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

How Not to Introduce a New Shooter to Firearms

There is no sound on this video, none needed. It is a short, 18 second, display of lack of concern for safety and for the new shooter.

Tenth Edition of the Second Amendment Carnival

Stan over at Free Constitution has posted the Tenth Edition of the Second Amendment Carnival.

Providing the best 2nd Amendment coverage the blogosphere has to
offer.

Head on over and check it out.

Poacher Kills Game Warden

From the Star Telegram:

By Alex Branch

Game warden killed in shootout with hunter

A Texas game warden was killed early Saturday during a shootout between authorities and a man suspected of hunting illegally.

Warden Justin Hurst, 34, was shot after the suspect led law enforcement officers on a 50-minute chase that wound through the back roads of Wharton County southwest of Houston, said Maj. Rolly Correa of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

When the car finally stopped, the suspect came out shooting, authorities said.

“I don’t know how many patrol cars were hit, but there were a number of windows shot out and lots of rounds fired,” Correa said.

The suspect, a goblin whose name is not worth mentioning, 26, was wounded in the shootout and taken to a hospital, according to a statement from the Texas Department of Public Safety. He is expected to be charged with capital murder.

The person who murdered this game warden is not a hunter, he is a poacher. There is a big difference. Hunters do not take game illegally, poachers do. Hunters do not get crosswise with law enforcement, poachers do. Hunters are law abiding citizens who continue traditions as old as mankind itself. Poachers are scum who steal from the land and from the citizens of Texas.

The chase started after a fellow game warden spotted a man believed to be hunting illegally from the road, authorities said. When the warden approached him, the suspect fled.

Hurst and officers from several jurisdictions joined the pursuit.

Hurst started his career with the agency in 1995 as a wildlife biologist, Correa said. He later grew interested in law enforcement and graduated from the Game Warden Academy in August 2002.

Hurst was killed on his 34th birthday and is survived by his wife and 4-month-old child, Correa said.

“It’s a really hard thing,” Correa said. “He was loved by all. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family.”

Hurst was the 16th Texas game warden killed since 1919, Correa said.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of Warden Hurst.

Game Wardens play an very important role in the preservation of our hunting and fishing grounds, keeping our lakes and open areas safe, and in wildlife education. Every Game Warden I have come in contact with has been very professional straightforward.

I am sure that everyone in the shooting community can agree that this goblin is no hunter, at best he is a poacher, and in reality a murderer. I have written the author of this article, and explained a bit about the differences between poachers and hunters.

If you would like to add your 2¢, here is his email: abranch@star-telegram.com

Sunday's Blog of the Week

I am not really sure that this weeks blog of the week is considered a blog, but it is a very important web site. This web log provides us with a daily rundown of what is going on in the world of Second Amendment Blogs. Just as important as the current information, is the sidebar links to gun law history. This is a good place to start if you desire to become better educated in Second Amendment issues and the gun laws of today.

Of course I am talking about Gun Law News.

If you have not been there, go now. Click through some of the links, read, educate yourself. I am sure that Gun Law News will make it on to your favorites list.

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?

H.R. 1022, Assault Weapon Ban Update

The push to pass H.R. 1022, the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007, is gaining momentum with each passing day. In an earlier posting I asked if the bill was:

...a trial balloon, or is it a serious effort by the Dems to launch a new AWB? A nod to the trial balloon folks would be the fact that this bill currently has no co-sponsors. If it were a serious piece of legislation, the Dems would be crawling all over each other to get their names on it.

Well guess what, H.R. 1022 now has 26 cosponsors. That means 26 more congress critters are giving their active support to this bill. Below is the list of the so called representatives of the people who have signed on to this bill.

Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5]

Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28]

Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23]

Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1]

Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7]

Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1]

Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]

Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14]

Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2]

Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51]

Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]

Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7]

Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2]

Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18]

Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14]

Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7]

Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3]

Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5]

Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13]

Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8]

Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8]

Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9]

Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29]

Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28]

Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8]

Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19]

It looks to me like they are starting to get serious. We also need to get serious. We need to respond to this attack against our freedom right now. We can not wait until this bill gains even more momentum. Once it gets out of committee, the Dems will push it forward. They have a sitting president who has stated that he will sign an AWB, they have the majority, and they need a victory on a bill like this to bolster their candidates in the '08 elections.

I added a button on the top of my side bar that helps to make it easy to contact your congress critter. At the minimum, you should write, fax, email and call your representative and let them know that legislation such as this will not be tolerated.

For extra credit, contact the House Judiciary Committee and ask them to prevent this bill for going forward.

Gun Law News has a good synopsis of the bill here.

Some Mid Week Humor

Last week NASA fired that crazy astronaut Lisa Nowak. Apparently there was no place at NASA for an unstable woman. The good news? Today she was hired as co-host of “The View.”

Jay Leno via The Patriot Post

Darwin is on Our Side

From the Fresno Bee:

Gang member shoots self accidentally, is arrested

A Bulldog gang member who shot himself in the stomach while pounding on his handgun with a hammer was arrested on suspicion of possession of a firearm, Fresno police said...

...Hernandez eventually told detectives that he had been hammering on the handgrips of the loaded .22-caliber pistol when it fired.

An End Result of Gun Laws

The anti's keep telling us that we need more gun control laws, that writing more anti gun legislation will somehow keep violent criminals from using a firearm. Massachusetts is one state where the anti's have been very successful in implementing draconian gun control laws. Let's see what happens when a violent career goblin breaks these laws.

From the Berkshire Eagle:

By Nicole Sequino

Man: I shot myself

PITTSFIELD — A 25-year-old Pittsfield man with a violent criminal history admitted in Berkshire Superior Court yesterday that he shot a 25-year-old man outside a local bar in May 2005, and then shot himself in the foot to imply he had been attacked.

Well... you know what my first comment is going to be. All the anti-gun laws in Massachusetts, all the political rhetoric and all the heavy handed restrictions placed upon the supposedly free citizens of Massachusetts did nothing to stop this violent creature from being violent.

At least they got their man. A repeat violent criminal is in custody and the State of Massachusetts has a chance to protect it's citizenry and keep this goblin locked up for a good, long time.

Reggie W. Ellerbee pleaded guilty to single counts of armed assault with intent to murder, being an armed career criminal, use of a firearm during the commission of a felony, illegal possession of a firearm, illegal possession of ammunition, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling place.

Holy sheep dip Bat Man. Isn't attempted murder a serious enough offence to get this guy locked up for a good long while? I think both the state and the people would be much better served if we would stop it with all this add on BS to crimes. Prosecutors could focus on the one important charge and juries would not have to deal with all this superfluous garbage. Anyone running for office who swears to vote against all new laws would get my vote.

