Breaking news across the gun bloggosphere is that Cavalry Arms has been raided and its inventory seized. According to The War on Guns the warrant stated “Firearm law violations. Seize everything.” What kind of warrant is that? The 4th amendment is pretty damn clear -

… and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

“Seize Everything” certainly doesn’t look like they were particularly describing the things to be seized.

I fear that we are in for some dark times to come.

Joe Huffman has an update, apparently the ATF agent in charge is no stranger to the gun community.

Well, the anti-gunner’s no-gun signs did their job — they disarmed the good guys and allowed a scumbag to wreak havoc at will.

Here is what one 1st hand witness to the shooting has to say:

Either way though, I could have drawn and taken a clean shot. However, in both cases, regardless of the laws, I am not allowed to carry a gun at all in Westroads Mall. If the laws did not oppress my rights, I would carry a gun most places (except work). I would certainly have had it in the mall as mall shootings have been on my mind since the incident at a mall involving a shotgun back in February.

Read the full account over at Joe’s Crabby Shack

What do I take away from this incident? That my right to defend myself takes precedence over anyone elses ‘property rights’ when they try to deprive me of the ability to save my own life from criminals bent on killing me and my family. I shall carry when and where I please and you shall be none the wiser — unless I am forced to defend myself.

Ted Nugent talks to Texas Monthly Magazine about gun control. He has to be one of the most articulate pro-gun speakers that I have ever seen. No nonsense, straight to the point and not apologetic in any way.

“Gaggle of Numbnuts”

“I don’t like repeat offenders. I like dead offenders.”

“The 2nd Amendment IS my Concealed Weapon Permit”

Joe Huffman, over at The View From North Central Idaho was asked to show a couple of local reporters some gun basics. I’m glad they picked him — from reading his blog he is obviously thoughtful and patient pro-gun advocate who will make a good impression on them. Hopefully they absorb the knowledge that he presents to them.

This is the way to swing public favor to our side. Present the facts, familiarize them with with some basic weapons and training and help them overcome their fear of guns.

You may have seen this email being passed around. It has been falsely attributed to people other than its original author - Marko. You can read his original posting here, and his take on the plagarism in this post.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

This story comes from the Philadelphia Daily News, via Clayton Craymer -

BRIAN LEWIS was leaving his apartment, heading to a gig as a disc jockey in January 2005, when three guys jumped him.

Two of them pulled pistols.

The men wanted his gear, including two CD mixers worth $499 each.

They also wanted Lewis to turn around and go back inside his house with them.

What the robbers didn’t know was that Lewis had a gun, and a permit to carry it.

Lewis reached for his gun, telling the robbers he was pulling out the key to his door.

Lewis aimed across his body, drawing a bead on the head of one man aiming a pistol at his back.

Click.

The gun was loaded, but there was no bullet in the chamber.

The two robbers heard the pistol’s dry fire and blasted away, shooting Lewis in the back.

You can read the rest of the story here. But that’s the most important part. If you carry a concealed weapon, always remember that you cannot predict when you will need it. You will neve have the time to ‘rack the slide’ when trouble comes calling. Part of being prepared is being fully prepared, have your weapon ready to use at a moments notice — you may not get another chance. This guy is very lucky to be alive, and I hope he has learned from the experience.

Clayton Cramer is reporting that the DC Court of Appeals has struck down Washington DC’s ban on having a loaded handgun in your home, and has recognized that handguns are protected by the 2nd Amendment!

Its nice to see some sanity in a city overrun by criminals.

Say Uncle, Volokh, Kerr, Cato Institute and Instapundit also have coverage.

The blogs are aflame with opinions about Jim Zumbo’s betrayal of his fellow gun owners a few weeks back. Smoke on the Water has a couple of good posts here and here, Geek with a .45 weighs in here with a decent summary of Zumbo’s apologies. Michael Bane asks the question ‘where do we go from here?’, and Snowflakes in Hell says Zumbo’s sincerity doesn’t matter.

It looks like folks are ready to give Zumbo a chance to redeem himself. It looks like he is on the path to redemption, but I’d rather sit back and watch him for a bit before allowing him back into the fold. What he wrote was very wrong, I was among those that wrote to his advertisers and demanded his head, and I am willing to forgive but only after I see some action from him that earns it. So far it looks like he’s taking the right steps.

This comes in from The Tennessean, more women in TN are signing up for concealed weapon permits than ever.

“Why should we not have something to protect ourselves?” said Oonk, the Tennessee representative for the Second Amendment Sisters, a national organization promoting female gun ownership. “Why should we let someone else have their way, when you could protect yourself?

Real Estate Agent Kim Hoard says -

“I have strangers in my car every day, I meet strangers in empty houses all day long. For me, it seems like the logical step to protect myself.”

Its good to see that some people are understanding the utility of carrying a concealed pistol. It is especially important for women, who are often preyed upon by stalkers and criminals with no protection other than calling 911.

