Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. That psychic discomfort is the price we pay for basic civic peace. It's worth it. It's a pragmatic principle. Defend everyone else's rights, because if you don't there is no one to defend yours. -- MaxedOutMama

I don't just want gun rights... I want individual liberty, a culture of self-reliance....I want the whole bloody thing. -- Kim du Toit

The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them.-- Moshe Ben-David

The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been "liberated" to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it's because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it's because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem. -- Sultan Knish

All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war. -- Billy Beck

Saturday, September 30, 2006


Last year about this time we were gearing up for the Remodel™. I took time off from work, but it was hardly a vacation. This year I'm taking two (2) weeks off (during a period in which I have never been busier) and in the middle of that two weeks I'm driving up to Reno for Mr. Completely's Gunblogger Rendezvous. Of course, there's a lot of honeydo's I need to take care of during this period, but hopefully I'll have time to do a lot of reading, a little writing, and some reloading and shooting (besides next Saturday in Reno.)

I'll also be doing some maintenance on this blog - specifically, updating the blogroll.

If I don't blow everything off completely.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Do It Again, Only HARDER!.

I note tonight that, once again, someone has gone to a "disarmed victim zone" (otherwise known as a school) with a firearm and committed mayhem. (I also note that this is major news in Australia, the UK, Israel, China, Bulgaria, South Africa and jeebus knows how many other foreign places. Yes, guns are terrible things here in the U.S. of A. More "victims of the Second Amendment," I'm sure they'll say.)

Those "gun-free zones" really do the job, don't they? They make sure that anyone willing and capable of defending against someone intent on evil has no chance to intervene before things go completely to hell.

But this is SOP for people who blame not the perpetrators, but the weapons for these evil deeds. Once again, let me quote Steven den Beste on the topic of "cognitive dissonance":
When someone tries to use a strategy which is dictated by their ideology, and that strategy doesn't seem to work, then they are caught in something of a cognitive bind. If they acknowledge the failure of the strategy, then they would be forced to question their ideology. If questioning the ideology is unthinkable, then the only possible conclusion is that the strategy failed because it wasn't executed sufficiently well. They respond by turning up the power, rather than by considering alternatives. (This is sometimes referred to as "escalation of failure".)
Or, as I express it, "Do it again, only HARDER!"

Here's another shining example.

California governator Arnold Schwarzenegger....

Well, you read it:
Legislation to protect domestic violence victims from gun violence signed into law

September 27, 2006

Need for legislation underscored after Evan Nash, a San Diego youth, was slain by his armed father.

SACRAMENTO – Governor Schwarzenegger yesterday signed legislation by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) that will provide additional protection for people seeking court protective orders under the Family Code.

“This law is dedicated to the memory of Evan Nash, the San Diego teen who tragically lost his life while under the protection of a family court protective order. His mother, Lucy Nash, fought to change the law to further protect victims of domestic violence,” said Senator Kehoe.

In 2003, Evan Nash’s estranged father shot and killed his son less than 24 hours after being served with a protective order. In the aftermath of the tragedy, Lucy Nash stated that she thought Evan’s father’s firearms would be confiscated at the time his protective order was served, and that had she known they would not be confiscated, she would have moved her son to safety.

Specifically, Senate Bill 585:
1. Adds additional provisions to the Family Code to allow law enforcement to consider seeking the immediate surrender of a firearm from a person served with a protective order.

2. Reduces from 72 hours to 48 hours the time frame by which a person served with a protective order must show proof to a court that they either sold or surrendered their firearms.

3. Requires that application forms for protective orders ask what types of firearms are in the possession of the respondent.
“Unfortunately, in some cases the issuance of a protective order is followed by an assault or even murder,” said Senator Kehoe.
You don't say!
“In certain circumstances, it is important to remove the guns as quickly as possible after a protective order has been served to help increase public safety.”
But which cases? And how do you tell?
Last year, Evan’s mother, Lucy Nash, traveled from San Diego to Sacramento to testify in support of the measure. SB 585 will take effect January 1, 2007.
I've had to stop banging my head against hard surfaces. I've beaten too many of them into crumbling dust.

How many absurdities can you count in that one story?

1. While California has handgun registration, I don't believe they have long gun registration, so how are they supposed to know that someone turned everything in?

2. This law trusts that the target of such an order will actually comply, especially if he's planning violence. You know, in those few cases that actually lead to murder? It's worked so well in the past, hasn't it?

