Free Chicken Saturday With Concealed Carry Permit

As the 2013 Louisiana legislature prepared to take up several gun regulation proposals, a local fast food fried chicken place has weighed into the debate by offered a free meal to concealed carry holders.

Chicken Express owner Randal Neel says it was the busiest Saturday he's ever had.  Via KSLA:

But it's not just about business. Neel says it's his way of taking a stand as a gun rights advocate, and making a statement as the Louisiana legislature considers more than a dozen bills that have been filed dealing with gun regulations. "It feels really good to be able to stand up for what you believe in."  

Here is the proposed legislation the Louisiana legislature will be considering this session.  Most are geared toward protecting gun rights but a couple are not.  One bill would allow off-duty law enforcement to carry firearms in schools, another in bars; one concerns mental illness regulations, another covers the protection of concealed carry information.  Barbara Norton's bill would make it against the law to have an unsecured weapon in your home.  It always makes me nervous when they want to regulate what I do in my home.

KSLA has video of the free chicken day here.

Of course, a more paranoid person might wonder if DHS is lurking in the parking lot taking pictures of everyone...

Probably not.

(Photo credit:  John Jeter)

Keeping a Level Head on Gun Control

There is much speculation in the news about upcoming gun control legislation.  As one might imagine, the reactions are extreme on both sides.

The Washington Post reported yesterday:

A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.

Over at Red State, Moe Lane responds:

…None of which would have stopped the Newtown atrocity. The shooter stole the guns from his mother, who passed a background check (Connecticut has that); the guns, being stolen and used rather than resold, would have been effectively invisible to a hypothetical database; the guns were not in fact owned by a mentally unstable, violent person who used them to murder children (they were stolen by somebody who used them for that); and penalties for possession of firearms around schools or by minors obviously had no effect on the shooter (who was, by the way, a legal adult). 

He makes a legitimate point.

As this debate moves forward, and it will, it's important to keep our heads, and wits, about us.  The administration who vows to "never let a crisis go to waste" will certainly move to enact something here, although I suspect and terribly restrictive legislation will have a difficult time moving through Congress.

What we need to me more concerned about is Obama's already demonstrated penchant for running around Congress.

Tom Gresham has a rational, thoughtful op-ed today in which he says:

We have a clear track record of what works to increase our safety. We know what doesn't. Arming good people does, in fact, reduce crime. Banning certain types of firearms, or the loading devices, does nothing to stop mentally ill people and criminals. 

Focusing on the failed siren song of gun control diverts us from doing things that actually work, such as programs to secure firearms. Congress eliminated the funding for “Project Childsafe,” a program created by the firearms industry to educate gun owners about safe storage and to distribute millions of gun locks.

Americans will not willingly give up their guns.  Nor should we.  Gresham argues for the benefit of safety and education programs and that's something both sides can agree on.

As a sort of grounding plug to this whole debate one only need consider the story in the news today of the woman hiding in her attic who had to shoot an intruder to protect her two children.  She had absolutely no choice in the matter.

I was reading some discussion about this case on Michael Yon's Facebook feed; Yon wrote:

There are numerous lessons here:
1) Do not break into someone's castle 

2) .38 is too weak. Always has been. Always will be 

3) 6 shots are not enough. What if there had been three intruders? She hit this guy five times and he was still alive and talking, which means he could still pull a trigger. 

4) Do not mess with momma bear when she has cubs. 

In the comments there was discussion about what a good shot this lady was.  She hit him five times with her .38 revolver.  He's got a punctured lung, punctured stomach, and a punctured liver yet he was still able to get in his car and try to drive away.  I suspect she might upgrade to a weapon with a little more firepower.  Or upgrade ammo.

If the gun-control advocates have their way, she wouldn't be able to upgrade to a semi-automatic style weapon with a clip or magazine.

Michael Yon raises a good point, though.  What if you're attacked by more than one intruder and you only have six shots?

