"On this morning's edition of Fareed Zakaria GPS, the host reported that the U.S. accounts for 5% of the world's population and 50% of the world's privately owned firearms -- now that makes me proud to be an American. For those who are ashamed of Liberty but don't have the wherewithal to relocate to another country, I offer this graphic. (Instructions included at no extra charge.)" (via Facebook)
"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure -- and in some cases I have -- that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."
(Lt. Col. John Dean "Jeff" Cooper)
[This irresponsible decision by the Department of Homeland Security reflects callous disregard for the People and stunning political arrogance. What are they doing to our country?]
Homeland Security suspends immigration agreements with Arizona police
The Washington Times
The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.
Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police -- but that won't change President Obama's decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.
"We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities," one official said in a telephone briefing.
The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won't be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.
"We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona," the official said.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.
That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status -- but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.
Federal officials said they'll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person.
Officials said they had concluded the seven agreements they had signed with various departments in Arizona weren't working and took the Supreme Court's ruling as a chance to scrap them.
[Read the complete article here.]
"After [Arizona v. United States] was argued and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30."
"The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the non-enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement. The President said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress's failure to pass the Administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so.
"But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind."
"...There has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States' borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive's refusal to enforce the Nation's immigration laws?
"A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court's holding?"
"Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty -- not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State."
(U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting from the Court's majority opinion in the case of Arizona v. United States. Read the Opinion of the Court here; Justice Scalia's scathing 22-page dissent begins on page 30 of the pdf document.)
My fascination with vintage ads, especially those promoting firearms and outdoors gear, continues. I'm especially drawn to depictions of the Winchester Model 67, of course, like the 1956 ad that I posted on Friday, and to the Winchester Junior Rifle Corps.
First up this morning is "Add a Colt to Your Motoring Equipment," clipped from a 1922 issue of Life magazine.
In the early days of the automobile Americans were learning that their new-found mobility, however rudimentary by today's standards, quickly could transport them "beyond the reach of help." What Colt called "the growing menace of auto bandits and thieves" was a relatively fresh concern for the motoring masses.
The other ad I'll share today, "Don't envy the fellows who own rifles," comes from a 1918 issue of Arms and the Man, forerunner of the National Rifle Association's American Rifleman magazine.
Even though the readership of Arms and the Man was predominantly adult males, clearly Winchester's aspirational pitch also drew a bead on young boys. This line spoke to both audiences:
"Every boy wants to own a rifle, and every boy who has the right stuff in him should have one."
What American boy, after all, doesn't believe that he has "the right stuff"? And what self-respecting father would admit that he's raising a boy who lacks it?
The two-pronged approach is reminiscent, it seems to me, of another Winchester ad that I posted here last year.
Naturally, the ad includes the W.J.R.C. spiel. It's interesting to note that the program was taken over by the NRA in 1926.
"They're going after Eric Holder because he is supporting measures to overturn these voter-suppression initiatives in the states. This is no accident, it is no coincidence. It is a plan on the part of Republicans."
"These very same people who are holding him in contempt are part of a nationwide scheme to suppress the vote. It is connected. It's clear as can be. It's not only to monopolize his time, it's to undermine his name."
"It's really important to note how this is connected with some of their other decisions. It is no accident, it is no coincidence, that the attorney general of the United States is the person responsible for making sure that voter suppression does not happen in our country."
(Rep. Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, speaking to the media yesterday morning. I know that intellectual honesty and critical thought are endangered, even extinct, but Pelosi's shovelful of unfiltered bullshit is perhaps the most tortured spin I've ever heard.)
This morning Pres. Barack Obama invoked executive privilege, expressing his resolve to withhold documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee -- and thereby from the American People.
The intent of the ATF's gun-running scheme was to manufacture public sentiment in support of unconstitutional gun-grabbing legislation. Once the ploy was discovered and the investigation began, Attorney General Eric Holder and his Department of Justice set about stonewalling and outright lying to the committee -- clearly a cover-up of the operation's built-in corruption.