Back to the subject at hand. This guy is going away forever with all those charges. This is Massachusetts, a gun control mecca.

Judge John A. Agostini sentenced Ellerbee to a total of 10 to 10 1/2 years at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Cedar Junction. He will also remain on five years probation after his release on the condition that he have no contact with the alleged victim or his family.

A repeat violent offender will be back on the streets in just a few short years. Who will be to blame for his next victim? The goblin, the gun, or the justice system?

D.C. Gun Ban Overturned

A couple of folks have asked why I have yet to comment on the recent overturning of Washington DC's gun ban.

Basically it is because everyone else has done a very good job of getting the good news out there for the world to read. I would not have much to add to the commentary already written.

Gun Law News has compiled a fairly thorough list of articles and commentary on this very important decision:

D.C Gun Ban Overturned

300

There are very few movies that stick with me. The first would have to be Ol' Yeller, a line from that movie is often in the back of my mind. "A man's got it to do what a man's got it to do".

The song Impossible Dream from the Broadway show "Man From La Mancha" rolls through my mind during quiet moments.

Tonight we went to see the movie 300, and all I can say is that this movie will be sticking with me for quite awhile.

Accidental gun fatalities hit low Point

Fatalities due to accidental/negligent of a firearm are heartbreaking events that leave families and friends stunned. The sad truth of the matter is that pretty much each and every one of these incidents could be prevented by safe and proper handling of all firearms.

If you watch the news and listen to the anti's, you would think that accidental/negligent firearms related deaths are on the rise. The facts show that quite the opposite is true.

From South Coast Today:

By Marc Folco

Accidental gun fatalities hit low Point

Today, the annual number of accidental firearm-related fatalities (730) is down 77 percent from a high of 3,200 in 1930. In comparison to the 730 accidental gun deaths, 809 die from being struck by an object, 893 die from natural heat or cold, 1,307 suffocate, 3,306 drown, 3,369 die from fires, flames and smoke, 4,272 choke, 17,229 fall to their death, 19,457 are poisoned and 44,757 are killed in car accidents.

Did you catch that? Down 77% since 1930!

In 1930, there were approximately 110 million people in the United States, today there are over 300 million. If you adjust the numbers for the population increase, the results are very impressive.

In 1930 there were 2.9 accidental deaths due to firearms per 100,000 people.

Today there are .24 accidental deaths due to firearms per 100,000 people.

That is almost a 92% decrease in accidental/negligent firearm-related fatalities since 1930.

The author of the article lists a few factors contributing to this accomplishment:

The decline is attributed to a number of factors including firearm safety education programs by educational groups like the NSSF and the NRA, state-affiliated hunter education programs, free locking devices shipped with new firearms and advances in firearm designs and manufacturing.

I would like to add a couple of thing that I think have helped decrease accidental/negligent shootings:

• Jeff Cooper. By publishing and advocating the Four Rules of Firearm Safety, Jeff Cooper has done more than any other individual or government entity to increase the safe handling of firearms the world over. The Four Rules, when followed, prevent accidental/negligent discharges.
  
• This is one area where the media may have actually helped instead of hindered. When there is an accidental/negligent firearm related death, the media is all over it. This has increased awareness of the dangers associated with unsafe handling of firearms and caused folks to be more responsible.

Jeff Cooper, the media, gun magazines, hunting and shooting organizations, shooting ranges, gun shops and blogs have all worked together to raise awareness of firearm safety. A higher level of awareness equals a safer population.

We can do better. We can reduce deaths due to negligent firearm handling by another 90%. If you own a firearm, be responsible. Teach everyone in your house the proper and safe way to handle a firearm, make it as instinctual as buckling a belt.

If you are interested in learning more about firearm safety, I have posted some good information here.

Thanks to ACE over at Airborne Combat Engineer for leading me to this article.

Firearms and Employer Parking Lots

Three different bills have been introduced into the Texas State Legislature that would give CHL holders the right to transport and store their handgun in locked private vehicles on company property and also provide immunity from liability for the employer.

The introduced bills are:

HB 220 - Relating to the rights and liabilities of an employer with respect to the carrying of a concealed handgun. (HB 511 is a duplicate of this bill)

HB 992 - Relating to certain rights and liabilities of an employer regarding an employee's access to a concealed handgun.

HB 1037 - Relating to certain rights and liabilities of an employer regarding an employee's access to a firearm.

Current law allows an employer to fire an employee who lawfully carries a firearm in a vehicle on a company parking lot. An opinion piece in today's Star Telegram does a much better job explaining just what is wrong with this picture.

Restrictions cannot contravene the Constitution

By Marion P. Hammer (former president of the NRA)

The U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. Transporting a firearm in your vehicle for protection while traveling to and from work, grocery shopping, to the doctor's office, to a shopping center or anywhere else people commonly travel is central to that right.

In Plona v. United Parcel Service, 2007 (U.S. District Court, N.D. Ohio), UPS fired an employee for having a firearm stored in his vehicle in a public-access parking lot used by UPS employees and customers. The court found that "the right to keep and bear arms" is enough to form the basis of a wrongful termination. Further, U.S. District Judge Ann Aldrich found that "allowing an employer to terminate an employee for exercising a clearly established constitutional right jeopardizes that right, even if no state action is involved."

Businesses are prohibited from discriminating because of race, age, sex, religion, nationality, etc. And clearly they are also prohibited from discriminating against those who exercise their right to keep and bear arms for personal protection and other lawful purposes like hunting and target shooting.

Individual constitutional and legal rights do not end when we drive onto a business parking lot. Simply put, business property rights do not trump the Constitution or the law.

State legislatures have a duty to protect the constitutional rights of individuals from abuses. They must act as a shield to protect constitutional rights of the people; they also must act as the point of a sword to punish those who violate our inalienable rights. That is at the heart of this debate.

Businesses cannot substitute their own political philosophies for constitutional rights. And nowhere in the Constitution are businesses given any authority to prohibit rights in their parking lots. Businesses have no more right to ban firearms in private vehicles than they do to ban books. Businesses may impose only restrictions that do not rise to the level of contravening protected rights.

Nor can employers require you to waive your protected rights. They cannot, as a condition of employment, require you to give up your right to vote; neither can they require you to give up your right of self-protection or your right to keep and bear arms.

The article goes on to make both common and legal sense of the issue and is well worth the read.

Of the three bills listed above, HB 1037 is the one that I like best for several reasons. The main one is that it most protects a free citizens right to keep and bear arms.

All of these bills have heavy opposition, both from the anti's and from large corporations. If you are a Texan, and want to see one of these bills passed, you need to contact your representatives and let them know.

Sunday's Blog of the Week

The Blog of the Week for this week is a blog that I check several times each day just to see what's new.