We need to keep level heads as this discussion moves forward.  There are bad people out there, crazy people to be sure, and it's a plain fact that no amount of gun control will keep weapons from them.  None of the proposals mentioned so far would have stopped the Sandy Hook massacre.

As for me, I'm going to learn how to shoot.  I'm signed up for my first class already and I'm looking forward to learning.

(More at Memeorandum)

"Doing Fine"

Gun makers, that is:

Gun manufacturing is the one private-sector industry “doing fine” on Mr. Obama’s watch. Sturm, Ruger & Co. sold 1 million firearms in the first quarter of 2012 - an amazing 50 percent increase from the first quarter of 2011. The jump was so steep that the company stopped accepting orders from March to May to catch up with demand for its products. 

Last month, Smith & Wesson announced a firearm-order backlog of approximately $439 million by the end of April, up 135 percent from the same quarter in 2011. Sales in that period were up 28 percent from 2011 and 14 percent over its own predictions to investors. NSSF estimates the industry is responsible for approximately 180,000 jobs and has an annual impact on the U.S. economy of $28 billion.

Shocker.

While Time attributes the boon partially to zombies (no, really), it is also noted that it could have something to do with the upcoming election:

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that Olin’s ammunition sales have risen strongly during the first quarter of 2012, increasing 8% overall and 13% among civilians. During an April conference call with analysts, Olin’s CEO said the increase in sales “may be related to the election.”

What do you think?  Are you stocking up on ammo?

At least some portion of the economy is booming.

SCOTUS Smacks Chicago Handgun Ban

I guess it's safe to assume that Elena Kagan isn't happy with the Supreme Court decision on gun rights today.  Another reminder for the future that elections have consequences.

Professor Glenn Reynolds offers his thoughts here.  I find this interesting:

Third, it really is interesting how much emphasis the majority, and Justice Thomas’s concurrence, put on the racist roots of gun control. See this article and this one by Bob Cottrol and Ray Diamond for more background. And isn’t it interesting that this is happening on the same day the Senate’s last Klansman went to his reward?

The Wall Street Journal has an early write-up:

The legal question before the court had much to do with questions of constitutional history. Before the Civil War, courts held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. After the Union victory, the Reconstruction amendments were adopted to elevate individual rights over state powers and cement the federal role in enforcing them.

The Supreme Court has subsequently held that many constitutional rights considered fundamental to American principles of liberty override state laws. However, more technical provisions—such as the Fifth Amendment requirement that grand juries approve criminal indictments—apply only to the federal government and don't necessarily bind states.

Monday's ruling elevates the Second Amendment right to bear arms to the status of a fundamental right that states can't abridge.

Also, see Mary Katharine Ham's response at Weekly Standard where she points out that the gun ban in Chicago has not actually led to an abatement of violence there but has instead left the innocent unprotected.

You can read the Court's opinion here (PDF / 214 pages)

Henry Burns Proposes Concealed Weapons in Churches

The Louisiana Legislature is never a dull place and with Rep. Barbara Norton in the House, well, it's even more interesting.

One piece of legislation garnering national attention is H.B. 68 (PDF: 4 pgs) by Rep. Henry Burns (R-Bossier) which will allow guns in churches "if the pastor or head of the religious body approves."  The bill has passed the House with by a vote of 74-18 and has been passed to the Senate where it currently has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Churches would be required to notify parishioners through bulletins, newsletters, or verbally that there is armed security in their congregation, reports this NOLA article last week.

Rep. Barbara Norton is, not surprisingly, totally against the bill:

"If God is looking down on us today I don't think he is happy with us discussing how we can carry our guns to church," Rep. Barbara Norton, D-Shreveport, a major opponent of the bill, said. "The church is a place of peace. I don't think God said it was OK to carry a gun in the house of the Lord.

"Nowhere does it say (in Scripture) the Lord said you have to have a gun in church. If you need to have a gun in church, you need to go to another church."