Today's assertion of executive privilege, which historically has been used to shield the confidentiality of the president himself, changes the game completely. In short, it implies that knowledge of Fast and Furious -- or involvement in the official cover-up -- went well beyond the DOJ, all the way to the White House.
Think about that.
Rep. Darrell Issa, who chairs the House committee, has been relentless in pursuit of the truth about Fast and Furious, and I admire his tenacity. Soon his committee will vote on citing Holder for contempt. There's only one proper outcome of that vote, of course, but the process shouldn't end there.
First, the People need to know what's in the documents now being withheld. More important, every elected official, unelected bureaucrat and political appointee who participated in subverting the Constitution -- and I mean every last one, all the way to the White House -- must be sent packing.
"If he became convinced tomorrow that coming out for cannibalism would get him the votes he needs so sorely, he would begin fattening a missionary in the White House yard come Wednesday."
(H.L. Mencken of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1936)
This is today's big news -- so far, anyway -- as reported by Reuters:
"The Obama administration will relax enforcement of deportation rules for young people brought to the United States without legal status...."
"U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday that illegal immigrants up to 30 years old who came to the United States as children and do not pose a risk to national security would be eligible to stay in the country and allowed to apply for work permits.
"'Our nation's immigration laws must be enforced in a firm and sensible manner,' Napolitano said in a statement. 'But they are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case.'"
It's a transparent attempt to pander to Hispanic voters and the open-borders crowd -- no doubt about that.
Despite what we're hearing from the Right, however, the move isn't illegal. It's not unconstitutional nor is it dictatorial. And although it does award de facto immunity to more than a million young illegal immigrants, granting them an official blanket exception to existing work-permit regulations, it's not amnesty per se.
Immigration law hasn't changed -- this is an enforcement decision. It's the federal equivalent of a local police department choosing how to allocate its finite resources, something that happens every day.
It's also shameful disregard for the will of the People.
The new DHS policy is wholly unacceptable to this independent citizen-patriot. It reflects the Obama administration's indisputably poor grasp of both economic issues and national security. Worse, it smuggles the ill-conceived DREAM Act through the back door.
In that sense, the action announced today is extra-constitutional, yet another example of the federal bureaucracy operating beyond the reach of representation.
That isn't in the best interest of our country -- but then, this is about election-year politics, not governing.
If the name "Charles L. Worley" doesn't ring a bell, maybe you've seen his work, a portion of which went viral on YouTube recently. Worley is pastor of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, North Carolina, and on May 13th this is what he preached to his mindless flock:
"I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers. Build a great big large fence -- 50 or 100 mile long -- put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out. And you know what, in a few years, they'll die out. Do you know why? They can't reproduce!"
To be sure, that kind of garbage spews from Christian pulpits each and every Sunday all across this country. It's not only bigoted and antithetical to Liberty, in Worley's case it's downright idiotic.
"...In a few years, they'll die out. Do you know why? They can't reproduce!"
Think about it. Worley sure didn't.
Problem is, stupid shit often sticks. Worley's hateful words, while they probably won't result in internment camps for gays, have a large and enthusiastic audience. They will have an effect -- count on that.
I mean, why do you think New York City is the way it is?
Now here's another name for you: "John R. Thompson" -- restaurant baron (whites only, please) and leader of a 1920s crusade to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
In 1921, Thompson took out ads in newspapers nationwide -- one of which got the attention of Horace Kephart -- issuing this challenge:
"I will pay $1,000 to anyone who will give one good reason why the revolver manufacturing industry should be allowed to exist in America and enjoy the facilities of the mails."
His rationale?
"The revolver always has been and still is a menace to any community. It merely is a weapon for the thug, the holdup man and the murderer. It is impossible to turn to any useful purpose, as one uses the rifle or shotgun. Where would our holdup man, doing such a thriving business in Chicago today, be, if he could not get hold of a revolver? He couldn't very well go round packing a shotgun or a rifle, and if he carried only a piece of lead pipe or club the victim would at least have a fighting chance."