Fits is a prolific blogger and his commentary covers a wide range of topics. Politics, pretty women, firearms and sports are all topics covered by Fits.

If you have not guessed by now, this week's blog of the week is Shooting the Messenger. It is well past time that I highlighted this blog. Fits is straight forward and tells it like he sees it. He can be controversial because he points out BS when he finds it.

If you want a good read, enjoy guns and are interested in politics, head on over now. You may not always agree with what you find over at Shooting the Messenger, but you will have the opportunity to state your position (trolls excepted).

Ethics Training, Lessons Learned From History

The headlines are becoming common place, the accusations of police officers abusing their authority work to create an insurmountable divide between the police and those they are sworn to "protect and serve".

• In the aftermath of Katrina, we watch as the police forcibly disarm free citizens, leaving them at the mercies of the roving gangs and other goblins.


• From Atlanta we hear of an elderly woman who died in a gunfight with undercover officers serving a "no knock" warrant looking for drugs. During the investigation we learn that the officers lied to get the warrant, continued to lie after the shooting, and forced their informant to lie for them.


• And then there are the cases where we read of officers using their positions of authority to insure they are not charged when committing crimes, or to get sexual favors from prostitutes or even the law abiding citizen who gets pulled over in a traffic stop, or any number of other unethical practices that they feel they can get away with just because they are police officers.

The good news is that these officers represent a minority of the police who serve the community. I firmly believe that the majority of those who wear a badge are decent individuals who do their best to perform a difficult and often unappreciated job. But, as we saw in the Katrina aftermath, it does not take very much for those in a position of authority to turn against the very people they are sworn to protect and serve.

Here in the DFW Metroplex, a program has been developed to give our officers the tools to make ethical decisions in situations like the Katrina aftermath.

From the Dallas Morning News:

By Jeffrey Weiss.

Police officers find ethics lessons in Holocaust stories

A Plano police academy uses the lessons of the Nazi Holocaust to teach ethics to modern police officers.

Mike Jacobs, a death camp survivor and the founder of the Dallas Holocaust Museum, tells his story to the visiting police academy class. Mr. Jacobs said he hopes the officers learn from people who were in similar leadership positions during the Holocaust. Here's one of the lessons: What could it take to turn a beat cop into a mass murderer? Not as much as you'd think.

The disarmament of free citizens in New Orleans is only the most recent incident where those in authority have misused their power. Granted, disarmament pales in significance compared to the extinction that occurred in Josefow. This incident only goes to show how easily something like this can still happen.

Then Mr. Dlin told the students that police have a special ethical obligation. How police treat civilians is a good index of the real values of any society, he said.

And the Nazis recognized that, he added. The brutal Gestapo and the SS started as special police units.

But Reserve Police Battalion 101 started as a regular bunch of cops, not hard-core party members. They were members of the Hamburg police force who joined the battalion as an alternative to regular military service. In July 1942, they were sent to Poland.

The Final Solution was in full swing, and Nazis were loading thousands of Jews onto railroad cars every day and sending them to the death camps. But that July, in a Polish town called Josefow, there weren't enough trains.

Only three weeks after it left Germany, Battalion 101 was given what its commander called the "unpleasant task" of emptying the town of its 1,800 Jewish residents. The 300 strongest men would be sent to a work camp. The other 1,500 – men, women and children – would be marched into the forest and shot.

One lieutenant refused to take part. About a dozen other officers also refused. During the long day of killings, about 20 percent of the unit eventually stopped shooting.

By teaching from the past, maybe incidents like this can be prevented in the present. This course is being given to senior officers of the various forces in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. In my mind, this is a very good use of my tax dollars.

Jennifer White, 34, a lieutenant for the Arlington Police Department, said the session was a good reminder that police officers need to be constantly aware of the ethical issues that confront them – as does every citizen.

"They didn't start in 1942 with the mass killings. Things added up," she said. "We can't let the little things happen."

Herbert Ashford, 41, is a lieutenant with the Dallas Police Department. In his 20 years on the force, he's seen the power of peer pressure, he said.

"It's just human nature," Lt. Ashford said.

But the session at the Holocaust museum was a good reminder that he and his fellow officers have a higher responsibility.

"Throughout history, a few people stand up for what is right," he said.

The ethical lessons of that day would be reinforced in other classes at the Plano academy, along with discussions about Aristotle, Locke and Machiavelli, Mr. Carlson said. The eight-week course is designed to help police commanders deal with issues of ethics and leadership.

Maybe, just maybe, courses such as this will help keep our police from becoming the "only ones".

I Really Do Not Understand the Logic

From the Rockford Register Star:

60-year sentence for teen in man's murder

Chief Judge Kathryn Zenoff sentenced Salvador Rubio Friday to 60 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections — 30 years for the murder and another 30 years because he used a firearm to commit the crime.

The fact that this young goblin has received a 60 year sentence is great news. I am a firm believer in isolating murderers and other violent criminals from society. What confuses me about the sentence is the fact that it is split into two separate offences. The goblin received 30 years for killing a man, a 30 year kicker was added because he used a firearm. Would the victim be any deader if he was killed with a knife, hammer or pencil? Does the family really care what tool was used to take their loved one from them? How has our justice system devolved into this state of add ons and special circumstances? A murder is a murder. It really does not matter to the victim or the survivors what was used to commit the crime, only the fact that the crime was committed. This is in the same vein as hate crimes, any fool can tell you that if you murder someone, you pretty much passed the hate test. This goblin received an appropriate sentence for murder. Why do we have to use a kicker to get to 60 years, isn't murder enough?

Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law Update

Earlier I had reported that the legislation that passed through committee was not the same as introduced. At the time, the amended legislation was not available online, and I had some concerns about the changes. You can read my earlier post here.

The amended text of HB 284 and SB 378 are now posted online. The House and Senate bills are exactly the same, so all of my links will be to the House bill. You can find the original and amended text here.

The committee substitute is not as bad as I had originally thought. The intent of the bill has been protected.

Unlawful force is still adequately defined. The committee added the words "and with force" and "occupied" as follows:

(1) 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;

(2) 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;

The requirement to retreat is still removed and the legislation still protects us from criminal prosecution.

My primary concern with the committee substitute to this bill was the changes to the provisions pertaining to protection from civil actions.

The original bill contained the following:

83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using deadly force under Subchapter C, Chapter 9, Penal Code. The following is removed: (against a person who at the time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant.)

83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.

The committee substitute changed 83.001 to read:

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.

and deletes 83.002.

I like civil immunity much better than an affirmative defense.

I am not real happy with the committee adding the words "and with force" to the legislation. These words have the potential of opening loopholes for prosecutors and civil lawyers. If a goblin enters a home via an unlocked door, has he entered "with force"?

