VCDL President Interviews "Wild West Shootout" hero

Phillip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizen's Defense League, got a chance to meet with the hero of the "Wild West Shootout" that I reported on earlier this week. He even was afforded the opportunity to view the surveillance video of the incident.

Read his report here.

Paul Helmke's Panties are smoldering

A few days ago, I posted a link to an editorial in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette debunking the myth of the "gun show loophole".

Paul Helmke, former Mayor of Fort Wayne, responds in usual fashion: obfuscation, blatant lies, and creative attempts to frame the issue in the way most likely to evoke an emotional response.

I found it incredibly interesting that, throughout the course of his entire diatribe, he fails to support his opening premise:

Aldridge is wrong. The gun show loophole is not a myth but a tragic fact

Which he attempts to support with a bald-faced lie:

one that the killers at Columbine High School exploited 10 years ago before they murdered 12 of their classmates and teachers with the weapons they obtained through unlicensed sellers, without background checks, at a gun show.

FALSE. The Columbine killers did not "obtain [weapons] through unlicensed sellers". The Columbine killers employed a "straw purchaser" named Robyn Anderson to buy the guns for them. The purchaser later claimed that she wouldn't have gone through with it had she been required to fill out paperwork and ID herself, but it's easy to make claims after it's all over with. The fact is she would have passed a background check either way; therefore, there is no evidence other than hearsay and conjecture, that requiring one would have prevented their act.

This is information well known to the Brady campaign and can be found in their own propaganda (bottom of page 2), indicating that it was an intentional lie, not simply a misunderstanding of the facts.

Next, in response to the editorial's mention of the 20,000 gun laws in America, Helmke claims that there are only three laws "restricting access to guns", and then throws in the caveat "at the federal level" almost as an afterthought. You see, that's what the gun lobby HAS to do in order to have any points to make: they have to move the goalposts. You see, Helmke is well aware that the 20,000 number is accurate because it includes all federal, state and local laws regulating and restricting guns in the US. But in order to try to mask the truth, he claims that the number is false, and then cites an answer to a completely different question to give the illusion of support.

But, even changing the terms of the question, he is still being misleading. You see, he cites three of the major gun control acts as the only three "laws" regulating guns. I suppose with some creative obfuscation and lawyerese, his statement could be considered technically factual, but he's most definitely being misleading. The laws of the United States are contained in the US code and the regulations promulgated to support those laws are found in the Code of Federal Regulations. Acts of Congress are incorporated into the USC and CFR and each carry the force of law.

Every few years, the BATFE publishes a reference guide that includes the US Code sections and the Sections of the Code of Federal Regulations that regulate firearms in the US.

The latest copy that I have available is from 2005. Here is the general scope of the "three federal laws" that Helmke is talking about:

The first part of the Gun Control Act of 1968 is found in Title 18, US Code, Chapter 44:

Section 921, Definitions
Section 922, Unlawful Acts
Section 923, Licensing
Section 924, Penalties
Section 925, Exceptions: Relief from disabilities
Section 926, Rules and Regulations
Section 927, Effect on State law
Section 928, Separability
Section 929, Use of restricted ammunition
Section 930, Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
Section 931, Prohibition on purchase, ownership, or possession of body armor by violent felons.

These sections take up 22, 8.5" x 11" pages, three columns, 10 point font.

We're not done yet. The Gun Control act of 1968 also includes Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter II, Part 478.

This part of the CFR encompasses 101 sections (I won't torture you by listing them all) and fills 44 of the aforementioned 8.5" x 11" pages.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 includes 22 Sections of Title 26, US Code, Capter 53 and 86 sections of Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter II, Part 479 for a total of 23 pages.

The Arms Export Control Act (Which Helmke didn't mention, but does impact American gun owners because it also covers importation restrictions), Title 22, US Code, Section 2778 and Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter II, Part 447, takes up 12 pages.

The National Instant Backrgound Check regulations are found in Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, Part 25 and take up 6 pages.

And, finally, Title 18, US Code, Chapter 83, Firearms Law Administered by the Postal Service which is only about 1/2 page.

So...Helmke's "three federal laws" consume approximately 108 pages of the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference guide.