Obviously -- to me, anyway, and probably to you -- Thompson's theory of "disarmament" is arrogant and completely unhitched from reality. It's strikingly similar to Worley's gay-camps-with-electric-fences proposal in its utter silliness.
We shouldn't dismiss Thompson, though, merely because his campaign is long-dead and his ideas were inarguably dumb -- exactly the same pitch is being hurled by today's gun-control crowd.
Stupidity is always a threat to Liberty and, thanks to citizens who don't take time to think, it never goes out of style.
[Thompson ad from the June 9, 1921 Concordia Sentinel (Louisiana).]
New York's insidious Sullivan Law, enacted in 1911 and discussed in yesterday's post, is still on the books. It was introduced and debated [sic] virtually unnoticed by the citizenry, thanks to a corrupt sponsor and sleepy legislators easily duped by "common good" rhetoric.
Once passed, the Sullivan Act had an immediate and obvious effect on law-abiding New Yorkers. Worse, it triggered a wave of similar bills in state legislatures nationwide.
Protests against such repressive and patently unconstitutional laws were mustered, for the most part, too late to stem legislative tide. The August 1912 issue of Field and Stream, for example, led its editorial page with "National Disarmament." A few excerpts:
"The so-called 'anti-pistol laws,' all of them modeled more or less upon the notorious Sullivan Law passed in New York State in 1911, have become a veritable epidemic, disarmament bills having been presented in forty-seven states, culminating in the drastic Simms bill introduced at Washington prohibiting the sale or use of firearms for any purpose or under any conditions whatever.
"It is high time that the sportsmen's magazines, revolver, rifle and shotgun clubs, and all to whom either the grooved-bore or the smooth-bore is a means of sport and recreation, got together in a campaign which would show the nation the real sentiment of the people with regard to these disarmament measures, and make it unsafe, politically, for any demagogue or cheap politician with a black-mailing scheme up his sleeve to introduce such bills into our State and national legislatures."
"The actual result of the Sullivan Law so far has been an unprecedented wave of crime in the big cities; bank messengers were robbed in automobiles with impunity as the burglars knew they were not armed; the number of murders have increased over the preceding year and at the same time respectable citizens, no matter whether citizens of New York State or not, were unable even so much as to transport a revolver across New York City without becoming a felon and liable to fine and imprisonment."
Perhaps it shouldn't surprise us that an outdoor-recreation magazine would criticize Sullivan Law, but Field and Stream wasn't alone in objecting. In its May 24, 1913 edition, The New York Times ran "A Change in the Pistol Law." From the Times editorial:
"That the concealed weapon law has not worked as well as was expected, or at any rate hoped, by those of us who commended it in principle, if not in all its details, is a fact too obvious for denial.
"Criminals are as well armed as ever, in spite of the sternness with which the law has been applied to a few of them, while there has been a rather general impression among honest men, mistaken but none the less real, that they were wrongly deprived, if not of the means, at least of the right to have the means, for defending themselves and their property. And if the dealers in firearms are keeping the required record of their sales -- which seems doubtful -- we are not hearing of the promised good effects, and perhaps the worst consequence of the law is that many good citizens, as well as all bad ones, have defied or ignored it without suffering much from their consciences."
"...The rightness of having or carrying a pistol is not at all a matter of money, but wholly one of character and avowable need. Something very much like a natural instinct tells the honest householder that to make him ask anybody's permission to have a revolver in his bureau drawer, or even under his pillow, is a hardship, tinged with absurdity."
Both of those editorials were right on the facts and righteous in their intent, and yet Sullivan Law remains in force today. What's more, literally thousands of similar measures (and worse) have been enacted over the last century -- at the federal, state and local levels. Why?
We, like Americans a hundred years ago, don't understand what it means to be vigilant. We continue to elect our representatives based on affinity and identity, pandering and promises of pork, instead of demanding unequivocal defense of constitutional principles.
And when we do earn a victory, we spike the ball -- meanwhile, the enemies of Liberty draw up new plays to exploit our overconfidence.