MSNBC interviewed Rep. Norton who voiced concern those that have concealed permits may not have proper firearms in which Rep. Norton describes a frightful free for all scenario:

"...When I think about, uh, we have no metal detectors that that is required to be placed in churches.  We don't know who is it may be sitting right next to us and a gun may go off and someone else thinks someone is shooting and then you have a lot of people pulling their guns.  The other thing is we may live in areas where there are crimes but at the same time that's what we pay our policemens and our sheriffs and our marshalls to protect us. If we give everybody a gun and tell them to go and start doing protecting themselves and others then we're taking it out of the hands of the law."

Video of Tamron Hall's interview is here.

Newsbusters plays devil's advocate with the Norton interview questioning why interviewer Tamron Hall didn't ask Rep. Norton about the 2007 Colorado incident in which an armed parishioner ended a shooting spree by an armed killer.

Church shootings have become more and more frequent.  In February of this year two teenagers were shot at a Richmond, California church.   In 2009 in Illinois a pastor was killed as he spoke to his congregation.  He tried to use his Bible to shield him from the bullets.  Two parishioners who tried to restrain the shooter were slashed with a four inch knife.  In July, 2008 a shooter entered a Knoxville, TN church during a childrens performance of Annie and opened fire, killing two and injuring several others.  And let's not forget about George Tiller who was killed last year as he entered his Wichita church.

Representative Burns does not require that churches have armed security.  It does require that parishioners be informed if there is armed security present.  From my perspective, I'd have some sense of security if I knew there was an armed police officer, or some other trained expert, in the congregation who could provide protection should the need arise.

For Representative Norton to assume that you are safe just because you are in church is to assume you are safe because you are locked in your home, because you're at school, or because you're at the mall.

It's naive.

Update:  By the way, Rep. Norton says in that interview with MSNBC that in Louisiana you don't have to have training to get a concealed handgun permit; she's wrong.  See the application here.

And There Go the Gun Shows...

Well this will make the anti-gun crowd happy.

From NYC.gov:

The undercover investigation sent professional investigators to seven gun shows in Nevada, Ohio, and Tennessee to determine whether sellers would engage in two types of illegal transactions. The first involves private sellers selling guns to people who they thought could not pass a federal background check. The second involves licensed dealers conducting illegal straw sales, which are sales made to accomplices posing as buyers in order to help the real buyer avoid a criminal background check.

“The gun show loophole is a deadly serious problem – and this undercover operation exposes just how pervasive and serious it is,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “We are sending a copy of our detailed report Gun Show Undercover to every member of the United States Congress. We’ll work with Congressional leaders to pass legislation closing the gun show loophole. This is an issue that has nothing to do with the Second Amendment; it’s about keeping guns from criminals, plain and simple.”

Now the folks at Crooks and Liars are comparing this to the ACORN video sting, because, you know, importing underage girls to use for prostitution is okay and the whole undercover video thing was so unfair.

Most sensible people would agree that criminals shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns at gun shows and that any loophole should be closed. No argument here. In this day and age we ought to be able to do instant background checks which would solve the problem, no? There are a lot of legitimate collectors and dealers at gun shows and such events offer an opportunity for collectors and aficionados to meet.

Bloomberg writes:

Congress should pass legislation requiring that all sales at gun shows be subject to criminal background checks -- a measure that has the support of Sen. John McCain, President Obama and 83% of gun owners. It is also time for Congress to support the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) with the resources it needs to crack down on illegal sales at gun shows.

The vast majority of gun buyers at gun shows are law abiding citizens. Closing the gun show loophole and increasing resources to help ATF enforce the laws will not detract from anyone's Second Amendment rights. What it will do is send the message that criminals are not welcome at gun shows.

But what you will see now is the paranoid left calling for the shut down of all gun shows. Case in point. You want to enter crazyville, just get into a discussion on gun rights with someone. Especially someone on the internet.