Some "three laws" huh?

And that's not to mention the fact that those chapters of the US Code and CFR have been modified numerous times through other acts of congress and amendments to other bills that Helmke conveniently doesn't mention when discussing the "three laws". The "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994, before being allowed to expire and being removed in 2004, was actually added to the US Code and CFR chapters covering the 1968 Gun Control Act; but he would have us believe that the Chapter of US Code covering the Gun Control Act is a single law? Hardly.

And we didn't even get into ATF Publication 5300.5, State Laws and Published Ordinances - Firearms...the 2006 edition of which is 468 pages of even smaller print than the National Laws, and also on 8.5" x 11" pages.

So, in one fell swoop, Helmke uses two tactics to create a false impression. First, he changes the question to exclude state laws...so he was comparing apples to oranges in the first place...then he understates the scope of federal laws by counting only the original acts of congress, rather than the sections of US Code and Federal Regulations that resulted from those acts...and completely ignoring any subsequent acts or amendments that modified those sections of code.

This is typical of the anti-gun propaganda. Tenuously based on facts, but presented in a manner intentionally designed to mislead and misinform. The best lies always have some element of truth to them.

As I mentioned earlier, Helmke never supports his overall premise...that there actually IS a "gun show loophole". He uses the term repeatedly, but never addresses the two salient facts:

1. The provision allowing for the private transfer of firearms between individuals not engaged in the business of dealing in firearms is an INTENTIONAL provision in the law designed to protect the property rights and privacy of gun owners; therefore, it does not fit the definition of "loophole". Freedom is not a loophole.

2. The provision allowing for the private transfer of firearms applies everywhere exactly the same. It has nothing to do with gun shows. Every law that applies outside a gun show, applies inside a gunshow and vice versa.

The provision in the law to which he is referring is not a loophole and has nothing to do with gun shows. But, hey, if he repeats the lie often enough and loudly enough, he'll MAKE it true by gum!

There.Is.No.Gun.Show.Loophole. To insist that there is without disproving the two salient points listed above, is to lie. Period.

Helmke attempts to counter the fact that very few criminals get their guns from gun shows with another piece of misleading trickery. He references an ATF report regarding large volume trafficking investigations. He states that

according to one ATF report, “(F)elons buying or selling firearms were involved in more than 46 percent of the investigations involving gun shows.” [emphasis added]

Hmm...I wonder what the ATF was investigating? Um...criminal activity maybe? And who, praytell, engages in criminal activity? Why....criminals do. OF COURSE a significant percentage of investigations into criminal activity revealed that it was criminals who were engaging in it.

DUH!

What's really amazing is that the percentage wasn't HIGHER. That tells me that criminals really do avoid gun shows...they sure as heck don't go out of their way to commit their crimes there.

Oh...and you'll notice that his statement said nothing about "unlicensed sellers". Think that was inadvertent? Nope. That's because the report he references didn't differentiate between investigations of licensed dealers and private individuals.

Remember that this report was specifically regarding HIGH VOLUME trafficking cases. Of those investigations linked to gun shows, what percentage involved private sellers? I don't know because the report doesn't say, but hey...I wonder who, whether at gun shows or anywhere else...would be more apt to have large numbers of firearms available to engage in high volume trafficking...licensed dealers, or private individuals???

DUH! again.

Finally, Helmke engages in the tried and true anti-gun tactic of using emotion laden catch phrases to try to frame the argument. Unfortunately for him...he strikes too close to the truth for his own good.

Aldridge argues against requiring criminal background checks for gun sales by unlicensed sellers, but what he is really advocating for are secret gun sales. Millions of firearms transactions a year hidden from public view...

I'm sure to this statist, authoritarian wanna-be tyrant, this seems like a devastating argument...but Paul...that's the POINT.

It's called "privacy". I'm sure you've heard of it. It's the concept that our employees in the government have no business keeping tabs on We The People.

What you are preaching here, Paul, is REGISTRATION. And, no matter what kind of weasel words you try to mask it in We Won't Have It. Period.