The threats to our Second Amendment right never vanish, never diminish. Considering what's at stake, we can't relax, ever. Just ask a New Yorker what the price is for failing to be vigilant: Sullivan Law, 100 years and counting.
Guns magazine, which I've brought into KintlaLake Blog many times, produced its first issue in 1955. I find its evolution interesting, in part because it's been around almost exactly as long as I have.
Guns was marking its second year (and I my second month) when it published "Why Not Have a PRO-Gun Law?" by William B. Edwards. This is how the piece was previewed in the editors' up-front column:
"'Why Not Have A Pro-Gun Law,' is possibly the longest article we have ever published. It may well be also the most important article we have ever published. The 'call to arms' which ends the story, urging all firearms enthusiasts to write to the Director of the [BATFE], to protest new revised federal regulations in the gun law field is a little like Paul Revere's 'one if by land, two if by sea.' Only now it isn't the 'British are coming,' it is the bureaucrats."
Nothing about that dates it to 55 years ago. Like other articles I've shared here -- notably Horace Kephart's "Arms for Defense of Honest Citizens" and "The Right to Bear Arms" three decades earlier -- it reminds us that today's Liberty-loving Americans aren't the first to battle those who seek to dismantle our constitutional rights.
Here's how "Why Not Have a PRO-Gun Law?" begins:
"The anti-gun lawmakers are having a brisk season for 1957. With the practical nature of Andrew Volsteads and the subtlety of Carrie Nations they have attacked the root of all evil and the ills of mankind by the simple expedient of trying to take away all guns. Recently proposed Treasury regulations came close to this ideal; they could have destroyed the firearms industry and the shooting sport. Under the guise of protecting the people, these makers of rules who push anti-gun bills such as these are forging weapons, not into ploughshares, but into an iron collar of restraint, worthy of a fascist state. Year by year more anti-gun laws are proposed. Meanwhile, pro-gun collectors and shooters are mollified by the excuse 'these laws are thought up by well-meaning, innocent do-gooders.' Certainly a few anti-gun advocates may seem to be well-intentioned, but let's look at 'well meaning' legislators in the forefront of anti-gun legislation.
"Take a good look at genial, charming, personable 'Big Tim' Sullivan, who disarmed the citizens of crime-ridden New York in 1911 with the grandaddy of anti-gun laws, then went mad the following year and was confined. Says the biographical dictionary, 'Vice and crime were carefully organized in his territory and paid graft to his machine, as did many lines of legitimate business, including push-cart peddlers.... When charged with grafting, or partnership with crime and vice, he could rise in the [New York state] Assembly or on a campaign rostrum and, by telling the story of his tenement boyhood and the sacrifices of his mother, reduce even hardened political opponents to tears...."
"Big Tim was of the cloth of Adolph Hitler and the spellbinders of the ages. Election fights which stimulated the public pulse in those days hampered Big Tim's grasp on politics. So he pushed through a law requiring everyone in New York state to get a police permit to buy or possess a pistol or revolver. Sullivan knew he could control the police. This meant that when Sullivan's boys went on their ballot-box stuffing sprees, they could be reasonably sure of having no opposition. Big Tim was not a 'well-meaning legislator' in his pistol law ideas. The Sullivan law weakened the opposition, sweetened the Tammany kitty. Anti-gun bills are a popular stepping stone to political fame, and many in the anti-gun ranks share Big Tim's motives."
Notice that by the second paragraph the Guns article brings up New York State Senator Timothy "Big Tim" Sullivan and the Sullivan Act. There's a reason for that -- author Edwards knew that becoming familiar with the Sullivan Act was essential to readers' understanding of the insidious nature of gun control.
And it still is. A century after being enacted, Sullivan Law remains in force, oppressing citizens of (and visitors to) New York. As Michael A. Walsh wrote in the New York Post earlier this year:
"...Savor the irony of an edict written by a corrupt politician to save his bad guys from the electric chair’s now being used against law-abiding citizens from other states."