3. If they can't keep guns out of the hands of prohibited persons (i.e. known felons), how do they expect to keep them out of the hands of people with restraining orders if they really, really want one?

4. If someone with a restraining order really wants to kill someone, there are other methods besides guns, but this law is concerned not with violence, only gun violence.

5. The law supposedly disarms the perpetrator of domestic violence in 48 hours, rather than the completely unreasonable 72 hours - yet the bill is passed giving credit to a case in which the perpetrator killed within the new timeframe!

How many more can you come up with?

But if the previous law didn't work, do it again, only harder!

The next iteration will drop the time period to 24 hours, I suppose? And when the next violent offender hands his firearms in ammunition first?

If Ms. Nash had understood that the government is not responsible for her (or her son's) protection, then she might have done what was necessary to protect herself and her son. Instead, she depended on the State to protect her. She depended a piece of paper. But now other women will still think that a restraining order will provide more protection than the paper it's printed on.

And that's a damned lie.

But the ideology cannot be wrong. The only possible conclusion is that the strategy failed because it wasn't executed sufficiently well, so DO IT AGAIN, ONLY HARDER!

What will they do about "Gun-Free School Zones" now? Increase the radius of the exclusionary zone?

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

"I Can't Believe You're Doing This!".

I can.

After my "Pushback?" post from yesterday, commenter 1894C put up a link to this YouTube video. Watch the whole thing. I doubt that the videographer, "texteditor," will get much satisfaction from the courts, but it's an interesting thing to watch.

Nice to know the patrol officers understand the law they swear to uphold.< /snark>

UPDATE: While perusing some of the incoming links, I found an essay written by Peter Schramm in 1999 that I think everyone ought to read. Go, go... I'll still be here when you're finished...

Done? Good. Did this quote get your attention?
"...where there is bureaucracy, there is no freedom."
I thought it might.

Jeff Cooper has Left Us.

Doubtless (if you read the gun blogs) you're already aware of this. I found out last night, but Blogger was being wonky, so I couldn't post. I'm glad I didn't. Joe Huffman has an excellent piece up, far better than anything I would have written: 147 quotes from the man. Go read, and reflect on a life well-lived and a man who will be greatly missed.

Monday, September 25, 2006


Here's a rather interesting video on YouTube. Watch it while it's still up. I don't imagine it will be for long.

(h/t MadOgre.)

UPDATE: Here's a larger Quicktime version not likely to disappear.

Another update: Apparently Kim du Toit and Mr. Wilcox, the producer of the film linked here, are at odds. I'm going to assume that the "crappy little snuff film" Kim refers to is this piece, though I might very well be incorrect.

Just thought y'all might want to know.

The Jabberwocky World of Saul Cornell.

Here he is again! Associate professor of History Saul Cornell of Ohio State University and its "Second Amendment Research Center at the John Glenn Institute" has published a new tome on the topic of just what the Second Amendment doesn't protect. Unsurprisingly, it's getting rave reviews (I seem to remember that Michael Bellisile's Arming America got glowing reviews, too....) Entitled A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America (working title, Armed in the Holy Cause of Liberty: Guns and the American Constitution - but I guess that one was a little too... provocative?) Associate professor Cornell attempts to shed just a little unbiased light on the subject.

Or, at least, that's what he wants you to believe.

Clayton Cramer does his typical masterful job of dissecting the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's laudatory op-ed/book review with, you know, facts and citations that indicate just how far off in never-never-land Associate professor Cornell really is.

Clayton opens:
Saul Cornell Is Suddenly No Longer a Partisan on Gun Control

At least, that's what this editorial from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune claims...


Any of you who are familiar with Professor Cornell's work can start the insane giggling right now--yeah, he's not really on one side or the other, nor is he trying to disarm the masses.
Numerous other bloggers have noted that the "Second Amendment Research Center at the John Glenn Institute" is largely funded by the extremely anti-gun Joyce Foundation (see this post, and this post, and this one.)

But Associate professor Cornell? "He's neither antigun nor progun. He really isn't a gun guy at all. His thing is history."

Right. Cue hysterical laughter.

But as I said in my first response to the good Associate professor,
He doesn't have to be right, he just has to be convincing. The ill-informed who read this piece think "Hey, he's an authority, he must be right." That's why his side has to keep repeating the big lies.
Clayton notes the same thing I did:
It just gets more and more "alternate universe" the deeper I read
As I said in my reply to Associate professor Cornell's email:
You, an historian, have taken it upon yourself to distort history - something that you yourself claim is unacceptable. You claim that the Justice department's recognition of the "standard model" of the Second Amendment is somehow "well beyond" a "living document" re-interpretation. I'm sorry, Professor, but if you actually believe that you're delusional, and if you know better you're a bald-faced liar. I honestly cannot tell which.
I think I have a better handle on that question now.