I'm going to try to work up a LTE in response but I don't know if I can keep it short enough to get it published (I know...suprise, suprise, right?...I mean...I'm usually so SUCCINCT in my writing aren't I...?) so if anyone else wants to give it a shot, please let me know what you submit either by blogging about it and posting a link in the comments; or, if you don't blog, send it to me in an e-mail and I'll post it here.

Justice is done

Local self defense case ruled...well...self defense.

A store owner who shot a burglar four times last month will not face criminal charges because he believed his life was in danger, the commonwealth’s attorney has decided.

There was some question about which way it would go because the store owner was outside the store and shot in through a window and the perpetrator did not have a firearm.

The store owner plausibly argued that, in the dark, it looked like the perpetrator was armed and, when the perp turned toward him, he believed he was about to be fired upon.

Personally, I would be more comfortable about things if we had some sort of "no retreat" law here...wherein the burden of proof falls upon the prosecution to prove that it WASN'T self defense rather than on the defender to prove that it was. Even though this one turned out right (in my opinion), I don't like the fact that there's even a possibility of law abiding citizens being charged for defending themselves against criminals.

It seems to be difficult to get gun rights activists here stirred up about this issue here because these cases always seem to turn out right. The problem is that we can't guarantee that we'll always have commonwealth's attorneys that make the right decisions on these cases and, even if the defender prevails in court, the costs associated with defending oneself in court can be devastating. I say take the possibility away now, before it becomes a problem...don't wait for 2 or 5 or 100 Virginian's lives to be destroyed before acting.

But that's just me.


Crossposted on The Sentinel

Wow

A day when you get linked by at least 5 other gun blogs can have a serious impact on your hit count.

Thanks to everyone for the linky-love yesterday.

One of these things is not like the other...

[UPDATE] Apparently I jumped the gun and gave the GFW Police Chief way too much credit. He really DID mean that the glorified duck gun the perpetrators used is a "weapon of war".

Sigh.

Hunters: are you paying attention? No guns are "safe" from the tender ministrations of the authoritarians among us. Believing that your Winchester model 70 (hyper accurate sniper rifle) or Remington 870 (weapon of war) is safe and that you can safely throw we black rifle shooters under the bus is dangerously naive. [UPDATE]


...one of these things just doesn't belong.

CNN, on a statement made by Jersey City Police Chief Thomas Comey:

One suspect was "ready to go to war" in the way he was armed, Comey said.

Considering that, according to other reports, the suspect was armed with a pump shotgun...CNN's account would lead us to believe that the Police Chief was implying that a shotgun is a weapon of war would it not?

However a Fox affiliate printed a version of the quote with a bit more context.

Police Chief Thomas J. Comey said, "This individual came fully ready to go to war with us."

Hmm. I would be more inclined to interpret the fuller quote to be referring to the suspects mindset and attitude as much as...if not moreso than...the way he was armed. I guess one COULD interpret it to mean that the Chief was talking solely about the choice of firearm...but wouldn't objective journalism demand that the "reporter" print the full quote and allow the reader to decide what was meant by it?

Nope...no bias here.

***to be fair...the Fox story also includes it's own version of PSH, initially referring to the criminal's firarm as an "automatic shotgun" then later changing it to "illegal pump shotgun". Does New Jersey's assault weapon ban affect shotguns?***

Hat tip to Techmage for the CNN and MSNBC stories and to Thirdpower for the Fox affiliate story.

I hate Haynes manuals

And Chiltons are no better. I've gotta get a shop manual for my truck.

OK...here's what happened. I took my truck to get it inspected today. It failed.

Apparently, what I took to be road noise increasing due to tire wear, was actually the left front bearings moaning in agony. So...gotta replace the bearings.

Whoa there big boy...not so fast: The 4WD F-250 doesn't have front bearings that you can just change willy nilly like on any other vehicle...it's got "hub bearing assemblies" that have to be replaced as a unit.

Great. An engineering solution that turns a $25 dollar part into a $365 part. Pure genius...for the auto parts industry. Actually I did find one that was "only" $115. It only has a 90 day warranty and there's no telling what else was done cheaply to make it so much less expensive than the next higher model...but what the heck...I don't drive the truck that much anyway.