Other than that, this is good legislation. This is a vast improvement over our current law.

In a nutshell.

HB 284 and SB 378 -

1. Define unlawful force as it pertains to a goblin.

2. State that a citizen is justified in using deadly force against a goblin using unlawful force.

3. State that a citizen is not required to retreat from a goblin using unlawful force.

and...

4. Grant civil immunity to a citizen who has used deadly force against a goblin who decided to use unlawful force against the citizen.

This is good law. If you are a Texan, please contact your Representatives and ask them to support SB 378 and HB 284.

Revolving Door Justice in Cleveland

There were two major news stories while I was in Cleveland. The first was the tragic accident that involved the Bluffton University Baseball Team's bus as they were in route to Florida for a Spring tournament. The second was an equally tragic shooting of a young lady named Johanna Orozco. Johanna was shot with a shotgun at close range by her ex-boyfriend, a goblin named Juan Ruiz. Johanna survived, but remains in critical condition. She will be looking forward to a very long and painful process as the doctors attempt to reconstruct her face.

This is another violent crime that the justice system should have prevented. This 17 year old goblin, a known violent offender, was on the street with the blessing of a county magistrate.

In November, the goblin was arrested at school for carrying a revolver at school. He plead guilty to a felony charge.

December the goblin was expelled from school.

January a county magistrate dropped all charges against the goblin, even though he had plead guilty. This was done "for the benefit of the minor".

So what does jr. goblin do with his new found freedom? He rapes his ex-girlfriend at knife point. Yep, this goblin who deserved to have felony charges dropped by a magistrate, rapes Johanna.

Johanna reports the rape, the goblin is arrested for his second felony in four months. Whew, now we have this goblin off the streets, finally....

Nope, this magistrate sends him home on house arrest. They put an ankle bracelet on him and send him home.

Wearing his ankle bracelet, he leaves home and hunts down Johanna. When he finds her, he shoots her in the face with a shotgun. Now, finally, he is behind bars.

Watch the video here.

When you watch the video, note that Dad (who does not speak English) affirms that his son is a good boy.

Why do the anti's blame the gun when situations like this make the root issues so very obvious?

Time Off

I have a bit of a family emergency. I am going to be out of town until at least Thursday afternoon. I doubt that I will have much in the way of computer access while gone, so I will get back with you guys at the end of the week.

While the DA's are Busy Lobbying Against Castle Doctrine...

Many County District Attorneys have had representative in Austin all week lobbying against the proposed Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law. They are putting a lot of effort into limiting free citizen's rights to defend themselves against goblins.

Maybe if they concentrated on the job we hired them for, there would be less goblins on the streets for us to defend against.

From the Star Telegram:

By Melissa Vargas

Bedford man jailed in 3-city crime string

A 19-year-old Bedford man with a record of theft charges was indicted Wednesday in connection with stolen property from at least three Northeast Tarrant County suburbs, police say.

Matthew Eric Dever is accused of breaking into a car in Grapevine, stealing a car in Watauga and burglary of a habitation in Keller, officials said. He remained in jail Thursday in lieu of $85,000 bail.

This little goblin has been busy

Police say it all started Jan. 9...

I think the police might be a little off on the start date. Remember the first sentence of the article? "...with a record of theft charges..." How far back did that record start?

Dever has an extensive record of arrests beginning in September, including accusations of forgery and aggravated robbery in North Richland Hills; unauthorized possession of a weapon, tampering with government records and possession of a controlled substance in Hurst; and burglary of a habitation in Fort Worth.

"...beginning in September," Makes you wonder when his 19th birthday fell. Good money says no earlier than October.

Question for the DA's. How far is this goblin going to have to go to prove to you he needs to be isolated from society?

Captured!

The prison escapee I commented on here has been captured.

From the Star Telegram:

By Bill Miller

Escapee captured in Corpus Christi

Now let us see how fast the same District Attorneys who are so adamantly against the Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law can get this repeat offender goblin back on the streets.

A Rifle is a Rifle is a...

Blatantly filched from Barking Moonbat Early Warning System.

This is a pretty decent video using facts to dispel the "assault weapon" mystique. Jim Zumbo is learning the lessons portrayed in this video the hard way.

The narrator did get a couple of thing wrong, one "fact" that he stated a couple of times early on is way off. I would mention the inaccuracies, but then you would not have anything to comment about, now would you?

The Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground Law Makes it Through Committee

Yesterday I drove down to Austin and attended the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee's public hearing on HB 284, the Texas Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law. I went to be a part of the process in getting this legislation passed.

One of the first things I noticed when I arrived at the Capitol Building was the large number of AARP members. They were everywhere. The AARP had bussed them in from all over the state, dressed them in the same tee shirts and gave them small signs reading "Utility Reform Now". It is interesting that the AARP can generate enough interest to get hundreds of people to the legislature for the sole purpose of saving a couple of dollars on the monthly electricity bill, but when it comes to legislation that concerns basic freedoms and liberty, only a handful of folks show up.

You can watch a broadcast of the public hearing on HB 284 here. Be warned, the entire meeting lasted over 7 1/2 hours, but the portion concerning HB 284 is only the first 2 hours of the broadcast.

The first person to take the stand was Representative Driver. Rep. Driver is the author of HB 284, and I had a chance to meet and speak with him before and after the hearing. Rep. Driver introduced his bill and all seemed to be going well until they started taking about the "Committee Substitute" of the bill. It seems that an agreement was made earlier in the day with some of the members who had co-authored the bill, but were not happy with it's content. These changes were necessary to get the bill through the committee. Maybe, just maybe, I was not wrong after all.

The "Committee Substitute" has not yet been posted, but Rep. Driver spoke to it early in the broadcast. Basically there were 4 changes to the original bill, as I have not seen the exact wording, these are as I understood them from Rep. Driver's testimony:

1. Changed this wording "...unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment" to clarify that in order for presumption to apply the unlawful entry must be forceful.

2. Added that the habitation, vehicle, or place of business must be occupied. In other words some members thought we would start shooting folks breaking into our vehicles at the mall parking lot.

3. Strikes the affirmative defense to civil action language. Instead provides the crime victim immunity from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the lawful use of deadly force.

4. Removed this language: "COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses."

I am going to have to read the Committee Substitute before I can comment. But at the moment I am very disappointed in item #4. The Texas Trial Lawyers Association was the driving force in items 3 and 4, their testimony thanking the committee for making the changes starts at 8:25 into the broadcast.

Carl Wood was next to testify. He is a regular citizen, a CHL holder and an Instructor. He made some very good points for the bill, and his testimony starts at 9:20.