I think we all do, at least those of us who are paying attention.

But what about the general readership of the Strib?

THAT is the fight we have to fight each and every day.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Cashing in on the Guilt.
Do you really think we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking the law. Create a nation of lawbreakers and then you can cash in on the guilt. Now that's the system! - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
Looks like California, with the assistance of the BATF, is doing exactly that:

LA Gun Task Force Serves another Search Warrant

The LA County Gun Task Force has served another search warrant on the home of another member of the fifty caliber community. On Monday September 18th, eighteen police cars swarmed the neighborhood where the FCSA member lives and served a search warrant signed by Judge Steven Kleifield of the LA County Superior Court. The officers were at the residence for several hours and confiscated all semi-automatic firearms belonging to the victim.

The probable cause for issuing the search warrant was not available in the body of the affidavit so the reason for the search is unknown at this time. It should be noted the LA Gun Task Force used "High Risk" entry tactics by sending a SWAT Entry team to make the initial entry into the victim's residence. Gun owners in LA County need to be prepared to expect these kinds of entry tactics and respond to commands from any officers if you are contacted.

FCI wants everyone to be aware that the LA County Gun Task Force is lead by agents from BATFE; LAPD and LASO. They appear to have focused their attention on members of the fifty caliber community and are aggressively trying to arrest law abiding citizens for just being "Gun Owners".

In the situation that occurred this past Monday the victim had his entire firearms collection seized and he was told charges are going to be filed because he had in his possession linked ammunition in quantities of more than 10 rounds of ammunition at a time. This has been interpreted as a violation of the "High Capacity Magazine" portion of the Assault Weapons Act in CA. The victim owns a Semi-auto M2; a semi-auto M3 and a 30 caliber semi-auto 1919

Everyone living in California needs to pay attention to what is happening in Los Angeles. This can happen to you simply because someone who knows about your firearms calls the LA Gun Task Force and gives them information they interpret as a violation of the Draconian Gun Laws they have been passing for the last five years.

We are asking everyone to review what you have in your gun safe or workshop. Take the time to find out what is against the law and what is not. Remember, our first reported incident was over a flash hider on an M-1A and some armor piercing projectiles. Don't let this happen to YOU.

We are not able to identify the person involved in the incident on Monday or give you any more info about the circumstances about what occurred at this time. We will advise and update as we can.

John Burtt, Chmn
"...charges are going to be filed because he had in his possession linked ammunition in quantities of more than 10 rounds of ammunition at a time. This has been interpreted as a violation of the "High Capacity Magazine" portion of the Assault Weapons Act in CA." Just as possession of a Marlin Model 60 - still with the factory tags hanging off of it - in New Jersey is interpreted as possession of an "assault weapon" because said Marlin holds sixteen rounds in its tubular magazine. And possession of ten rounds of tracer ammo can get you five years in prison in California.

As the New Jersey court said, "When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril."

They keep this up, some of that peril is going to shift.

Which of These Two Statements Is True?.

Please read the following story (h/t: Zendo Deb):
Fighting back

Woman defends herself from attack with gun

By Courtney Reese/Times Record News
September 21, 2006

A 38-year-old woman staying at the Homewood Suites in Wichita Falls turned the tables Tuesday night on a potential attacker in the parking lot.

The woman's father said she pulled her .380 automatic pistol on the man, who came up behind her as she was getting sinus medicine from her van about 9 p.m.

He gave the following information about the incident:

The man asked her, "Do you have anything good in that van?"

The woman knew she was in trouble. She told him yes and moved to the front passenger-side door.

She pulled out her pistol and heard a knife click open.

When she looked back, she saw the man was holding a knife pointed downward in his hand.

She quickly turned, pointed the gun right at him and asked, "Are you really sure you want to do whatever you're going to do?"

He took off running, the father said.
No shots fired. No one wounded on either side. No crime completed. One pair of stained skivvies.

How dare she act like Harry Callahan!
The woman immediately went back inside the hotel, alerted the staff, and they called police.

Her father said she was calm at the time, going into "auto-pilot" and remembering everything she had learned in the classes she took to get her gun permit, he said.