So...I decided that since I was going to have the darn thing almost completely torn down anyway, I may as well pull the axleshaft and check the seals and splines and all that.

And we get to the reason that I hate Haynes manuals: In the instructions on how to remove the hub bearing assembly, there is a picture of the nuts that you have to remove...you know...in case you don't know what a nut looks like.

Yet, when it gets to the part about removing the axleshaft main seal and and axleshaft...not an illusration to be found. Because apparently, even people so mechanically disinclined that they don' t know what a freaking NUT looks like, know exactly how the axleshaft and its main seal are removed.

It would be one thing if this were a one time occurence, but it happens almost every time I try to use a Haynes or Chilton manual to do maintenance on a vehicle. They show stupid illustrations of common, everyday things, but when it comes time to actually disassemble the components that are specific to that vehicle and in a unique configuration...nothing. You're on your own. "Remove the left vertical digifloppy"....OK...What, specifically does a left vertical digifloppy look like? Is it screwed on, bolted on, pinned on, glued on or held in place with baling wire and duct tape? How, exactly, does one go about removing it? We're just supposed to know these things apparently.

Needless to say, I elected NOT to remove the axleshaft and inspect it and just replaced the verdamt hub bearing assembly (which sounds a lot easier (and, for that matter, SHOULD have been a lot easier) than it actually was).

BTW, while I was under there, I noticed that the hub lock vacuum lines were dry-rotted and cracked. It's a good thing I haven't needed 4WD in a while. Replaced them on both sides while I was down there. Didn't even need pictures for that.

Now I just gotta get it re-inspected tomorrow AM and I'm legal again for another year...yea.

[UPDATE] Inspection done. Good to go for another year. [/UPDATE]

[UPDATE] BTW: It occurred to me that this very gripe about Haynes and Chilton's manuals is why I use so many pictures and such detailed instructions when I'm doing my gunsmithing posts...because I know very well how frustrating it is when someone is detailing procedures and just assumes that you know something that you don't. [/UPDATE]

Wild West Shootout

[IMPORTANT UPDATE] Phillip got a chance to meet with the Good Guy and get the story straight from the horse's mouth...even got a chance to view the surveillance video of the incident. Read his report on it here. [/UPDATE]


I wonder if this is what the anti-gunners have in mind every time they scream that relaxed firearm carry laws will turn back the clock to the "Wild West":

A gunman who had wounded a shopkeeper and opened fire on several customers was stopped yesterday when another man shot him at the store in South Richmond, authorities said.

...

The man who shot the robber is a friend of the store owner, and he was wearing a holster with a Western-style revolver, said Managing Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Tracy Thorne-Begland. [emphasis added -ed]

After the suspect shot the store owner and opened fire on patrons, the owner's friend shot the suspect once in the torso, took his gun and called police, Thorne-Begland said.

Per Phillip, via VCDL alert, a VCDL member was at the scene and reported that the good guy used a single action revolver in .45 colt.

I wonder if he was wearing a white hat?

Maybe I'm way off base here...

...but it seems to me that blatantly stealing the intellectual property of a Law Professor just isn't the brightest move one could make.

The Volokh Conspiracy
My Legal Spot

I wonder how that's gonna work out for Jenny Francis.

(Yes...I've already notified Professor Volokh about this.)

Look what I did tonight...

SALSA!!!

About 2/3 of this will get canned, the rest we'll eat. It's gooooood. Too bad you can't taste it over the internet (heck, even smell it for that matter, it smells great too).

I've probably got about enough peppers in the fridge to can 2 or 3 pints tomorrow, plenty more still on the plants not quite ready to pick yet, and the plants are still blooming so we should still have more to come.

The tomato vines are starting to wilt so I doubt that we'll get any more than what's out there right now. There's probably enough starting to turn red to get maybe three quarts canned by the end of the week, and plenty more green ones to harvest as they ripen in the next couple of weeks.

Should have more beans by the end of the week to eat and the few ears of corn out there are growing nicely.

I dug another hill of pototoes tonight and baked the two biggest for dinner. We had a leg of lamb roasted on the grill rotisserie, a beautiful, juicy, ripe sliced tomato from the garden and the baked potatoes for dinner. I'm getting hungry again just thinking about it.