If we're to preserve our Second Amendment right, we must get acquainted with the history of threats against it. When we invoke the truism, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," we should be able to cite Big Tim Sullivan -- a crime boss who manipulated soft-headed fellow legislators into disarming law-abiding citizens, thus ensuring that his street gangs would have the upper hand.
"Why Not Have a PRO-Gun Law?" would be a good place to start our history lessons. For a pdf version of the September 1957 issue of Guns magazine, click here. The lengthy article begins on page 22.
"Could you answer a call for help, meet a criminal, handle him without danger to yourself? Unarmed, you'd be helpless. Armed, you could uphold law and order."
(From a 1922 issue of The Outlook magazine -- and no, buying a gun to "uphold law and order" isn't particularly sound advice.)
"The whole truth of this preparedness idea just hit me. For years I have carried insurance on my life, health, house and household goods. I have tucked away a comfortable nest egg in the bank to forestall a rainy day and financial reverses. And all this while I have kidded myself into thinking that this was all the protection that any husband and father could throw around his family.
"Defending the lives of my loved ones against the felonious attacks of prowling burglars -- this never occurred to me.
"There isn't a streak of yellow in me. I've never been called a coward in all my life. I just didn't give it a thought. I've been so busy with -- "
(From a 1917 issue of The Saturday Evening Post. Now, as then, we can be sure that most Americans won't have this conversation with themselves and will not be prepared.)
"It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who is here illegally and who's not."
(Chief Justice John G. Roberts of the Supreme Court of the United States, speaking to U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli during today's oral arguments over Arizona's controversial immigration law. The federal government, represented by Verrilli, wants to prevent Arizona from requiring that state law-enforcement officials determine the immigration status of anyone they stop if an officer has reason to suspect that a person may be in the U.S. illegally.)
When I posted "My take on Sanford" last month, I spoke too soon. In fact, my speculation about what transpired on the night of February 26th may well have been dead wrong.
I should've known better.
New information about the incident comes to light every day -- some of it's factual, some of it's legal posturing and some of it's reflexive rhetoric from the usual suspects.
The matter is in the hands of investigators. Soon it'll be presented to a grand jury and, potentially, to a trial jury. That's where it will be (and should be) decided.
I did get one thing right -- I don't believe I've ever seen such an intense siege on our constitutional right to keep and bear arms and on our human right to self-defense. Coverage of the shooting has given little time or credence to that side of the story.
All-star status (and not in a good way) goes to CNN's Piers Morgan. Not only has he followed the easy recipe, he's repeatedly spiked the punch with his British slant:
"My view from the start has been, it seems incomprehensible to me under any form of stand-your-ground law -- or any absurd law as I view it -- that somebody could shoot somebody who turned out to be unarmed and not even being arrested on the night. In Britain where I come from, that would cause a sensation the likes of which our justice system has never seen before."
"As far as British law is concerned, if this had happened in Britain, there would be no stand-your-ground defense and he would have been arrested. I'm more comfortable with the way we do things."
Last night, at least, he solicited the perspective of one Ted Nugent. Here's the complete transcript of their exchange:
MORGAN: The rally to bring justice to Trayvon Martin. The tragedy brings out a lot of emotions and everyone has an opinion on the shooting, including my next guest, Ted Nugent. Everyone knows he never holds back. And I thank him for joining me tonight. Ted, welcome back.
Last time, we were having a fairly jocular debate about all this. But this is a bit too serious for that. You've heard the attorneys on both sides there. What do you make of this case in its entirety?
NUGENT: Well, first of all, thanks for going after this very tragic situation, Piers. And thank you for having me on. But let me clarify one thing, very, very important, that you alluded to earlier in your program, that you believe that the vast majority of Americans want Zimmerman arrested.
Let me tell you what the vast majority of Americans want. We're saying prayers for the Martin family and all those other black youths that are slaughtered every week. Those are the people that we constantly cry out for.
So be very careful what you assume. Those of us that love life and respect life, we don't see any color. But we wonder where the outcry is when every week these youths are slaughtered across the streets of America. So that's the most important statement I want to make right here.