"Of course, three hours later she was a basket case," he said. "She felt violated and real anxious."
Not as violated as she would have felt had he succeeded in robbing her - and whatever else he had planned.
This wasn't the first time the woman had faced a trying situation.

Her father said her fiance was involved in a shootout in Houston, which made her realize she needed to take precautions herself.

"When that happens to somebody close to you, you learn," he said.
Unfortunately, some don't even learn then.
So not even a year ago, the West Texas woman decided to get licensed to carry a gun, something her brother had been trying to convince her of because her job requires travel, her father said.

Sgt. Joe Snyder, public information officer with the Wichita Falls Police Department, said it's important that anyone carrying a gun be aware of not only his or her own surroundings, but also those of the attacker.

"You're responsible for where a bullet goes," he said. "You don't want to hit innocent bystanders."

But even more than that, Snyder said a weapon should not be used as a scare tactic.

"If you are going to pull a weapon, you should be prepared to use it."

In general, it's best to travel in pairs went it's dark outside, Snyder said.

"Park in well-lighted, well-traveled areas so you aren't put in a one-on-one scenario," he said.

The woman who was accosted is one of more than 150,000 people in Texas licensed to carry firearms. In Texas, carrying a loaded handgun in a vehicle is legal when the owner is traveling a substantial distance.
(Just so you know, 150,000 represents less than 1% of the eligible population of Texas.)

A couple of years ago I had a long, drawn out cross-blog discussion with Australian Tim Lambert over laws restricting weapons. In one post defending restrictive laws, Tim stated the following:
If the law disarms attackers, then it can make self defence possible where it would have been impossible if the attacker was armed.
Reader Sarah of Carnaby Fudge slightly re-worded that statement in a comment:
If the law disarms citizens, then it can make self defence impossible where it would have been possible if the citizen was armed.
Which of these two statements is demonstrably true, and why?

Thursday, September 21, 2006

I Hereby Reiterate My Promise... kick Ted Rall in the crotch (I doubt he has any balls) if I ever meet him in person:

On top of that, I'm pretty sure he wants to be dominated by her.

For some reason, Robert Mapplethorpe photos come to mind...

Friday, September 15, 2006

Hiatus. Again.

Sorry, folks, but given the amount of work I'm doing at the present time, blogging's got to take a back seat. My apologies for the free ice cream shortage. Perhaps I'll be able to blog more during my upcoming two weeks off in October, but in the mean time, things are going to be damned sparse around TSM.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Four Years!?!?.

Isn't that, like, 28 in Internet years?

The Carnival of the Vanities celebrates its 208th incarnation at its new home, First Carnival. According to the opening paragraph:
Four years ago, something happened that was to change the face of blogging: CotV #1 appeared. The very first edition of the Carnival of the Vanities featured 15 participants. Of those, I’m aware of 9 who are still blogging.
That's pretty amazing when you think about the ephemeral nature of most blogs.

Anyway, congratulations on the big 4.0!

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Time's Running Out!.

If you're not already registered, you've got two days to do so, or your room rate will be much higher.

Click on the picture for all you need to know to join us at the Reno Rendezvous!

Stories the MSM Doesn't Tell.

Perusing my archives I came across this post about 72 year-old Lena Haddix of Lawton, OK who volunteered for deployment as a civilian Department of Defense employee to the Middle East. That was in November of 2004. Now I find this story about Ms. Haddix:
DALLAS, Jan. 9, 2006 — Folks in Oklahoma are readjusting to an image not typically associated with the global war on terrorism, a 73-year old great-grandmother just back from Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Lena Haddix, a native of Lawton, has spent the last six months in full battle armor helping troops find snacks, shampoo and other American products at the Army & Air Force Exchange Service Post Exchange/Base Exchange in Camp Liberty, Iraq.

The personification of the Exchange's motto of “We Go Where You Go,” Haddix recently returned from her second voluntary deployment to the Middle East as a store manager. After previously volunteering to work in Kuwait, Haddix decided her work wasn't done and went back for a second tour of duty, this time to Baghdad, Iraq.

“I'm glad to do it for the soldiers,” said Haddix. She explained that troops came to expect her presence at the store and often called her mom.

“When the convoys would come back, the troops would stop by the store and shout, ‘Mom, we made it!’”

After being gone for almost a year, Haddix will return to the Fort Sill Post Exchange to continue to support troops and their families here at home.

“People like Lena are critical to the morale of our deployed troops,” said AAFES Chief of Contingency Planning Lt. Col. Steven Dean. “It is only through them that AAFES is able to deliver retail, fast food and telecommunication services that they would expect to find back home to a war zone.”