Next to testify for the bill was Susan Buxton, you may better know her at the "Gun Toting Granny" from Arlington. Mrs. Buxton described her ordeal when she had to shoot an intruder in her home. She explained some of the legal aftermath of that shooting and mentioned one thing that I had not known, the goblin was never charged with any crime related to breaking in to her home. He will be getting out of prison in a couple of months on unrelated charges. Mrs. Buxtons testimony starts at 13:15. I had the opportunity to meet Mrs. Buxton after hearing, she is one neat person that I would like to get to know.

Following Mrs. Buxton was Deanna Eggleston (I am totally guessing on spelling, sorry). Ms. Eggleston related her encounter with an intruder late in the night. This man admitted to her that he had come to rape her. What prevented him from doing this was her .357. She did not shoot the goblin, and he was apprehended later. Her testimony starts at 32:35.

Rep. Peña pronounced my name correctly, most do not. I did not testify.

The first to testify against the bill was The Rev. Peter Johnson (youngest aid to Dr Martin Luther King). Rev. Johnson testified about a time when a civil rights worker was severely beaten, and dieing. The police would not allow the man to be taken to a hospital as he was a "nigger lover". Rev. Johnson mentioned that he grabbed a shotgun but was tackled by Andrew Young. Later Dr. King convinced him that violence was not the answer (oh by the way, the kid died). The Reverend never mentioned the Deacons of Defense and their contribution to civil rights. The Reverend also mentioned that he is involved with gun buy back programs in Dallas, he has
"bought back" over 3000 firearms. One statistic he mentioned that I found interesting is that 85% of the guns they purchase in the "buy back" program are stolen. That is 2550 stolen firearms. A thought crossed my mind when he mentioned this statistic. I wondered if the Reverend's gun buy back program was promoting crime in Dallas? If goblins were stealing firearms for the sole purpose of receiving money during the buy back? The Reverend's testimony was very heartfelt and honest. It starts at 39:45

The next testimony against the bill was a representative of the Harris County District Attorney's Office. His testimony starts at 47:00. You do have to view this part of the hearing. His testimony basically stated that the DA's office was against this bill because the presumption of innocence would be difficult for the prosecutor to overcome.

The Texas State Rifle Association was in attendance, but did not testify. I met with James Dark, the Executive Director of the TSRA, after the meeting and he indicated that votes were in to pass the bill on to the house.

The NRA did testify to counter the comments made by the Harris County ADA. Terra Micha (probably misspelled also) represented the NRA. If you are familiar with the Harris County DA's refusal to abide by the Texas Traveling Law, you will get a kick out of her testimony. It starts at time 1:03:50.

A couple of other county DA's testified against the bill, they basically echoed the Harris County ADA and mentioned blood in the streets due to bar fights. and drive by shootings. Totally off topic for this bill. When one of the committee members mentioned that the Dallas County DA was for the bill, the last DA testifying made the mistake of referencing the fact that the Dallas County DA was new and did not really know what he was doing. You will have to watch to see the reaction of the representatives from Dallas. Go to 1:31:15.

The last to testify against the bill was , Texas's very own representative of the Brady Bunch, Marsha McCartney. She pulled out the normal Brady routine and quoted the articles from Orlando and the New York Times that have been fisked left, right and sideways and have been proven to be mostly lies and misrepresentations. Her testimony starts at 1:33:10.

Representative Driver had the opportunity to rebut Marsha McCartney's misuse of facts and make a final statement. His final statement starts at 1:39:30.

The bill was passed on to the full body of the house with the committee's recommendation that it be passed. The vote was 5 to 3 for.

Voting for the bill were Rep's Peña, Vaught, Talton, Riddle, and Pierson.

Voting against the bill were Rep's Mallory-Caraway, Hodge and Moreno. It is interesting that Rep. Mallory-Caraway mentioned a couple of times the amount of email she had in support of the bill, and that the DA in her district was in support of the bill, but still voted against it.

If you would like to read a more concise version, the Dallas Morning News reports here.

Just Got Back From Austin

I took today off and drove down to Austin to attend the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee's public hearing on HB 284 (Texas's version of the Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law). I am going to take some time to wind down from the day and the drive and will most likely wait until tomorrow to post on the hearing. I will say that the committee voted 5 - 3 to send the bill to the full house with a recommendation that it be passed. Portions of the bill were amended prior to the meeting, and I will go into more detail on those in my next post.

Deterring Violent Crime?

When you hear politicians talking about efforts to deter violent crime, most times they are bemoaning the fact that there are "to many guns on the streets" and they attempt to devise legislation to restrict a free citizens right to keep and bear arms. Currently in Texas we have one piece of legislation in committee that looks to "Close the Gun Show Loophole" and another that would do away with private transfers of hand guns and require a waiting period for all hand gun sales. Adding more restrictions onto the back of free citizens will do nothing to reduce violent crime, this has been proven time after time, yet still they persist.

I have an idea...

Why don't they do something about incidents like this?

From the Star Telegram:

By Melody McDonald

Inmate escapes from facility for parole violators

FORT WORTH — Law enforcement officials were searching Monday for a 46-year-old convicted felon who escaped Sunday from a facility for parole violators near Fort Worth Meacham International Airport.

Well, you learn something new every day. I did not know they had a special facility for parole violators. This must be a pretty secure facility, seeing as how it houses those who have shown a complete disregard for the laws of the land by blowing it when they had a chance at freedom.

Officials said Eladio Diaz Jr. was last seen about 4:30 p.m. Sunday working on a vehicle with other inmates outside the North Texas Intermediate Sanction Facility, a lock-up at 4600 Blue Mound Road that houses up to 400 parole violators.

Wait a second... did they just say that this conviced felon, who violated parole, was working on cars outside the facility?

Shortly before 11 p.m., officials discovered Diaz — a trusty who had been permitted to work outside the facility — was not in his cell for bed check, said Lt. Dean Sullivan, a Fort Worth police spokesman.

And they never noticed that he did not return with the other convicts... heavy sigh.

Okay, maybe this is one of the drug offenders who committed a vicitmless crime. You know that sometimes I can jump to conclusions, maybe we should read further into the article.

Diaz is believed to be in the Fort Worth area or in Houston and should be considered dangerous, said Jason Clark, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

“We would not want the public to apprehend him,” Clark said.

Clark said Diaz was paroled from prison in December 2003 after serving 12 years of a 25-year sentenced for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon out of Nueces County in south Texas.

In November, he violated his parole when he was arrested and charged in Nueces County with making a terroristic threat.

There went that theory. So here is a conviced felon, a violent criminal, who served less than half of his 25 year sentence on the loose in our community. This facility he was in is a short term facility. The most anyone spend in there is 90 days, then they are back on the streets.

...and serves as a short-term punishment facility — for 90 days instead of revoking his parole and sending him back to prison.