MORGAN: But, I mean, look, there are always, with all these cases, innumerable other cases that can be thrown in as why don't you care as much about that? The reality of this case is that, I believe, it's popped in America as a big cause because of the precise nature of what happened after Trayvon Martin was killed.
That is this particularly extreme version of stand-your-ground. You have to use that phrase, because it is in Florida. It's particularly wide-ranging. And it has allowed a situation where somebody can shoot an unarmed teenager and actually be allowed to go home that night without even being arrested.
That's why I understand people feeling exercised about why he wasn't arrested on the night. Shouldn't he have been? Even for someone like you, that believes in right to bear arms and guns and everything else, shouldn't he have been arrested?
NUGENT: You saw the tape. I saw the tape where he was handcuffed, Piers. That's arrested. He was arrested. He was questioned. The stand-your-ground law does have specific ramifications.
But I also want to clarify something else, that really you should be ashamed of, that you said earlier. You don't believe that a person should be able to stand your ground. And you referenced your homelands of England, where if someone invades your home, an English homeowner, by law, has to retreat.
Piers, I offer to you that that's anti-human, that that disrespects the gift of life, and it actually encourages recidivist criminal behavior by sending out a message that we're not going to stand our ground; we're going to retreat.
Piers, you're in America now. And in America, we have a Second Amendment right. And we value life more than sheep do. And we don't back down. So the stand-your-ground law is common sense. It's logical. And it's the right thing to do.
MORGAN: Right. I mean, American has 270 million guns, by common estimation. Britain, I think, has about two million.
NUGENT: I think more than that.
MORGAN: Well, maybe more than that. OK. The last record said 9,484 homicides involving guns in the last year that was recorded. Britain had 68. I suppose my point is this, is that I don't defend all the laws in Britain. Many of them are ridiculous. I don't defend all the laws in America or attack all the laws. Some, to me, seem ridiculous. Others seem perfectly fair and balanced.
It's a great country with a great legal system in many ways. I don't denigrate America with this. But on the stand-your-ground law, in particular, it seems to me unbelievable that a young, unarmed teenager in America today can actually be shot dead for possession of a bag of Skittles, on his way home to his father's girlfriend's house.
My point was, when they were mocking British law, by the way -- they started this. I said back in Britain, that wouldn't have happened. You couldn't do that without being arrested and almost certainly charged. Now I think many Americans -- let's not say the majority. I don't know the statistics. But many Americans feel uncomfortable that this could happen in modern America and that George Zimmerman would simply be allowed to go home that night when Trayvon Martin goes to a coffin.
NUGENT: Piers, you have expressed that you don't want to try this on television. I also do not want to try this on television. I think we both agree that there's a tragedy that it is being tried and that Zimmerman has been convicted across the media in many instances.
So let's not do that here. So let me propose to you a scenario that I think you can grasp and support. You must be aware, and if not I'll inform you now, how many professional law enforcement heroes are killed every year with their own weapon. I'm not juxtaposing this with the Trayvon and the Zimmerman situation.
But it does happen, where an assailant will start beating a person so badly that those of us that are armed, we have a responsibility to keep that new assault from taking our weapon, because if the assault escalates to that degree -- certainly the fist can go into a deadly situation if they get a hold of the gun bearer's gun.
So we have to be cognizant of that. If it wasn't for backup guns in law enforcement and in civilians hands, oftentimes, that the perpetrator and the person getting beat up is killed with his own gun. So let's not dismiss that reality that is documented over and over again across this country.
MORGAN: But do you believe that a neighborhood watch official acting in that capacity should be armed and using that firearm?
NUGENT: Yes.
MORGAN: OK. Well, Ted, we'll agree to disagree over that. I hope we can do that again in an extended way soon, because your opinions are always very interesting to hear. Thank you for joining me.
NUGENT: Thank you, Piers. My family sends their best and our prayers are with the Martin family.
There's some great stuff in there -- thanks, Ted.