When asked about her time overseas and if she would consider going back, Haddix replied, “I’m thinking about it.”

AAFES currently operates more than 60 stores throughout Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom. Troops can find a variety of items from basic supplies including socks, personal care items and beverages to comfort items including televisions, DVD players and movies.
That is just too cool!

The American Dream is What, Again?.

In the previous piece I quoted someone on the topic of people "voting against their self-interest" in which that person said,
As it turns out, the American Dream is just that...
Kim du Toit has complained that Hollyweird doesn't put out any movies he wants to see, but thanks to Carnaby from Carnaby Fudge I see there's one coming out in December that addresses both topics, The Pursuit of Happyness. Watch the trailer (it's Apple Quicktime, but worth it.)

I'll be waiting for it to open. Like Carnaby said, now I like Will Smith even more.

"Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You..."

It's Primary Day in a lot of places, Arizona being one of them. For most people, this cartoon describes accurately what they're voting for:
I can't count the number of times I've heard someone on the Democrat side of the aisle complain that the poor and middle class votes Republican "against their own self-interest,"* insisting by inference that not voting to "take his money and give it to you" is, well, undemocratic. Read the money quote from that link:
Why do so many poor and middle class people vote for Republicans against their own self-interest? Because if they aren't rich now, 40% of them believe they will be soon. As it turns out, the American Dream is just that...
Yes, friends, the idea that you can earn your way to wealth is just a pipe-dream. Better that you vote someone into office so that they can steal appropriate just enough money for you from the already-wealthy to make you even more dependent on government. That's how they define "self-interest."

The concepts of sacrifice, delayed gratification, fairness, and just plain right have been inverted, twisted, and damned-near obliterated by the Left.

So, go to the polls today and vote, not for yourself, but for the future. Vote, if it's available, for what's right rather than what's immediately gratifying. If thats not available, vote against those who would take from A and give to B, just to get B's vote. But vote. You may not be able to stop the toboggan ride to hell, but you can at least try to throw out an anchor to slow it down.

*Here's some more wonderful "self-interest" quotes:
"Whenever a group of people will vote for a President, put a man in power and do that against their own self-interest, their economic self-interest..." begins Richard "Skip" Daly, business manager of the Laborers, Hod Carriers, Cement Workers and Miners Local Union 169 (Nevada), before stopping and rewording his thought. He tries again: "They voted for a Republican who's got the biggest deficit spending ever; they voted against all of their self-interest. And the issue that came out in exit polling was 'we voted on the moral values.' What that says to me is, these people believe it's more important than their family's well-being that we don't have abortion. And, to me, that is an intolerance that we have not experienced in this country since we put into insignificance the Ku Klux Klan." - The Nation, 11/18/04
Yes, actually believing in something like morals is "undemocratic."
Poor Republicans are working against their own self-interests. People in the military who vote Republican are working against their own self-interests. Gay people who vote Republican (apologies to Andrew Sullivan) are working against their own self-interest. Hell, unless you're, say, the CEO of a large multinational corporation, voting Republican is against your self-interest.

That's why I called it "ignorance." :) - "Deanocrat" in this comment thread.
Perhaps they're voting for some value you just don't have the capacity to grasp? And here's another:
I am surprised at how ignorant and uniformed the public is regarding the estate tax. When my father passed away, there was about 200K left to be divided between my brother and me. My brother (who votes Republican, I think because of guns and because he's now a father and thinks that is what fathers do....not that I understand that) was self-congratulatory about this, saying that because of Bush we wouldn't have to pay the estate tax, etc. He had absolutely no concept of the difference in what the estate tax was versus the inheritance tax. When I explained the difference between the two and pointed out the estate tax limits, etc. he still seemed to think that Bush's plan was a good one even though he will never benefit from it. Just another example of the middle class voting against their own self-interest. I guess my brother hasn't figured out that lower taxes for the wealthy will eventually mean higher taxes (or reduced services, such as homeland security) for him and a huge burden of national debt for his children to pay off. - Posted by "ann" in this comment thread.
The concept of "it's their money" just doesn't reach the Left. Nope, it's the GOVERNMENT'S money, to them. And they just don't grasp how anyone could see it differently.

Monday, September 11, 2006


And then there was Spain:

Then London:

But in between those came Beslan:

Does anyone doubt that the enemy wants to do that here? I recommend that you read Steven Den Beste's latest peice, The Disunited States of America, but remember this: Disagree all you want, but when you start working for their side, don't be surprised when the rest of us roll right over the top of you, leaving nothing but a smear.