“It is designed to get their attention,” Clark said of the facility. “Once they are done with their stint there, they are back on parole.”

This is how the State protects us from violent criminals.

Oh... in case you were wondering what this goblin looks like, just in case he walks up to you and your family at the local stop and rob, to bad. There is no picture of the goblin with the article.

Edit to add:

This morning I checked to see if there were any update to this case and found that there is now a photo of the goblin available.

Sunday's Blog of the Week

I figure most of the folks who visit A Keyboard and a .45 know Oleg Volk. If not then you should get acquainted.

First you should check out A Human Right, then browse his image galleries and spend some time visiting with the folks over at The High Road.

Oleg's firearm related posters are a thing of beauty, as is all of his photography. I have used several of his images in earlier posts.

What some people may not know is that Oleg also has a blog.

Here is an image he posted last week:



What is interesting is that Oleg took comments from the peanut gallery and utilized them in the poster. If you are interested in what is going on with Oleg, then check out his blog.

I Was Wrong!

On Friday, I posted a Texas Firearm Legislation Update. In my commentary I mentioned that Representative Vaught was attempting to hold HB 284 (The Castle Doctrine Law) up in committee. I stated:

It now appears that between the rally and the fax/phone campaign, the freshman Democrat who is Vice-Chairman of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee is trying to hold up the bill.

In the comments to that post, Representative Aaron Peña (the Chairman of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee) assured us that he expected Representative Vaught to vote with the majority on the Castle Doctrine Bill.

This morning Representative Vaught responded to this issue via email. Here is what he said:

JR, I have not received the e-mail you mentioned in your blog yet because I am in Dallas right now. However, in response to the general inquiry, the information you posted is not correct. I intend to vote for the Castle Doctrine bill. That has been my intention before coming to Austin, and has remained the case since I took office. I have listened to all sides, including the State district attorneys' groups (who did have some concerns about the bill), and I think we have a fair bill that will likely pass out of committee.

As an Iraq war veteran (OIF 1) and having grown up on a ranch near Fort Worth, I am a strong 2nd Amendment and self defense supporter. You will be hard pressed to find anyone in either political party who is stronger 2nd Amendment supporter than me. So, I am really puzzled why anyone would tell you I was against the bill. I would appreciate you sharing with me who gave you that information as it is a pure fabrication which should be addressed. Thank you, and please take some time to visit with me in Austin if you come down on Tuesday.

Allen Vaught

It seems that I was given faulty information about Representative Vaught and his actions in the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee concerning the Castle Doctrine Bill. My statement accusing Representative Vaught of trying to hold up the bill was incorrect, and I was wrong to make such a statement without attempting to do a better job of vetting my source. I am very glad to have this opportunity to set the record straight. I appreciate the fact that Representatives Peña and Vaught took the time to correspond with us and settle this matter.

The Castle Doctrine Bill is a very important piece of legislation. House Bill 284 defines the term "unlawful force" as it pertains to a goblin acting on a citizen, states that there is no requirement to retreat from a goblin who is demonstrating unlawful force, and helps to protect the citizen from civil suits.

It is a beautiful day, so V and I are off to the range!

Which Option for Your Daughter

Bruce Montague

Hat Tip to Xavier.

Texas Firearm Legislation Update

It has been a busy end of the week so far as pending gun laws in Texas are concerned. With all the federal and local gun legislation being submitted, I finally had to break down and sign on with one of the internet fax services to get all my faxing accomplished quickly and without breaking the bank.

First we have the two major anti gun bills that have been submitted to the Texas State Legislature by Representative Yvonne Davis. House Bills 594 and 595. HB 594 is titled "An act Relating to the creation of certain offenses concerning firearm sales at gun shows" and I commented upon it here. HB 595 is titled "Relating to requiring a waiting period for the purchase or sale of a handgun; creating an offense" and I commented upon it here.

Both of these bills are currently in the House Committee on Law Enforcement. As neither one of these bills has a single co-sponsor, I did not expect them to gain much traction. But, the Brady Bunch have been busy. It seems that the anti's have done a pretty good job of organizing their phone/fax trees and have bombarded members of the committee with faxes and phone calls. Now there are members of the committee pressing to release these bills for public hearings. A public hearing on these bills would be a waste of time and our tax dollars. Bills with no sponsors will not be passed and all public hearing will accomplish is to give the anti's a soapbox to stand upon and create sound bites for the evening news.

If you are a Texan, take a minute and contact the members of the House Committee on Law Enforcement and let them know your view on these two bills. We need to counter the efforts of the antis. Remember to be respectful and not-threatening, this committee is pretty much gun friendly, Chairman Driver is the author of the Castle Doctrine Bill that I will talk about in a minute.

House Law Enforcement Committee:

Rep. Joe Driver - Chairman
Rep. Thomas Latham - Vice-Chairman
Rep. Alma Allen
Rep. Stephen Frost
Rep. Soloman Ortiz, Jr.
Rep. Hubert Vo
Resp. George “Buddy” West

Next on the agenda is HB 284, the Castle Doctrine Law. When I first commented on HB 284, it had 3 authors and 74 co-authors. This bill now has 102 co-authors (out of a total of 150 state representatives). You would think that with over 2/3 of the house either authoring, or co-authoring this bill, it could make it through committee easily. Well here we go, the Brady Bunch strikes again. On Monday, the 12th of February, the Dallas chapter of the Brady Bunch staged an anti gun rally in Austin and got to meet with a few of the legislatures. It now appears that between the rally and the fax/phone campaign, the freshman Democrat who is Vice-Chairman of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee is trying to hold up the bill. This bill has the support of the House, and the People of Texas. If you are a Texan, contact the members of Criminal Jurisprudence Committee and let them know that you support HB 284 and want it released for a vote by the entire house.

Rep. Aaron Pena - Chairman
Rep. Allen Vaught Vice-Chairman
Rep. Debbie Riddle
Rep. Juan M. Escobar
Rep. Terri Hodge
Rep. Barbara Mallory Caraway
Rep. Paul Moreno
Rep. Paula Pierson
Rep. Robert Talton

If you want your voice to be heard, please remember to be respectful and polite in your communications with the folks whom we are counting upon to protect our liberties.

If your representative is one of the authors or co-authors of HB 284, contact them and thank them for their support. If they are not, then contact them and let them know that YOU support this bill and would appreciate their support also.

This is a lot of contacting, and it can be a lot of work, but it is work well worth doing. If you do not stand up for our rights and freedoms, who will?

For up to the minute information on Texas firearm legislation, go to the TSRA-PAC.