You forget how much better truly fresh food is until you start growing your own again.

News you can use

As of last Friday, I'm officially signed up to become an NRA instructor for basic pistol, basic rifle and basic shotgun.

I actually missed the deadline for getting my check sent in because of miscommunication while I was on my back to back trips, but the instructor graciously allowed me to sign up (and pay) late.

I'm not sure exactly how the process works, maybe some other NRA instructors out there could clue me in. After going through the instructor training courses, I'm not sure if there's a probationary period, a certain number of times I'll have to teach the courses under supervision or what.

I know I want to become an instructor no matter what the criteria is so I really didn't research it all that deeply. I have no doubt that I'll be successful as I have a long history in adult technical instruction.

I was an American Red Cross CPR instructor for 8 years teaching everything up to and including Basic Life Support for Professional Rescuers, I did two tours of duty as a Navy instructor and am a designated Navy Master Training Specialist.

I've taught numerous people to shoot over the years, most recently just a few months ago, but I've never had the ability to give them a certificate to demonstrate their training.

I'm pretty excited about this, I'd been thinking about doing it for a long time but this opportunity just presented itself out of the blue. The first training session starts this Sunday (ugh...I've gotta miss church for it...that I'm not too pleased about). I'll be sure to update you as I progress through the process.

We must ban ALL assault weapons!!!!111one!!111

Raleigh, NC

A man broke another man's jaw using a frying pan in a robbery that scored the man $50, according to arrest warrants.

Jerome Dannel Sanders, 25, of 1312 S. State St., was charged Saturday with one count of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and another count of robbery with a dangerous weapon.

Don't let those 20 previous convictions fool you. This was just an innocent, well meaning young man who was lured into this violent act by the siren song of easily accessible assault frying pans.

Cross-posted on The Sentinel

Maine

As previously mentioned, a matter of days after returning from my trip to California, we headed north to Maine for my Grandfather-in-law's funeral.

We were in Kennebunk, in southern Maine, not too far from the New Hampshire border and right on the coast. It is very near Kennebunkport which you may have heard of. It is the location of the Bush's family retreat and was in the news several times during the various Bush administrations. We actually drove by the compound, but there was no parking available and we were short of time so the one picture I took from the truck on the way by didn't come out. It was overcast so the shutter speed was too low and the picture was blurry.

Anyway, the hotel we stayed at: "The Lodge of Kennebunk" was conveniently right across the street from my wife's Aunt's place...which is nestled in the trees beyond the hotel sign in this picture.


The hotel was dated and definitely wasn't anything special, but it was clean and resonably priced.


We got there at about 10:30 Thursday morning after traveling all night. Basically, we checked in with the family to let them know we'd made it, went and got some lobster to eat (it was Maine, after all), checked into the hotel and went to bed.

We slept for a few hours and then reconnected with the family.

The funeral was on Friday. I won't bore you with pictures of a funeral for someone you've never heard of, but it was a nice service and he is resting in a beautiful location.


After the funeral we were going for a family dinner at a restaurant in Kennebunkport so we stopped off at the beach on the way.


It was overcast and not overly warm, but there were plenty of people out and even some in the water.


Surfing always fascinates me. Didn't have much opportunity to learn that skill growing up in the corn fields of Indiana so I always enjoy watching in amazement as they ride the waves and don't go tumbling head over heels every time they try to stand up on those things.


The dinner was nice (guess what we ate) but, again, I won't bore you with pictures of people you don't know. After dinner we headed back to the Aunt's house for more family time.

Sassy is the master of this home.

My wife's always wanted a boxer becuase she grew up with them. I've always had mutts and I simply don't see the purpose in paying lots of money for a pure bred dog when there are so many dogs in shelters that need homes. Every dog I've ever shared my home with (with one notable exception that is beyond the scope of this post) has been a rescue in one form or another.

After having spent a weekend with a boxer close at hand, I'd have to say that they are a little bit hyper for my taste anyway....not that we don't have a hyper dog now; Roxy's alternate name is "90 pound chihuahua" after all...but I prefer my dogs a little less...um...emotional.