Saturday, September 09, 2006


Via Instapundit:
Woman in a Wheelchair Shoots an Attacker

Published: September 9, 2006

As muggings go, it began like many others. A 56-year-old woman was leaving her building in her wheelchair, her only company the small dog perched on her lap.

Her attacker came from behind, the police said, and there was no one else around. But this attempted robbery had an ending unlike many others. As it turns out, the would-be victim, Margaret Johnson, has a permit to carry a .357 handgun - and she carries it often.
No, she does not have a "permit to carry a .357 handgun" - read on.
The mugging ended seconds after it began, the police said, when Ms. Johnson pulled out her gun and shot her attacker in his arm. Last night, the man accused of the attempted mugging, Deron Johnson, 45, was in stable condition at Harlem Hospital Center with a gunshot wound to his elbow, the police said. He was under protective custody and is facing a robbery charge, the police said.

Ms. Johnson, who was treated at a local hospital and later released, said she suffered bruises to her neck and arm. "I'm tired, I'm really tired," she said as she sat in her apartment last night, wearing a tan baseball cap and appearing rattled. "He tried to mug me, so I shot him."

Friends and neighbors said they were not shocked to learn that the woman known to scoot around her building with her small dog had held her ground. Tio Frederick, 26, a lawyer and neighbor who has known Ms. Johnson for 20 years, called her amicable but tough and spunky. "I wouldn’t assume that if she got mugged she would let someone just take her stuff," she said.

The encounter began about 3 p.m. on a sidewalk behind 470 Lenox Avenue in Harlem, the building where Ms. Johnson has lived for more than 20 years. The building has a doorman and many of its residents are professionals, but neighbors have recently complained about robberies.

Yesterday, as is often the case, friends said, Ms. Johnson had her small bichon with her, and was going to a nearby firing range.
There's a firing range in Harlem? The closest one I could find to 470 Lenox Ave. was Seventh Regiment Rifle Club, 643 Park Ave., about 3.8 miles away according to Google Maps. That's a long round-trip even in a powered chair. Hopefully she was going to get a taxi ride.
As she rolled out of the building, a man approached, and Ms. Johnson tried to say hello, said Lynell Bunce, 40, a friend who spoke with Ms. Johnson afterward. "She found him walking by, and she was going to say, 'Good afternoon,'" Ms. Bunce said.

Instead of returning the greeting, the man looked away and walked past her without saying a word, Ms. Bunce said. Seconds later, Ms. Johnson felt an arm grab her violently from behind, tearing at her pocketbook and her necklace.

The man managed to get the necklace, but Ms. Johnson refused to let go of her pocketbook, the police said.

As the man choked her and struggled with her, Ms. Johnson pulled out her gun and fired a single shot.

The police said that Ms. Johnson did not have a criminal record and was not facing any charges. The permit she has for her gun allows her to have it in her home and to transport it to a range, which is what she was doing, they said.
She has a possession permit, not a carry permit, and she was transporting a loaded weapon. I'm not certain, but I believe that New York firearms law prohibits that. Let me cite the NYPD Web Page:
PREMISES LICENSE: IS A RESTRICTED TYPE OF LICENSE. It is issued for your RESIDENCE or BUSINESS. The Licensee may possess a handgun ONLY on the premises of the address indicated on the front of the license. Licensees may also transport their handguns and ammunition in SEPARATE LOCKED CONTAINERS, DIRECTLY to and from an authorized range, or hunting location. HANDGUNS MUST BE UNLOADED WHEN TRANSPORTING.
All emphasis is theirs. And quite emphatic they are, too. Ms. Johnson was not transporting her handgun, unloaded, in a locked container. Ms. Johnson was not transporting her ammunition in a separate locked container. Ms. Johnson was transporting her loaded .357 in a manner that put it easy-to-hand. Supposedly, she does so "often." Ms. Johnson most definitely violated the law, but will the DA prosecute? Absolutely not. I think they learned their lesson there with Ronald Dixon. She's an older black woman in a wheelchair who successfully defended herself against a career criminal. (I hate to be the one to say it, but as far as publicity goes the only PC box left unchecked on this one is "lesbian.") No WAY are they going to do ANYTHING to put her in a position to point out how idiotic and anti-citizen New York's gun laws are.

