A Geek With Guns

Fast and Furious is the gift that keeps on giving. Not only did the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) arm Mexican drug cartels, only did a border patrol agent get murdered by one of those guns, but the ATF even arrested one of the main suspects they were supposedly looking for and let him go:

The prime suspect in the botched gun trafficking investigation known as “Fast and Furious” — Manuel Acosta — was taken into custody and might have been stopped from trafficking weapons to Mexico’s killer drug cartel early on. But the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) let him go, according to new documents obtained by CBS News.

An ATF “Report of Investigation” obtained by CBS News shows Border Patrol agents stopped Acosta’s truck on May 29, 2010. Inspectors said they found illegal materials including an “AK type, high capacity drum magazine loaded with 74 rounds of 7.62 ammunition underneath the spare tire.” They also noted ledgers including a “list of firearms such as an AR15 short and a Bushmaster” and a “reference about money given to ‘killer.’”

A copy of the report can be found here [PDF]. Let me just start by saying the ATF obviously does some stellar work. I guess when you set up an operation to advance gun control in the United States the last thing you want to do is actually stop the gun running.

The Fast and Furious rabbit hole gets deeper and deeper with each passing day. While I’m generally not one to attribute malice when stupidity and incompetence can explain a scenario, the case of Fast and Furious is looking more like purposeful action on behalf of the ATF than pure bureaucratic incompetence. The very fact that evidence exists showing Fast and Furious was about gun control and that the ATF had, but set free, one of the primary gun smugglers seems like an awfully large coincidence. Of course I will close by stating my cynicism which does make me bias.

If you thought the guy in France was entirely unaware of gun control laws then you’ve seen nothing, apparently quite a few people are unaware of Chicago’s strict gun control laws:

Five people were killed and at least 12 other people wounded in shootings Saturday night and Sunday morning across the city.

[...]

Police have impounded the car and found a gun that may have been used in the shootings.

The evening attacks follow the fatal shooting of a 6-year-old girl and the wounding of four other people in Chicago within an hour Saturday afternoon, and 16 shootings, including the slaying of a 42-year-old man, overnight Friday and early Saturday morning.

You know things are bad when the story says “In other shootings:” instead of “In other news.” Chicago is basically the anti-gunner’s idea of paradise, a land where almost no firearm is legal to possess. If the gun control advocates were correct you would think Chicago would enjoy a dramatically lower number of shootings than other areas in the country but quite the opposite is true. Yet states that have enacted laws that make it easier (or in some cases possible at all) for citizens to legally arm themselves the changes in violent crime rates have been neutral to positive. In other words more guns doesn’t seem to lead to more crime but less guns certainly isn’t looking good on the violent crime rate maps.

One of the failures of gun control is that many people are unaware of the laws put into place that prohibit the possession of firearms:

One of the biggest manhunts in recent French history is under way after four people were shot dead at a Jewish school in Toulouse.

Police have linked the attack to two shootings last week in which three soldiers of North African descent died.

The same gun and the same stolen scooter were used in all three attacks, sources close to the investigation say.

According to the anti-gunners banning firearms will prevent violent crimes such as the ones mentioned above. The story states that the attacker has two handguns in his possession:

A 17-year-old boy was seriously hurt. Initially, the killer used a 9mm gun, but when it jammed, he switched to a .45 calibre weapon.

According to French firearm laws:

Firearms there are divided into different classes, numbered 1,4,5,6,7 and 8.

[...]

The fourth category comprises what are called defence firearms, and includes any revolver and pistol, centrefire or rimfire, of a non-military calibre, short rifles having a total length of less than 80cm or a barrel length of less than 45cm, semi-automatic rifles with more than three shots capacity, repeater rifles with a magazine capacity of more than ten shots, riot guns with over five-shot capacity, semi-automatic or repeating military lookalikes, and disguised arms such as pen guns.

[...]

Another important fact should be noted. In France, on a firearm certificate renewable each five years, the private citizen is allowed to have one fourth category handgun with fifty cartridges for home defence, pursuant to a police background check. This can be in any non-military calibre from .22 to .44 Magnum. The handgun cannot be moved outside the house. Sometimes a second handgun is allowed for a secondary house.

It seems the attacker is either entirely ignorant of the fact that it’s illegal for him to possess two handguns and any handgun that is of a military caliber. The 9mm is considered a military caliber under French laws and I’m guessing the .45 is as well (although I’m not entirely sure as France hasn’t issued any firearms in .45 that I’m aware of). So either the anti-gunners are full of shit and prohibitions against owning firearms doesn’t deter criminals or criminals are simply unaware of the fact that they’re breaking gun control laws. Either way gun control doesn’t work and trying to further it is foolhardy at best.

Eric “let’s give guns to the violent Mexican drug cartels and use it to justify more gun control in America” Holder has a long history of lies, slander, and generally opposing the right of people to keep and bear arms. It turns out Holder was advocating the brainwashing of Americans to make them think negatively about firearms:

Breitbart.com has uncovered video from 1995 of then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder announcing a public campaign to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”
Holder was addressing the Woman’s National Democratic Club. In his remarks, broadcast by CSPAN 2, he explained that he intended to use anti-smoking campaigns as his model to “change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC” about guns.