Another Example of the Combat Mindset

I was working on this great post about some American tourists in Costa Rica who fought off a group of muggers, killing one. I went over to the LawDog Files to find an earlier post he made on the "Combat Mindset", just to find that the 'ol LawDog beat me to it.

So head on over to LawDog's and read "Mindset, mindset, mindset", these folks did not let the thought "victim" cross their minds during a violent confrontation.

Just Another Night on the Town?

From the Star Telegram:

Robbers pull gun on off-duty police officer

By BILL MILLER

FORT WORTH -- Two people were in custody early Thursday after choosing the wrong robbery target, police said.

The robbers pulled a gun on a police officer returning home after her shift and tried to steal her car, said Lt. Dean Sullivan, a Fort Worth police spokesman.

The officer fired at the men and they fled, then crashed another vehicle, which they apparently had stolen earlier after robbing a service station, Sullivan said.

So, the goblins robbed a service station, stole a car and attempted another robbery? Just another night on the town?

Well, it is a good thing for them that their final target was an off duty officer, if it had been a CHL holder, this would probably be another "dead goblin/righteous shooting" post.

What was the officer doing when this incident occurred?

Fox 4 reported that the officer was filling up her car at a service station when the robbers pulled a gun on her.

0300 may not be the opportune time for anyone, let alone a female, to be stopping at a gas station. The 24 hour stop and robs are the prime target for goblins in this neck of the woods, and a woman by herself makes it even more inviting. If you do have to fuel up at an inopportune time, be extra aware of your surroundings (as it appears this officer was) so that you can react to any developing situation. Being armed, and trained, gives you more latitude in how you react. If the officer were what the goblins expected, a lone and unarmed woman, this story would have a much different ending.

Easy Way to Contact the House Judiciary Committee

Okay, contacting each and every one of the House Judiciary Committee members is to time consuming/expensive to accomplish quickly (they really do make it hard for out of district folks to contact them), here is one link that will reach the committee itself:

Contact Judiciary

Just click it and let them know how you feel about H.R. 1022. This is important folks, most definitely worth the five minutes of your time to get it done.

As a bonus, here is the phone number: 202-225-3951

I have not been able to come up with a fax number. If one of you have it, please pass it along.

Thanks

Women offered home firearms safety class

A good idea from North Dakota.

From the Bismark Tribune:

Women offered home firearms safety class

By Richard Hinton

Women unfamiliar with the guns their hunter spouses and kids keep in the house will have an opportunity to learn more about them.

A women's-only home firearms safety class is planned from 2 to 4 p.m. March 18 and March 25. It's sponsored by the Bismarck-Mandan Rifle & Pistol Association.

Although more than a month away, there has been some interest, said Leon Nesja, who taught the class solo last time.

Nine women participated in that first class.

"They loved it," Nesja said. "Most said it exceeded their expectations. They didn't know what they would learn, but they learned a lot."

This year Mary Kay Tokach will join Nesja as an instructor.

"She works a lot with the small-bore programs. She's very good," said Nesja, who is a retired biology and science teacher.

Tokach and Nesja will work from National Rifle Association materials, and both are NRA-certified instructors.

It is my very strong conviction that it is the responsibility of all firearm owners to ensure that everyone in their households are schooled in the proper and safe handling of firearms. If the firearm owner has not accepted that responsibility, then a program like this one could fill in the gaps.

If you are interested in reading about firearm safety, click here.

I found this article on Keep and Bear Arms.

Homeowner Shoots And Kills Alleged Intruder

Why do I post articles about goblins dieing as a result of their actions? Because it is important to remember why it is necessary for free citizens to maintain the right to keep and bear arms.

From 7 KLTV

Homeowner Shoots And Kills Alleged Intruder

Lindsay Wilcox, Reporting:

A homeowner shoots and kills a man authorities say broke into the family's Bullard home. It happened just after 12:00 p.m. on County Road 150 in Smith County.

The Smith County Sheriff's Department says the owner of Graham Farms came home to find a strange car in his driveway, and the door to his house open. They say Terry Graham shot and killed 34-year-old Hiram J. Chambers, of Tyler, after coming face-to-face with the man. Chambers allegedly reached for something in a bag, and authorities say they later found two loaded weapons.

How different would this story have turned out if the homeowner lived in say.... rural New York, or California?

I have to ask my usual question posed after such encounters. Was this the goblins first rodeo?

Chambers was out of jail on parole for a prior home burglary.

And we receive the usual answer.

Quote of the Day

Concerning Rudi Giuliani and assault weapons....

Rudi? It's obvious that he wouldn't know an assault weapon from an assault shaker.

Fits. 2/20/2007

2008 Elections and the Assault Weapon Ban

Is H.R. 1022 (Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007) a trial balloon, or is it a serious effort by the Dems to launch a new AWB? A nod to the trial balloon folks would be the fact that this bill currently has no co-sponsors. If it were a serious piece of legislation, the Dems would be crawling all over each other to get their names on it. I wonder why they would need to send up a trial balloon. The Dems have the majority in both the House and the Senate, plus they have a president who stated that he would sign an AWB if it crossed his desk. As I see it, there is no need for trial balloons, unless of course this is not the legislation that they intend to pass.

H.R. 1022 is another time limited law. It would only be in effect for 10 years. It is probable that this bill will not get any traction with the Dems because it is not permanent. H.R. 1022 also includes a grandfather clause which would exempt firearms owned prior to the ban going into effect. The anti's don't want to just ban new "evil black rifles", they want to take them all.

So maybe the "real" AWB will not be introduced until after the 2008 elections. How would our front-runner GOP candidates react to Evil Black Rifle restrictions crossing their desks in the Oval Office? Can we count upon them to stand up for our rights?

How about Giuliani? Where does he stand on gun control, supposed assault weapons in particular?

“We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons..."

“The more guns you take out of society, the more you are going to reduce murder. The less you take out of society, the more it is going to go up.”

“Someone who now voted to roll back the assault-weapons ban would really be demonstrating that special interest politics mean more to them than life-or-death issues.”

“I’m in favor of gun control.”

I don't know, it sure looks like Rudy would be advocating for some very restrictive gun control if he were at the helm.

Okay, let's look at Mitt Romney, where does he stand?

Governor Mitt Romney has signed into law a permanent assault weapons ban that he says will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on these guns.

“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Geez, isn't this the same guy who had his picture taken at SHOT Show 2007 with Wayne LaPierre? Maybe Wayne was just trying to convert him, yeah, that's the ticket...

Last, but not least of the front runners is John McCain.

On the plus side, John McCain voted against the original AWB and it's renewal. He also voted against the Brady Bill. On the negative side McCain authored the Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001. I understand that he has come out against inexpensive firearms but is for concealed carry.

The best I can say for McCain is that he is wishy washy at best on gun control issues.