One of the wife's cousins brought their two dogs with them too. The setter mix is Neal and he's a ~15 year old unaltered male. He took quite a shine to Sassy, even though she's been spayed and studiously ignored his attentions.

The puppy, Maya, was quite annoyed that her big brother was ignoring her and wouldn't play...so she kept biting his ankles insistently.


Which Neal didn't really appreciate very much.

I actually felt a bit sorry for Neal. All he knew was that there was an attractive, unattached babe in the house - that wouldn't pay a bit of attention to him.

He was very cute about it, giving her little licks on her ears and flanks, snuggling in close to her whereever she went...


And I mean WHEREEVER she went. They were like siamese twins.

I think Sassy liked all the attention to some degree, even if she wasn't sure what it was all about.


Saturday, was raining all day again so we pretty much spent all day at the house hanging with the relatives, eating lobster, watching home videos, eating lobster, looking at snapshots, eating lobster...well...you get the idea.

Sunday was a beautiful day. We decided to take advantage of it and did some sightseeing. We went back out to the cemetary to see the gravesite after they'd put the hastas back in place and to visit some other relatives that were buried there.

I even found some headstones from the mid to late 1800's with the last name of "Stone" on them there. Long lost relatives of mine?


Then we went into Kennebunkport to see the town and do some shopping.


It's a very quaint, if touristy, little town.


Some interesting wind art that reminded me of a scene from the movie "Twister" a few years back. There was lots more, but this was the one I liked the most.


And, of course, the obligatory flag picture...it was the 4th of July weekend after all.


We picked up some cool little stuffed lobsters with magnetic feet for the grandkids.


And somehow, I've gotta figure out a way to incorporate this into my blog theme.


After that, we met some family back at the Maine diner for one more meal of lobster before heading back home. We ended up pulling out about 9:30 Sunday night and making it back home at about 10:00 the next morning. Interestingly, the only traffic we ran into on the way back was at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, less than 20 miles from home. They were doing maintenance and had a section of the bridge closed down which tied up traffic there pretty badly.

And that's about it. I'm itching to do some gunsmithing stuff since it's been so long so hopefully I'll have something to post related to guns here soon.

Good Pix

Per recommendation of Laughingdog, with an assist from Xavier, I got my Ghetto Blaster Giotto Rocket Blaster in the mail yesterday.

I tried it out. Seems to work great. Look, Ma, no more crap in the pictures.

This was at f22 so anything there should have been visible.

If you look closely you can still see some very faint spots that I may have caused by trying to clean the sensor the wrong way, but nothing as obvious as the crap I was getting before.

Much improved and well within the the standards that my heinously amateurish photography skills require.

Thanks for the advice guys. Hopefully, next time I have an issue, I'll think to ask you about it first because just striking out on my own ignorant path.

Exceeding my daily recommended allowance...

...for blog posts.

I simply cannot believe that this made it onto the editorial pages of a newspaper...even a relatively minor one like the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette:

The so-called gun-show loophole makes it sound as if gun shows are where criminals go to bypass laws that apply outside of gun shows. That is false – twice. First of all, criminals tend to avoid gun shows, and, second, gun shows are not exempt from any gun laws at all. There really is no loophole.

Factual. Even-handed. No hysteria. Completely devoid of any of the characteristics of modern newspaper editorializing (or even "reporting" for that matter).

Perhaps some in the legacy media are beginning to "get it"?

Time will tell.

Another Downside to the Police State

Equipping cops with military weaponry and equipment has many down sides...not the least of which is the potential for that equipment to fall into the wrong hands:

Law enforcement officers from two counties are searching for an unmarked police car loaded with weapons, ammunition, riot gear -- and possibly even an emergency light -- that was stolen from outside a Hialeah restaurant early Friday morning.

As we gun owners have been saying for years, it is not safe to store weapons in vehicles. Unattended police vehicles are especially vulnerable because there is no doubt that they will contain some items highly desirable to criminals. As more and more potent weapons and equipment are routinely carried by more and more regular "beat cops", expect this type of crime to increase.