Though I'm certain that, after the hubbub dies down, her "premises permit" will be quietly revoked and her .357, which I'm sure was taken as evidence, will never be returned to her.
The man accused of attacking her, Mr. Johnson (no relation), was described by the authorities as a "robbery recidivist," [Quelle surprise...] with nine previous arrests. He spent several years in prison for criminal sale of a controlled substance, and he was released in February 2003, according to Department of Correction Records.

Last night, Ms. Johnson was in no mood to celebrate what she did, friends said. Ms. Bunce, a longtime neighbor, said Ms. Johnson was frightened and threatened never to walk her dog again.
Wait... I thought she was "going to the gun range." (Would you take your dog to the gun range? In New York City? Just asking.)
"She was very much the victim," Ms. Bunce said. "She was scared for her life. She's devastated."
So, a resident of New York City, with a "premises permit" was supposedly on her way to the gun range when she was mugged, drew her (illegally) loaded firearm and defended herself from a much younger, physically fit, career criminal with a single shot from her .357 Magnum revolver, and the NEW YORK TIMES REPORTED IT!

I. Am. In. Shock.

And I'm quite certain you will never, ever hear about Ms. Johnson and her .357 in the pages of the New York Times again. I'm amazed she ever got there in the first place. After all, the perp didn't take her gun away, and she wasn't just another bloodstained chalk outline on the sidewalk.

UPDATE: Hell HAS frozen over! CNN picked up the story! Of course, with all the details stripped out.
Margaret Johnson, who lives in Harlem, has a permit for the weapon and does not face charges
That's all you need to know, apparently.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

One Step Forward, One GIANT LEAP Back...

So, Instapundit thinks that Femtroopers "will make the whole dressing-up-at-Star-Wars-conventions thing seem a lot cooler," eh? I can certainly understand the impulse:


Unfortunately, the whole "dressing-up-at-Star-Wars-conventions thing" is rendered eternally uncool - nearly to the point of self-immolation - at the sight of, well, (scroll down)....




















AAAAAGGGGHHHH!! My eyes! My eyes!

Whoever it is in that, that... suit, he/she/it ought to be burned at the stake! Kalashnikitty? OK. DARTHKITTY??? - SACRILEGE!!

If Only the NYT Published Rebuttals.

Denise of The Ten Ring delivers a world-class fisking to one of the NYT's screeching idiots. (They have so many...)

Go read.

Monday, September 04, 2006

"We have no means to do anything like that!"

The Geek has written a post that everyone needs to read.


Friday, September 01, 2006

The Mist from the RCOB™ is Getting Darker.

Two associated stories for your revision, one state-level, one federal. The state-level one:
Man arrested for 'stealing' own car

Stephen Janis, The Examiner
Aug 21, 2006 2:00 AM

BALTIMORE - Baltimore City police have a new crime on the books: Stealing your own car.

Just ask Keith Spence, a Baltimore City resident who was arrested when he was driving home from work in a car he bought with a tax refund.

"I couldn't believe it was happening," Spence said.

Spence, 28, said city police pulled him over in his 1993 red Cadillac Elderado(sic) coupe for a cracked rear window in February. Four officers dragged Spence and his two passengers from the car and said they were under arrest for stealing it, he said.

"I was listening to the radio from the back seat of the police car. It said a gray Cadillac sedan was stolen; mine is a red coupe. I guess the officer must have been color blind," he said.
A photo of Mr. Spence with the title to his Cadillac:
Was the officer colorblind? Oh, the irony!
"I tried to tell them it was my car, but they wouldn't listen."

Spence and his two friends were arrested, and the car was impounded. Charged with one count of motor vehicle theft, Spence represented himself in court in June.

"I owned the car — I knew it wasn't stolen," he said.

Even though Spence had the title proving he owned the car, he said he was cleared of the charges because of the testimony of the owner of the stolen car.

"The whole courtroom fell out — even the judge laughed," Spence told The Examiner.

Still, police sold Spence's car at auction two months before his day in court.

Now Spence is without the car it took him a year to buy, and his lawyer, Roland Brown, said he is preparing to sue the city.
I damn well hope so. I hope he gets a brand-new Escalade out of it.
"Not only did the police violate my client's constitutional rights by selling his car before the trial, but the case demonstrates that young black males in this city are blindly targeted by the Baltimore City police," he said.

Brown said the case also points out problems with the city's management of stolen vehicles. "You have to question why a stolen car would be sold at all," he said.
Because the peons have no recourse?
(Appropriately named) Police spokesman Matt Jablow said police are investigating the incident.

