improved small arms. Remove the civilian money from the small arms industry, our military will suffer.

Here is the full text of HR 1022

Edit to add: I just checked, and there are now 33 cosponsors to this bill. I guess it is a good thing that "Gun control is a dead issue".

Presidential Candidates and the Second Amendment

The Gun Owners of America (GOA) has compiled a very informative collection of articles concerning all of the '08 presidential candidates and their stand on the Second Amendment. If gun rights and the preservation of the Second Amendment is an important issue to you, then you need to know where the candidates stand. To me, the position a candidate takes on the Second Amendment and gun rights says a lot of how that candidate will look at the entire Bill of Rights and our Constitutional liberties.

Presidential Candidates and the Second Amendment

An Interview With Duncan Hunter

Representative Duncan Hunter sparked my interest when he announced that he was throwing his hat into the ring and run for president on the GOP ticket. The Duncan Hunter '08 website did an excellent job of defining his core values and beliefs in the areas of the war in Iraq, terrorism, taxes, abortion and the like, but had scant information on his views of gun rights and the Second Amendment.

So what's a blogger to do other than get in contact with his campaign staff and request an interview?

After correspondence back and forth, and a bit of time to allow Representative Hunter's staff to vet both myself and my blog, he agreed.

An interview (via email) with presidential candidate Duncan Hunter.

Thank you for taking the time to answer the following firearm related questions. The Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, and firearms issues in general are not addressed on your campaign web site so folks are interested in your views on these issues.

“Thank you for the opportunity to address these vital issues of liberty with you. Our website was put together piece by piece and the Second Amendment statement was one of the later things added. That does not reflect the slightest lack of commitment on my part regarding Second Amendment rights. My record over 26 years in Congress is absolutely clear.”

1. Please state, in your own words, what the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States means to you. Do you understand the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual or a collective right?

“The right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right of Americans to protect their families and their communities and their nation with firearms. In this age of post-911, Americans, I believe are comforted by the fact that our ability to resist terrorism is not limited to law enforcement or defense agencies but is also within the ability of all gun-owning Americans.”


2. There has been a lot of discussion in the media and in the legislature about “Closing the Gun Show Loophole.” What is your definition of a “Gun Show Loophole”, and how would you address this issue?

“I reject the term ‘loophole’. It is a clever verbal device of the left to restrict the rights of Americans. Constitutional rights are not loopholes in governmental regulations. As President, I would veto legislation that would require a background check on private firearms transactions at gun shows or any other bill that restricts the Second Amendment Rights of American.”


3. Representative Carolyn McCarthy has introduced H.B. 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. Do you believe that Americans have the right to own, use and carry weapons of military pattern? Do you support restricting a citizen’s access to firearms based upon cosmetics or ease of function?

“As President, I would veto any bill that reauthorizes the semi-auto ban that was sunset in 2004. These types of bills represent “feel good” measures that impede the rights of law-abiding citizens by banning guns based not on facts but based largely upon how scary they look.”

4. In Congress, you represent the great state of California, a state applauded by some and demonized by others for having extremely restrictive gun control laws. Do you understand California’s gun control laws to be a necessary and effective deterrent to violent crime?

“Gun control laws directed at law-abiding citizens are not a crime deterrent. In fact, studies show that private ownership of firearms by Americans reduces crime. You and I both know that the one thing criminals prefer more than any other is unarmed victims.”

5. If you are elected President of the United States, how would your presidency affect firearm owners?

“As President, I will not sign any treaty that impedes, in any way, the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

Only judges who have a demonstrated commitment to interpret the Constitution as our founders intended will be nominated to the federal bench.

I would ask Congress to send me for my signature, legislation to repeal the D.C. gun ban, legislation to allow reciprocity among states with concealed carry rights and other pieces of legislation to restore rights that prior administrations have eroded.

In fact, I authored the Hunter amendment, Rol call 241 in 1999, to allow DC residents to keep and bear arms.”

Representative Hunter; thank you again for taking time out of your busy day to answer these questions and address issues that many Americans see as important. Your voting history on Second Amendment issues is appreciated.

Respectfully,

JR

There it is, Duncan Hunter on the Second Amendment. Since this was an interview, I'll leave my thoughts to myself for the time being.

I am very thankful to Representative Hunter for taking the time to answer these questions. I hope the questions were sufficient to give you information you can use in making a decision in the Republican primaries.

Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Bill

On March 12th, SB 378 (Relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person) was voted upon and passed in the State Senate. The vote passed with 30 Yeas and 0 Nays.

On Monday, the 19th, Representative Driver made a motion to substitute SB 378 for the House version of the same bill (HB 284). This motion passed and SB 378 was placed before the house and read into public record.

Today SB 378 was read for the third time in the House and was voted upon by the members of the Texas State House and passed. The voted passed with 133 yeas and 13 Nays. One member stated on the public record that he intended to vote Nay, so the vote would have been 132 Yeas and 14 Nays.

All that is left is for Governor Perry to sign the dotted line, and Texas will have a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law. This law will go into effect on September 1st.

Here is the text of the bill.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

SECTION 5.

(a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.

SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

That is pretty much it in a nut shell.

Oh...

Who were the dissenters? Who were the ones would deny a Texan the ability to use lawful force against a goblin?

A list of the usual suspects:

Representative Lon Burnam - Representative Garnet Coleman - Representative Dawnna Dukes - Representative Harold Dutton - Representative Jessica Farrar - Representative Ana E. Hernandez - Representative Terri Hodge - Representative Donna Howard - Representative Barbara Mallory Caraway - Representative Ruth McClendon - Representative Borris Miles - Representative Paul Moreno - Representative Senfronia Thompson and the member who stated:

I was shown voting yes... I intended to vote no.

Representative Elliott Naishtat

If your representative is on this list, and you would have preferred they voted for this bill, write and let them know. More importantly, if your representative supported this legislation, write and tell them thanks. Showing our appreciation for their support will go a long way towards maintaining their support on future legislation.

For and update on the Texas Castle Doctrine law, click here

Firearms Banned by H.R. 1022

Thought I would post a couple images of firearms considered "assault weapons" by the anti's.

Banned Specifically by Name

Mini-14® Ranch Rifle



M1 Carbine

Kel-Tec Sub Rifle (I assume they mean both)

One Banned by Attributes

Remington Model 11-87™ SP-T Thumbhole



Thumbhole stock, a big no-can-do.

And, One That Many Have Not Thought About

That is correct, from the bill:

...a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

Who did John Browing develop the 1911 for?