I am not a one issue voter, there are quite a few issues that are very important to me. This is basically a gun blog, so I am looking at these folks from a RKBA view. You can learn a lot about a candidate by looking at his views on the Second Amendment. If a politician can easily dismiss the Second Amendment, what does that say about his or her attitude about the entire Bill of Rights? If a politician feels that the populace can not be entrusted with firearms, what else will they take away "for our own good"?

These are the contenders according to the news media and major pundits, are any of them acceptable to you?

Hat tip to Irons in the Fire for Giuliani quotes,

iBerkshires.com for the Mitt Romney article,

and OnTheIssues for information on John McCain.

The Federal Assault on Our Weapons

After it was obvious that Nancy Pelosi was to be our new majority leader in the House, I penned the commentary "Consequences of Yesterday's Elections ". My opinion at the time was that with the Democrats back in power, there would be a push for a new Assault Weapon Ban and then they would propose legislation to close the imaginary "Gun Show Loophole". It turns out I was wrong, they went after the Gun Show Loophole first. Michael Castle of Delaware introduced H.R. 96, the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007 in January. It took Carolyn McCarthy all the way to mid February to get H.R. 1022 introduced.

H.R. 1022 is the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007. This bill is currently in the Judiciary Committee. Others mentioned that an AWB would not be proposed until after 2008. Now that one has been introduced, I have seen it stated that the Dems are just testing the waters, that it is just a trial balloon. H.R. 1022 is in committee, so it is serious.

These past couple of days have seen firearm owners and advocates band together and strike against a Quisling in our own ranks. We need to put forth even more effort in getting these two pieces of anti gun legislation stopped in their tracks. Even if H.R. 1022 is just a "trial balloon", we should do everything we can to deflate that balloon right now, we need to keep it from gaining any altitude at all.

Contact your congress critter and let them know that you are opposed to both H.R. 96 and H.R. 1022. Write the members of the House Judiciary Committee and inform them that an AWB has no effect on violent crime and that H.B. 1022 should not be allowed to reach the House Floor. Write letters to the editor of your local papers speaking out against H.B. 96 and H.B. 1022. Fight for your rights, and the rights of your children (I had to throw in a "do it for the children" quote, seems to work so well for the anti's). There is a cultural war going on in America and on Capitol Hill, it is a war between freedom and servitude. It is a soft war that must be fought with the same fervor and intensity as any battlefield conflict.

To help get you started, here is a list of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. Contact information can be found by clicking on the name:


Hon. Conyers Jr. Chairman (D) Michigan, 14th

Hon. Berman (D) California, 28th

Hon. Boucher (D) Virginia, 9th

Hon. Nadler (D) New York, 8th

Hon. Scott (D) Virginia, 3rd

Hon. Watt (D) North Carolina, 12th

Hon. Lofgren (D) California, 16th

Hon. Jackson Lee (D) Texas, 18th

Hon. Waters (D) California, 35th

Hon. Meehan (D) Massachusetts, 5th

Hon. Delahunt (D) Massachusetts, 10th

Hon. Wexler (D) Florida, 19th

Hon. Sánchez (D) California, 39th

Hon. Cohen (D) Tennessee, 9th

Hon. Johnson (D) Georgia, 4th

Hon. Gutierrez (D) Illinois, 4th

Hon. Sherman (D) California, 27

Hon. Weiner (D) New York, 9th

Hon. Schiff (D) California, 29th

Hon. Davis (D) Alabama , 7th

Hon. Wasserman Schultz (D) Florida, 20th

Hon. Ellison (D) Minnesota, 5th


Hon. Smith Ranking Member (R) Texas, 21st

Hon. Sensenbrenner Jr. (R) Wisconsin, 5th

Hon. Coble (R) North Carolina, 6th

Hon. Gallegly (R) California, 24th

Hon. Goodlatte (R) Virginia, 6th

Hon. Chabot (R) Ohio, 1st

Hon. Lungren (R) California, 3rd

Hon. Cannon (R) Utah, 3rd

Hon. Keller (R) Florida, 8th

Hon. Issa (R) California, 49th

Hon. Pence (R) Indiana, 6th

Hon. Forbes (R) Virginia, 4th

Hon. King (R) Iowa, 5th

Hon. Feeney (R) Florida, 24th

Hon. Franks (R) Arizona, 2nd

Hon. Gohmert (R) Texas, 1st

Hon. Jordan (R) Ohio, 4th

Have at it folks, let these "representativs of the people" know what "the people" want.

A Bit of Common Sense in the Courts

As you all know, we live in a very litigious society. It seems that anyone can sue or get sued by anyone else. Pretty much any tool or appliance you purchase today comes with a large list of "read this first" safety instructions. Each one of those seemingly idiotic instructions is included for one reason and one reason only, the manufacturer has been sued by a customer who "did not know better" and performed that particular idiotic act.

Recently there was a case in Texas where a man shot himself in the leg and attempted to sue the manufacturer of an aftermarket trigger, trying to indicate he was wounded because the trigger was to light and therefor defective. Both the jury and the U.S. Court of Appeals (5th Cir.) looked at the guy and said.... Daym, that was stupid.

From the Products Liability Prof Blog:

Unsafe Gun Handling Precludes Recovery in Hair-Trigger Firearm Case

A Texas man whose lower leg was amputated after he had shot himself was found to be 75% at fault for his own injury and was thus precluded from recovering under Texas' modified comparative fault system against the manufacturer of a defectively-designed trigger mechanism. The plaintiff was loading a rifle in a moving vehicle. The rifle belonged to a third person who had replaced the original trigger with one manufactured by the defendant. The jury found that the replacement trigger was defectively designed because the trigger pull was too light - a hair trigger. The jury also found, however, that the plaintiff was negligent in attempting to load the rifle in a moving vehicle, by not keeping the gun pointed in a safe direction, by not treating the gun as though it were loaded, and by not having the gun on "safe" while attempting to load it.

The plaintiff argued that the cause of his injury was the defective design and that he had no duty to discover or guard againt an unsafe product design. The U.S. Court of Appeals (5th Cir.) said, however, that a consumer must act reasonably and take reasonable precautions even if the product is defective, and concluded that the jury could have found that the plaintiff's negligent gun-handling was unrelated to the product defect. Although the product defect may have been unforeseeable, said the court, an accidental discharge of a firearm is not unforeseeable. The plaintiff's injury would not have occurred in spite of the defective trigger were it not for his own negligence. See Doran v. Yoho, 2007 WL 98359 (5th Cir. (Tex.) 2007 (unreported).

Even the Fifth Circuit agrees, all firearm owners and users are responsible for the safe handling and usage of their firearms. For information on the safe handling of firearms, go here.