No, Bloomberg isn't calling for an end to gun shows, but the moonbats will. Just close the loophole, folks.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bloomberg/gun-show-undercover_b_312339.html

(H/T: Memeorandum)

Catch and Release Terrorist Program

Do you still feel safe in America? I don't. Consider this from The Weekly Standard:

Most, if not all, of the Uighur detainees were trained at a camp in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, prior to the September 11 attacks. According to documents released by the Department of Defense, several of the Uighurs admitted that a terrorist named Abdul Haq ran the Tora Bora camp. Both the United States and the United Nations designated Abdul Haq an al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist last month.

While the DOD’s unclassified files provide many details about the Uighur detainees and their ties to known terrorists, other documents in the U.S. government’s possession likely include more.

In a letter to President Obama last week, [Rep. Frank A.] Wolf said that information he received “indicates that the Uighurs may be more dangerous than the public has been led to believe.” Wolf did not specify what information he had received, but asked that President Obama “declassify all intelligence regarding their capture, detention, and your administration’s assessment of the threat they may pose to Americans.”

I'm beginning to understand why gun sales in the US are skyrocketing. People are losing faith that their country will protect them and they might have to protect themselves. I think that if a Tora Bora trained terrorist is released in my neighborhood, I'm pretty likely to find a way to protect myself.

Another Look at CIFTA

Yesterday I posted the CNN video about the CIFTA treaty which Obama is working to get through the Senate. This push is a result of his recent trip to Mexico and an attempt to halt to flow of guns into Mexico.

The initial problem which this logic is that Obama is using faulty statistics when he says that "90% of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States." This isn't true; the fact is, nobody really knows. Yes, lots of guns seized in Mexico come from the United States. No question. But that's indicative of a whole other sort of problem; the fact that drug runners can get guns doesn't mean that America should end-run the Second Amendment. Bad logic.

Another point of faulty logic is that 33 nations in the Western Hemisphere have signed on to this treaty, so it must be good, right? Wrong. Those nations do not have a Second Amendment to the Constitution.

So what would ratification of this treaty mean to Americans? Gun Owners of America posted an analysis of the treaty. Here's what they concluded:

* Banning reloading. In Article IV of the treaty, countries commit to adopting “necessary legislative or other measures” to criminalize illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms. Remember that “illicit manufacturing” includes reloading and modifying or assembling a firearm in any way. This would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations banning reloading on the basis of this treaty.

* Banning gun clubs. Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized acts should include “association or conspiracy” in connection with said offenses -- which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.

That last one sounds a little paranoid to me, but who knows. I don't think the Obama administration would attempt to disband gun clubs or even the NRA, but lots would disagree with me.

More from Gun Owners of America:

* Extraditing US gun dealers. Article V requires each party to “adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offenses it has established in accordance with this Convention” under a variety of circumstances. Under Article XXIX, if Mexico demands the extradition of a lawful American gun dealer, the U.S. would be required to resolve the dispute through “other means of peaceful settlement.”

They suggest that gun dealers could be extradited to Mexico for trial - again, overreaction? But, the language is there.

* Microstamping. Article VI requires “appropriate markings” on firearms. And, it is not inconceivable that this provision could be used to require microstamping of firearms and/or ammunition -- a requirement which is clearly intended to impose specifications which are not technologically possible or which are possible only at a prohibitively expensive cost.

* Gun registration. Article XI requires the maintenance of any records, for a “reasonable time,” that the government determines to be necessary to trace firearms. This provision would almost certainly repeal portions of McClure-Volkmer and could arguably be used to require a national registry or database.

Chuck Baldwin wrote what appears to be a pretty rational analysis of the treaty. He wrote:

"Should the Senate ratify CIFTA, Americans who reload ammunition would be required to get a license from the government, and factory guns and ammunition would be priced almost out of existence due to governmental requirements to "mark" each one manufactured. Even the simple act of adding an after-market piece of equipment to a firearm, such as a scope or bipod, or reassembling a gun after cleaning it could fall into the category of "illicit manufacturing" of firearms and require government license and oversight.