"We're looking into the circumstances surrounding why the car was sold," Jablow said.

Spence said he only wants the Cadillac he worked so hard to buy.

"I loved that car."
Are you pissed off yet? Wait till you read this one. A while back the BATF and other multiple-letter bureaus raided KT Ordnance. I believe Say Uncle has been on top of this story, but I found the current news at The Freeholder.

Here's the latest update:
An Open Letter from KT Ordnance
August 24, 2006
As you know I had been raided by the ATF, FBI, and Canadian ATF back on June 7, 2006.

The Asset Forfeiture & Seized Property Branch of the BATFE has now contacted me. I have to date not been charged or arrested for anything. They sent this letter out on August 4 2006; I received it on August 22 2006. They gave me 20 days from date on the letter (not the date I received it) to file grievance (sent by certified, return receipt).
They obviously used the U.S. Postal Service
I also have to put up a 10% bond for the assets value (they valued the items at $11,350.00) just for the privilege of attempting to get the items back. They claim in the forfeiture letter that these items where "used or acquired in violation of federal law", yet I've not been charged with violating any law.

Notice the "Disposal" afforded BATFE with no conviction or arrest.
(b) Disposal
In the case of the forfeiture of any firearm by reason of a violation of this chapter, no notice of public sale shall be required; no such firearm shall be sold at a public sale; if such firearm is forfeited for a violation of this chapter and there is no remission or mitigation of forfeiture thereof, it shall be delivered by the Secretary to the Administrator of General Services, General Services Administration, who may order such firearm destroyed or may sell it to any State, or possession, or political subdivision thereof, or at the request of the Secretary, may authorize its retention for official use of the Treasury Department, or may transfer it without charge to any executive department or independent establishment of the Government for use by it.
It seems they want to keep them for there own use, as some are desirable. I cannot help but think that these will end up in some politician's private collection. You may view the items in question here: . The two items are the two 1911, 45 Cal pistols in the first three pictures (Abigail & Elizabeth). And there are others not pictured. All this with no charges filed, no arrest, and no conviction. I call this theft.
So do I
They can come in, steal your property, show no I.D., use a warrant that is so secret that the Sheriff could not see it, charge you with no crime, and then tell you, "we are keeping your property, and we will give/sell it to whomever we want." If they do charge me (up to 5 years from now), and I win, will I get back my property that they sold/gave away to someone 5 years earlier? What do you think?
Well, Mr. Spence isn't getting his car back, is he? At least he was charged first.
With the vague description of the items seized, it seems that they added items that are not mine, but who can tell with a description of "rifle" no serial number(s), no caliber, or any other descriptive markings (they did list the s/n's for the two 1911's). How do I know that they even are mine? Yet I must pay them 10% of the value just to find out. And they decide the value.

Cay you say, "racketeering" boys and girls?

This is a rogue agency, and must be stopped. I also feel that there may be a connection between the fact that I support JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) and GOA (Gun Owner of America), who are both actively trying to disband the BATFE. (see JPFO's "The Gang" documentary)

Richard Celata
All emphasis in both stories are mine.

Remember when I wrote Pressing the "Reset" Button? I said at that time:
I think a lot of people are getting fed up with ever-increasing government intrusion into our lives. With our ever-shrinking individual rights. More than one of Jay's respondents noted the apathy of the majority, though, and I agree. Government interferes lightly on a wholesale basis, but it does its really offensive intrusions strictly retail. So long as the majority gets its bread and circuses, it will remain content.

But not everyone.


I think more and more individuals will be pressing the "RESET" button in the future.
I understand the futility of the act, but I can also certainly understand the urge.

UPDATE: Oh, for Christ's SAKE!
Plan gains to publicly identify accused
Ohio panel backs registry proposal


COLUMBUS - An Ohio legislative panel yesterday rubber-stamped an unprecedented process that would allow sex offenders to be publicly identified and tracked even if they've never been charged with a crime.

No one in attendance voiced opposition to rules submitted by Attorney General Jim Petro's office to the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review, consisting of members of the Ohio House and Senate.
Excuse me, but if "they've never been charged with a crime" how the FUCK can they be identified as "sex offenders"?

Look, I hate child molesters with a passion. I think that when they're caught they should be hung from gibbets and left to rot as an example to others who "can't control their impulses" to try a little harder, but there is such a thing as "due process of law" and "jury of their peers," and that's what's being thrown out the window here.

Of course it's for "public safety."

It always is.