Hat Tips to Say Uncle and Of Arms and the Law

According to this TBO.com story Georgia lawmakers are considering changing their no-knock warrant rules. A Bill, SB 259 has been introduced to:

A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Article 2 of Chapter 5 of Title 17 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to searches with warrants, so as to change provisions relating to issuance of search warrants by judicial officers; to provide that no-knock warrants shall not be issued in this state except under limited circumstances; to provide for related matters; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

This change of direction has come about because of a recent tragedy where the homeowner, a 92 year old woman, shot at the invading officers and was killed by them. The warrent was issued on the word of an informant that there were drugs in the house. None were found.

Hat Tip to Say Uncle for this story.

Washington State’s latest anti-gun law, which I wrote about previously has been passed out of the committee. This comes as no surprise as the Democrats have a 5 to 3 advantage and one of the bill’s sponsors is the chair. According to Mr. Completely -

An interesting sidelight is that one of the Democratic Senators, Senator Prentice from South Seattle/Renton, originally was going to vote against the bill, thereby keeping it from coming out of committee. As of the end of the Executive session yesterday, that was her position. By this morning, she had changed her mind and voted for it. I wonder who talked to her last night to change her mind, and what they said? We’ll probably never know.

And Phil over at Random Nuclear Strikes has taken a look at the differences from the original bill -

It appears that they have changed the language a litle bit (old bill pdf / new bill pdf) by taking out Section D of the old bill making an auction held by a non-profit NOT a gun show (because it clearly is not one).

However, the rest of it is there.

So, the fight goes on. Warm up the vacation time guys, it looks like we’re going to be taking a couple more trips to Olympia this session.

UPDATE: According to Mr. Completely Senator Jim Clements says that the bill is as dead as “A goose twelve yards away in the middle of my decoys!”. Great News!

The The Denver Post is reporting that Democrats have blocked legislation that would have allowed business owners the same rights as home owners in defending their property as well as recognition of out of state concealed pistol licenses.

The Senate State Affairs Committee, known unofficially as a graveyard for bills that leadership wants killed, shot down a proposal Monday to expand Colorado’s “make my day” law.

The three Democrats on the five-member committee rejected legislation that would have allowed business owners to shoot threatening intruders, as homeowners are already permitted to do.

The bill’s demise came three days after Senate Democrats thwarted attempts by Republicans to hijack a Democrat-sponsored bill that would tighten restrictions on concealed weapons.

Republicans tried to amend the bill to say Coloradans could use concealed-gun permits from any other state. Instead, the legislation from Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, squeaked through as he originally wrote it - a ban on mail-order and other out-of-state permits for people who want to pack concealed handguns.

As is usual in these cases the Democrats resorted to scare tactics to support their side, saying:

Sen. Peter Groff, a Denver Democrat who chairs the committee, said a shopkeeper could end up shooting a straight-A student in baggy pants “listening to Snoop Doggy Dog” on his iPod just because he looked threatening.

They always trot out the ‘blood will run in the streets’ and ‘wild west’ arguments against pro-gun legislation, but when it finally passes these scenarios never come true. Look at all the states that now have concealed carry? Their crime rates have dropped as a result. But that’s a Democrat for you, they don’t even trust themselves with a gun.

Hat tip to Alphecca

From CCRKBA:

For Immediate Release: February 16, 2007

BELLEVUE, WA – For more than two months, a damning report on a five-year study by the Federal Bureau of Investigation about how cop-killing criminals ignore gun laws and where they get their guns has languished in the shadows, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms revealed today.

“The public has a right to know the contents of this report, which was revealed to the International Association of Chiefs of Police last year,” said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron. “According to the Force Science News, research focused on 40 incidents involving assaults or deadly attacks on police officers, in which all but one of the guns involved had been obtained illegally, and none were obtained from gun shows.”

The study is called “Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers.” Waldron called it a “smoking gun” in terms of revelations about the sources of crime guns. Anti-gun politicians and police chiefs do not want the public to know as they campaign against the so-called “gun show loophole,” he said.

(Continued)

The Columbia Missourian reports that the house has approved a ‘Castle Doctorine’ bill similar to that passed in several other states.

Rep. Kenny Jones, R-California, Mo., said the proposal clarifies common sense.

“A man’s home is his castle, and he has a right to defend it,” Jones said.

Rep. Jeff Roorda, D-Hillsboro, said that the bill essentially “takes the castle doctrine on the road” and allows drivers to defend their cars just as people in their homes can defend their residences.

The bill still needs another vote before moving on to the Senate for consideration.

Several sources in Texas are ‘covering’ thier version of the ‘Castle Doctorine’, including KWSO News, KWTX News and the Houston Chronicle. I notice that all 3 are using an AP story as their source, but only 2 give credit and only 1, the Chronicle, appears to print the story in full.

“I believe Texans who are attacked in their homes, their businesses, their vehicles or Texas already has some of the broadest self-defense laws in the country, Wentworth says his bill would expand the legal rights of crime victims to protect themselves, their relatives and their property from intruders in their home, occupied vehicles or business.anywhere else have a right to defend themselves from attack without fear of being prosecuted and face possible civil suits alleging wrongful injury or death,” Wentworth said.