"In addition, CIFTA would authorize the U.S. federal government (and open the door to international entities) to supervise and regulate virtually the entire American firearms industry. Making matters worse is the fact that, as a treaty, this Act does not have to be passed by both houses of Congress, nor is it subject to judicial oversight. All Obama needs to do in order to enact this unconstitutional and egregious form of gun control is convince a Democratic-controlled Senate to pass it."

He also writes about H.R. 45, proposed by Bobby Rush, which would "require a federal license for all handguns and semiautomatics, including the ones you already possess. It would require handgun and semi-auto owners to be thumbprinted at a police station and sign a certificate that the gun will not be kept in a place where it could be used for the defense of the gun owner's family."

The bottom line is that this administration is coming after the Second Amendment. They tried and failed with the attempt to eliminate the sale of expended brass, aimed at putting reloaders out of business and manipulating the sale of ammo. There was a huge outcry against this and they backed off.

CIFTA is another attempt at gun control. It's safe to assume that if Mexico can't get guns from the United States, the drug runners and criminals would get them elsewhere. There are plenty of other places where they can (and do) get guns.

Another option would be to close the border, or enforce stronger border security. There's a novel idea for you.

More to the point is that once one of your constitutional rights is taken away from you, how long before the others are? Rather than accusing Bush of "shredding the Constitution," liberals might do well to look at this issue and consider who really is doing just that.

Here Comes CIFTA

Snowflakes in Hell has a breakdown of the treaty. Go look.

Here is the text of CIFTA.

(Welcome Little Miss Attila readers! Thanks for coming.)

Pilots, Guns, and Public Safety

The Washington Times has a great editorial on Obama's ending the federal firearms program, that is, that pilots may carry guns if they completed federal safety programs.

After 9/11, commercial airline pilots were allowed, once trained, to carry guns in order to help prevent future, similar attacks. There are currently about 12,000 pilots who participate in this program.

The Times suggests that Obama is risking public safety in favor of an anti-gun ideology. The whole thing has done with a bit of stealth in this oh-so-transparent administration. Pilots report that since the election the approval process for the permits has slowed significantly and now has "stalled out." In addition, pilots are worried about speaking out "for fear of retaliation from the Transportation Security Adminsitration." Yikes.

The anti-gun ideology certainly seems to be there as we learned earlier this week of the DoD's new policy on the sale of expended brass. Slowly, but surely, the administration is working on gun control.

The editorial closes with this point:

"Frankly, as a matter of pure politics, we cannot understand what the administration is thinking. Nearly 40 House Democrats are in districts were [sic] the NRA is more popular than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. We can't find any independent poll in which the public is demanding that pilots disarm. Why does this move make sense?

Only anti-gun extremists and terrorist recruits are worried about armed pilots. So why is the Obama administration catering to this tiny lobby at the expense of public safety?"

A good point.

DOD Eliminates Sale of Expended Brass

This from Gordon Hutchinson, author of The Great New Orleans Gun Grab:

"From now on, remanufacturers of military brass will not be able to buy surplus brass from DOD--actually from Government Liquidators, llc.--the corporation that sells surplus materials for the U.S. government. At least, not in any form recognizable as once-fired brass ammunition. Now all brass ammunition will have to be shredded, and sold as scrap."

Now, to be clear, I'm not a gun enthusiast in that I don't participate in the sport of shooting. I don't own a gun, as I've said. But that doesn't mean I don't believe in the Second Amendment or the right of people to own guns if they want to.

What Hutchinson is telling us is that if the government can't control the sale of guns, which they have had trouble doing, then they CAN control the sale of ammunition.

Hutchinson explains:

"You can expect this to affect every bullet you purchase in the future--with no reloaded ammunition available, the already strained new manufacturers will be unable to meet demand. They are already turning out everything they can build for the military market. The civilian market is stressed to the point even reloading components have become hard to find.

Now, with this hit, ammunition prices will go through the roof in the next year."