About Morgan's final question -- judging by the pause that followed Nugent's unequivocal answer (plus the look on Morgan's face), it was clear that the host wasn't quite prepared for such an affirmation of Liberty. Go figure, eh?
Welcome to America.
Against the backdrop of the shooting involving a neighborhood-watch volunteer last month in Sanford, Florida, this subject seems timely.
First, a little background: my wife and I are active in our local crime watch. It's a private effort, separate and distinct from the official community-watch program managed by our county sheriff's department.
Applicants for the sheriff's volunteer program are trained in basic protocol and procedures. If accepted, they're issued identifying clothing (cap, polo shirt and jacket) and patrol in radio-equipped marked cars.
Our group, by contrast, holds regular information-sharing meetings and leaves the rest to residents' interest and discretion. Mrs. KintlaLake and I often cruise the streets near our house and monitor nearby city parks, and we keep tabs on our neighbors.
We're crystal-clear about what we're legally empowered to do: observe and report. We don't pursue and we don't engage.
We have no authority to enforce the law -- we're not cops, nor do we aspire to be. We're simply citizens of this community, taking responsibility for a measure of its security.
Long-time KintlaLake Blog readers will recall that both my wife and I hold CCW permits, and yes, we carry when we're moving through our community to take note of goings-on. Then again, we always exercise our concealed-carry privileges, whenever and wherever possible.
(The sheriff's community-watch volunteers aren't permitted to carry firearms while on-duty, by the way.)
Getting involved in a crime-watch group (or forming one) is a good idea, in my opinion. A few suggestions:
- Know the law -- local, state & federal.
- Don't fly solo -- maintain your independence, but enlist the participation of other members of the community.
- Involve law-enforcement authorities -- communicate, collaborate & cooperate.
- Watch out for eager-beavers, cop-wannabes & vigilantes -- a crime-watch group isn't a posse.
- I repeat: observe and report -- don't pursue & don't engage.
- Avoid divulging too much information about your own family's safety, security & preparedness plans to other members of your group.
Now more than ever, we need to take care of our communities. As long as we're smart about it, we needn't be intimidated by the shit-storm in Sanford.
With another threat to our Second Amendment rights now radiating from Florida, it's worth mentioning that the Brady Campaign to Disarm Law-Abiding Citizens (a.k.a. the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) came out with its latest state scorecards last month.
Brady uses a laughably arbitrary scoring scheme and a 100-point scale to rank states based on firearms-related laws, awarding zero to four stars. The not-so-surprising result?
"California continues to blaze legislative trails in saving lives, rising to a high of 81 points on the 2011 Brady State Scorecard rankings of state gun laws. California's universal background check system, retention of purchase records, limiting handgun purchases to one a month, and an assault clip ban are just some of the laws that provide a road map to preventing gun violence."
The Golden State's relentless assault on the U.S. Constitution earned it four stars and a bright-green designation on Brady's map (above). Most of the three-star states are clustered in the Northeast -- New Jersey (72 points), Massachusetts (65), New York (62) and Connecticut (58) -- and get a light-green stain.
Florida (3), by the way, is among 31 states honored in red on Brady's map for scoring fewer than ten points and earning zero stars. And three states have my personal admiration for scoring zero points: Alaska, Arizona and Utah. Well done, People.
I'm pleased to say that The Great State of Ohio has made progress, by Brady's measure, since the last time the subject came up on KintlaLake Blog. With a score of seven points (down from 11), we're now a zero-star state.
No, we're not perfect yet, but it's good to be in the red.
On February 26th in Sanford, Florida, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by neighborhood-watch volunteer George Zimmerman. The admitted shooter hasn't been charged, ostensibly because officials haven't determined if his actions fall under Florida's "stand-your-ground" law.
I have access only to news reports and not evidence, so judging guilt or innocence wouldn't be fair. That said, I'm going to be unfair.
Based on what I've read and heard, it looks to me like Zimmerman exercised criminally bad judgment and acted out of simmering hatred -- in short, he finally caught up with a black kid in a hoodie and sentenced him to death, presuming that he could avoid being charged by arguing self-defense.