“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.”

Holder added that he had asked advertising agencies in the nation’s capital to assist by making anti-gun ads rather than commercials “that make me buy things that I don’t really need.” He had also approached local newspapers and television stations, he said, asking them to devote prime space and time, respectively, to his anti-gun campaign.

Don’t just take Breitbart’s word for it, they also provided the video of Holder saying these things.

Holder has been a gun control fanatic for ages and it’s not surprising that he was entirely complacent with Operation Fast and Furious. His desire to push the gun control agenda ended with people being murdered by guns given to violent Mexican drug cartels by the United States government. The state will go to any length it can get away with to disarm the populace. After all a disarmed populace is a far more easy populace to bring tyranny upon.

The rampage in Norway last year that left 77 people dead demonstrated the need for the right to carry a firearm for self-defense. Police took over an hour to respond and during that time people at the Labor Party youth camp were entirely helpless because Norway doesn’t allow its citizens the right to self-defense. 77 people may be dead, and the police may have taken over an hour to actually get off their asses and do their job, but people of Norway can taken solace in the fact that the police are apologized:

Norwegian police have admitted for the first time that they could have responded faster to a massacre at a youth camp last July.

Anders Behring Breivik opened fire on young activists gathered on Utoeya island last summer, killing 69 people.

The police, distracted by a bomb Breivik had set off in Oslo and hampered by technical failures, arrived an hour after his killing spree began.

State Police Director Oystein Maeland apologised on behalf of the police.

“Every minute was one minute too long,” he said.

“It is a burden to know that lives could have been saved if the gunman had been arrested earlier.”

Lives could also have been saved had one or more people at the youth camp been armed. When seconds matter the police are only an hour away.

We’re going to play a game, it’s call guess what device I’m talking about. This device, at one time and possibly still today, required a buyer to get permission from the police to buy, required a fingerprint of the device be submitted to the police if the purchase was approved, had to be surrendered to the police if the previous permission is revoked, couldn’t be purchased by convicted criminals, and the police were to be notified within 24 hours of the device being lost or stolen. What do you think the device is?

If you guessed a firearm you’re incorrect. The correct answer is a typewriter:

Romanians now must seek police permission for owning a potentially dangerous weapon — the typewriter.

[...]

Under new procedures:
–Typewriter owners must submit written applications to police for permission to keep or buy a machine, then wait for an answer.
–If the application is approved, the owner must submit a type sample of numbers and letters for registration with authorities.
–If the license is withdrawn, owners must sell their machines within 10 days to a state-run shop. Private sale is forbidden, but the owner is allowed on appeal.
–Typewriters will be denied to people who have a criminal record or pose “a danger to the public order or state security.”
–Police must be notified within 24 hours of the loss or theft of a typewriter, and their rental or use outside the registered owner’s home is forbidden.
–Penalty for failure to comply with the law is $240 and confiscation of offenders’ typewriters.

This was printed in The Telegraph on April 30^th, 1983. Reading through it I was able to check every single bullet point off when I replaced the word ‘typewriter’ with ‘firearm’ and applied the list to what gun control advocates have been demanding. It seems obvious to me that the gun control crowd has been pilfering communist regimes for ideas on laws that they should push regarding firearm control.

Just like communist regimes of the past, current advocates of controlling tools desire power. The communists hoped to oppress all criticism by making it illegal to criticize communist and controlling means of producing written material. Gun control advocates hope to cement the state’s power to rule over our lives by disarming the people. Deep down inside gun control advocates fear individual liberty and demand the state be allowed to control the lives of every man, woman, and child. In the state’s absolute control the gun control advocates can absolve themselves of responsibility for their personal defense by gaining a scapegoat, an entity to blame, when they are subjected to crimes of violence. Instead of saying “I fought and lost” they want to say “The police never arrive, I couldn’t do anything, it’s not my fault, the police were supposed to protect me.”

The gun control advocates’ willingness to surrender all of our rights to comfort themselves is the thing I find most disgusting about them.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Alan Gura won another court victory, this time in Maryland:

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal court ruling in Maryland, that the Second Amendment right to bear arms extends beyond the home and that citizens may not be required to offer a “good and substantial reason” for obtaining a concealed carry permit, is a huge victory, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

Ruling in the case of Woollard v. Sheridan – a case brought by SAF in July 2010 on behalf of Maryland resident Raymond Woollard, who was denied his carry permit renewal – the U.S. District Court for Maryland ruled that “The Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home.”

The ruling can be found here [PDF]:

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Maryland‘s requirement of a “good and substantial reason” for issuance of a handgun permit is insufficiently tailored to the State‘s interest in public safety and crime prevention. The law impermissibly infringes the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court will, by separate Order of even date, GRANT Woollard‘s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY Defendants‘ Motion for Summary Judgment.