Even if you don't own guns or participate in the sport of target shooting this will affect you because it also affects law enforcement. Who pays for the ammo for law enforcement? Taxpayers, maybe? With this market gone, some smaller law enforcement agencies and individual officers will no longer be able to purchase inexpensive reloaded ammunition for practice. Companies such as Georgia Arms, which Mr. Hutchinson writes about, will go out of business.

Not such good news in this economy. Why would the Obama administration take such action as to put more small businesses out of work in this economy? So they can control guns. One of his agenda items.

In addition to putting people out of work, the cost to the taxpayers is compounded by the fact that it reduces the return by 80% on the sale of expended brass. Now the material will be sold as scrap and sold to China at a much lower return.

The nanny-state business of it is disturbing as well, as the letter received by Larry Haynie of Georgia Arms from the DOD suggests that in addition to being unable to sell him anymore brass, they must also come to his place of business and witness the destruction of his already purchased brass: "The new DRMS requirement calls for DOD Surplus personnel to witness the mutilation of the property and sign the Certificate of Destruction. Mutilation of the property can be done at the DRMO, if permitted by the Government, or it may be mutilated at a site chosen by the buyer."

If you visit Mr. Hutchinson's site, linked above, he has written a letter which you can copy and send to your legislators.

Update: Via Instapundit, here is a post about ammunition shortages in Florida.

Update 2: Jonah Goldberg at NRO has picked up the story.

Update 3: Memeorandum has picked up Gordon Hutchinson's post.

Boys, Toys and Gun Control

Steve and his friend went out this week and each purchased a replica of 1858 New Army Texas .44 caliber revolver. I don't know much about guns but he tells me it's a "black powder" revolver. They are both cops and know their way around guns, and both of them like to go shoot targets.

Since the election, gun sales and ammo sales are way up. One Tulsa newspaper reports an 87% increase from February 2008 to February 2009. The owner of a gun shop there says that people are buying and hoarding ammunition in anticipation of potential gun control legislation coming from the Obama administration.

One of the pieces of gun control legislation the NRA is following is H.R. 45: "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act" which is currently in committee. The bill would require

"all handgun owners to submit to the federal government an application that shall include, among many other things: a photo; an address; a thumbprint; a completed, written firearm safety test; private mental health records; and a fee.

The bill would further require the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer, and owner's address in America. Moreover, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a "qualifying firearm" -- defined as "any handgun; or any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device…" [emphasis added] without one of the proposed licenses.

Additionally, the bill would make it illegal to transfer ownership of a "qualifying firearm" to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer or collector (with very few exceptions), and would require "qualifying firearm" owners to report all transfers to the attorney general's database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours, or fail to report a change of address within 60 days. Further, if a minor obtains a firearm and injures someone with it, the owner of the firearm may face a multiple-year jail sentence. "

There is also plenty of talk of not only gun registration, but ammo registration. According to NWV News, such legislation "would provide that, after a specific date, all handgun and 'assault weapon' ammunition manufactured or sold in the state shall be coded by the manufacturer, and would include a list of all calibers covered by the coding requirement. It would mandate the disposal by a certain date of all non-coded ammunition listed, whether owned by private citizens or retail outlets."

Gun enthusiasts are concerned because Obama has stated publicly that he will ban firearms, collect firearms, and tax firearm ammunition over 500 percent, all positions AG Eric Holder shares with BHO.

Personally, I don't shoot guns and I don't own one but I certainly respect the Second Amendment and I respect the rights of people to responsibly own guns. People that are pro-gun-control point to things like the recent shooting in Alabama but as Don Surber pointed out, "A New York Times editorial blames America’s gun lobby for 11 deaths in Alabama — but ignores 16 deaths in “gun free” Germany on the same day."

You have to look at both sides of the story and certainly there are irresponsible people but there are also responsible ones. It's been fairly well documented that strict gun control laws don't really stop criminals from getting guns, or anyone else who wants one for that matter.

Attempting to legislate every aspect of gun control violates the Second Amendment and further turns us into a nanny-state.

Here is the NYTimes editorial Surber mentions.