Believing that and proving it are two different things, of course. At this point there's no reason to cast aspersions on rightly deliberate investigators for not yet arresting Zimmerman.
Despite that, we've seen angry protests in Sanford and beyond. Much of the news media has whipped the story into a sensational froth.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott has appointed a special prosecutor to look into the case. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has sent federal investigators to Sanford to "help" state and local officials. And, ominously, Gov. Scott has formed a task force to review the state's stand-your-ground law.
Pres. Barack Obama, responding to a reporter yesterday, said,
"I think all of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident."
Let's be clear here: Zimmerman pursued Martin and, apparently, either confronted the unarmed teenager or provoked a confrontation, so the stand-your-ground law doesn't come into play. Still, one senseless death resulting from one stupid, irresponsible act will be exploited by those who seek to prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves and their families.
Zimmerman didn't do us any favors, certainly, and now Liberty-loving Americans must prepare for a fresh assault on our constitutional and human rights. Castle Doctrine in particular will come under siege nationwide -- we can count on that.
About Castle Doctrine
Preparing to employ armed defense to protect oneself and one's family is a personal choice and, thanks to our elected officials, not at all a simple one.
The crux here is called Castle Doctrine, and whether or not it applies varies from state to state. It designates a person's place of residence (and in some states a person's vehicle or workplace) as a "castle" in which that person may expect to enjoy protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It gives a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that "castle," and other innocent persons legally within, from violent attack or intrusion which threatens violent attack.
Fundamentally, Castle Doctrine enables a person's right to self-defense, trumping the "duty to retreat" principle and the mandate that a person use only proportionate force against an attacker. And legally speaking, it permits the criminal defense of "justifiable homicide" when the use of deadly force actually causes death.
Castle Doctrine is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and again, it's not universal. It's also important to note that the law almost never permits armed defense of property -- only life. Each of us is obliged to know our state and local laws and make our own choices. And if we choose to make armed defense part of protecting self and family, professional training is a must.
The front-page headline in this morning's edition of The Columbus Dispatch blares, "Secret compartments could get drivers busted."
A proposed law, touted yesterday by Gov. John Kasich as part of Ohio's stepped-up drug-interdiction efforts, would make it a fourth-degree felony to own a vehicle equipped with hidden compartments. Naturally, law-enforcement agencies -- notably the Ohio State Highway Patrol -- love the idea.
Law-abiding citizens, however, should be less than thrilled.
Think about it -- should we expect drug traffickers to avoid Ohio, or to smuggle narcotics in vehicles not fitted with covert stashes, just because there's a law against secret compartments?
Of course not. Any claim that such a law would be a deterrent is patently laughable.
Citizens who cherish Liberty see a far more sinister effect. The simple act of modifying a vehicle to incorporate a secure place to stow emergency supplies or, for example, to (otherwise legally) transport a firearm or ammunition would earn us a felony charge -- even if the compartment doesn't hold drugs or other contraband.
It's the definition of a political stunt. Gov. Kasich is desperate to curry favor with law enforcement. Sen. Jim Hughes, the bill's sponsor, wants to score points with Gov. Kasich. And patrol superintendent Col. John Born is doing what political appointees do.
The ill-conceived secret-compartment proposal seeks to address the state's drug-trafficking problem by assaulting individual liberties. Ohio has plenty of anti-drug statutes already on the books without creating another that'd turn now-law-abiding citizens into criminals.
This citizen will urge his elected representatives to squash the bill.
Based on what I've read and heard, it looks to me like Zimmerman exercised criminally bad judgment and acted out of simmering hatred -- in short, he finally caught up with a black kid in a hoodie and sentenced him to death, presuming that he could avoid being charged by arguing self-defense.
A proposed law, touted yesterday by Gov. John Kasich as part of Ohio's stepped-up drug-interdiction efforts, would make it a fourth-degree felony to own a vehicle equipped with hidden compartments. Naturally, law-enforcement agencies -- notably the Ohio State Highway Patrol -- love the idea.