You know who’s a sad panda? The Brady Campaign [PDF] (I grabbed a copy of their case docket just in case they decide to toss this one down the memory hole). Apparently they had a vested interest in this case (page 70):

Woollard v. Sheridan (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland)

The Brady Center is assisting the State of Maryland in this case, brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and Raymond Woollard, challenging the validity of Maryland’s handgun permit process. The named defendants include the Secretary and Superintendent of the Maryland State Police, Terrence Sheridan, and three members of Maryland’s Handgun Permit Review Board.

To qualify for a handgun carry permit in Maryland, an applicant must establish that he or she is an adult; has not been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor for which a term of over 1 year imprisonment has been imposed; has not been convicted of drug crimes; is not an alcoholic or drug addict; and has not exhibited a propensity for violence or instability that may render the applicant’s possession of a handgun dangerous. Additionally, the Superintendent of the State must determine that the applicant “has good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun, such as a finding that the permit is necessary as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger.”

Plaintiffs contend that the State cannot require handgun permit applicants to prove the above, as it deals with “the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.” They allege this violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs are asking for permanent injunctive relief against the enforcement of the provisions regulating handgun permits.

On March 22, 2011, the Brady Center filed an amicus brief in the case arguing for dismissal of the lawsuit.

Too bad, so sad. SAF is proving to be the unstoppable behemoth of the litigation world and Alan Gura is their super weapon. I wonder how the Brady Campaign feels right now knowing they have been entirely ineffective at stopping those of us who believe in the right to keep and bear arms from advancing.

Either way this ruling is big. It not only abolishes Maryland’s ability to issue permits on a willy nilly basis but also sets a precedence, which will allow people in other “may issue” states to challenge such barriers between their right to carry a means of self-defense. I wonder who the next violator of the Second Amendment will be to fall before the might of SAF.

I’m in no way surprised about this but Governor Dayton vetoed HR 1467:

Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed the so-called “castle doctrine” self-defense bill on Monday.
The proposal, supported by the gun-rights groups and opposed by Minnesota’s law-enforcement organizations, would have expanded the legal justification for citizens who use deadly force in threatening situations.

His reasoning? Well he took the advice of liars:

Dayton made his veto by letter without commenting publicly.

In his veto letter, Dayton said, he had to honor the opposition of law enforcement.

“The MN Police and Peace Officers Association, the MN Chiefs of Police and the MN Sheriffs Association represent the men and woman who risk their lives every day and night to protect the rest of us. When they strongly oppose a measure, because they believe it will increase the dangers to them in the performance of their duties, I cannot support it,” Dayton wrote.

No, they strong oppose the bill because it removes their feeling of superiority, that smug feeling they get by knowing they’re the only ones legally able to defend themselves wherever they roam. I will also add that no state that has passed these measures has noticed any additional danger to officers on the street, but facts are irrelevant to those in power.

Either way this is the outcome I expected. Any battle to win back powers taken by the state is long are arduous. We’ve seen where Mark Dayton stands on the right of self-defense and with this veto he’s flat out stated that he supports criminals over you and me. This battle certainly isn’t over, we’re not going to stop pushing this until it’s through and if that means ousting the governor and electing somebody less willing to side with criminals then that is what will be done.

Andrew Rothman of the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (MNGOCRA) let me know that today is the final day for Dayton to make a decision on HR 1467, the omnibus gun rights bill. According to Article 4, section 23, of the Minnesota Constitution, “Any bill not returned by the governor within three days (Sundays excepted) after it is presented to him becomes a law as if he had signed it, unless the legislature by adjournment within that time prevents its return.” That means Dayton has three choices available to him: sign the bill, veto the bill, or do nothing and let the bill become law as if he signed it. Whether he signs the bill or ignores it is really irrelevant to use, the only issue we’ll have is if he vetos.

We have until midnight so let’s make the best use of that time. As I’ve been urging you please take a few minutes to call Dayton’s office at either 651-201-3400 or 800-657-3717. You can also send a free fax via FaxZero to the Governor’s office at 651-797-1850 and send an e-mail via the contact form on the Governor’s website.

I’ve gotten word that HF 1467, the Minnesota omnibus gun rights bill, has been delivered to Dayton’s office. You know what this means, right? It’s all or nothing, we need to start hounding Dayton’s office even more than we already have.

Take a few minutes to call Dayton’s office at either 651-201-3400 or 800-657-3717. After you’re done with the call it would be a good idea to pen a real physical dead tree letter to his office. Letters can be sent to:

Governor Mark Dayton
130 State Capitol
75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155

Why stop there? You can then send a free fax via FaxZero to the Governor’s office at 651-797-1850. Finally navigate your browser to the contact form on the Governor’s website and hit his inbox up with a letter urging him to sign HF 1467.

We need to be heard so Dayton realizes that his veto of the bill will mean Minnesota gun owner’s veto of his job come election time.

Why are you still here? GO GO GO!