This report comes from Interested-Participant. Another thug has flunked the victim selection process, he and 2 friends attemped an home invasion robbery on an armed citizen and lost.

PONTIAC — A 21-year-old Pontiac man who was shot by an armed homeowner when he allegedly forced his way into a home with two other men last month died early Tuesday from a gunshot wound to the chest.

Herbert McDaniels died in Pontiac Osteopathic Hospital. Police said McDaniels was named in a criminal warrant as one of three men who forced their way into a house on Cloverlawn Street at about 4 a.m. on Jan. 29.

The 33-year-old homeowner told police he armed himself after hearing a loud noise when the men kicked in a door. The man shouted for the three to leave and when they ignored him and continued advancing into the house, he fired off two shots.

Pay attention all you bad guys! Guns are used more often to defend the good guys than they are in committing a crime. Find a new line of work.

From NRA-ILA:

Washington: Anti-Gun Measure Set for Senate
Committee Hearing Thursday!
Please Contact Your State Senator Today!

Senate Bill 5197 will be up for a hearing in the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee on Thursday, February 8 at 3:30 P.M. in the John A. Cherberg Building, Hearing Room #4.

SB 5197 is a measure aimed directly at private firearm sales, which would mandate that all firearms sold at gun shows be transferred through a federally licensed dealer, thereby imposing dealer restrictions on private individuals who are not dealers. This will establish a gun tax on firearms, expand the growing government database of law-abiding handgun owners, and effectively halt handgun sales at gun shows.

Your attendance at this hearing is critical. Washington Ceasefire is planning on packing the hearing with supporters of the gun show/gun registration bill, so it’s vital that NRA-supporters show a strong turnout as well. Attendees should plan on being at the Capitol by noon. Please visit your legislators, even if they are not on the Committee.

If you are unable to attend, please contact your State Senator at (800) 562-6000 and respectfully ask that he or she oppose this ill-conceived and restrictive measure.

Please make plans to attend this vital meeting, and also be sure to alert your grassroots networks and fellow gun owners to attend the meeting this coming Thursday!

LibertyNews will be present for the hearing and will bring you a full report Thursday evening. I encourage everyone who can to attend. It is time for gun owners to stand up and be heard by those who would like to remove our rights from the Constitution.

Read on for my report
(Continued)

BELLEVUE, WA – Five months after the Second Amendment Foundation called on U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to investigate New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg for obstruction of justice relating to Bloomberg’s rogue “sting” operation against gun retailers in five states, the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has confirmed in a letter that an investigation is underway.

SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb said today that a letter he received from W. Larry Ford, Assistant ATF Director for Public and Governmental Affairs, confirms that the agency “is investigating the matter in order to determine if violations of federal firearms laws occurred.” Ford could not offer details in his letter, explaining to Gottlieb that the agency cannot comment on “an open investigation.”
(Continued)

Tacoma, WA - Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Don’t blame gun shows for killers’ access to weapons

DAVE WORKMAN
Last updated: February 7th, 2007 01:31 AM (PST)
One Seattle newspaper edito­rialized recently that, with Democrats firmly in control of the Washington Legislature, “this is the year … to get rid of the gun-show loophole.” But nobody has explained how attacking gun shows will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.

Yet lawmakers are considering Senate Bill 5197, the so-called “gun show loophole” bill, which, even if had been law, would not have prevented the Jan. 3 murder of Samnang Kok in the hallway at Tacoma’s Henry Foss High School, nor stopped cop-killer Raymond Porter from getting his hands on a pistol, and the proponents know it. The 9 mm pistol used in the Kok slaying and the gun Porter used to kill King County Sheriff’s deputy Steve Cox – and was used in another slaying just hours before – were both stolen in burglaries. Either gun could just as easily have been Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske’s 9 mm Glock, stolen from his unattended car on a downtown Seattle street.

Teenage murder suspect Douglas S. Chanthabouly could not have legally purchased a handgun, even at a gun show. Porter could not have legally purchased a firearm anywhere, thanks to a lengthy criminal history.

SB 5197, supported by Washington CeaseFire, would not have prevented the July 2006 attack at Seattle’s Jewish Federation office or the March 2006 mayhem on Capitol Hill. Neither accused Federation gunman Naveed Haq nor deceased Capitol Hill gunman Kyle Huff bought their firearms at gun shows.

Haq legally purchased his guns, following background checks, from dealers in the Tri-Cities area. Huff brought his firearms from Montana, where they were bought legally from gun shops. Yet editorials, some state legislators and Washington CeaseFire insist that closing some mythical gun show loophole is “reasonable.”

What is “reasonable” about attacking a problem that doesn’t exist when it would not prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns? In fact, not a single firearm involved in any of the high-profile shootings now being exploited to push this “gun show loophole” legislation came from a gun show.

A study done for the Department of Justice (NCJ-189369) found that “During the offense that brought them to prison, 15 percent of state inmates and 13 percent of federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2 percent, a military-style semiautomatic gun.” Notice how few of these criminals used so-called “assault rifles.”

The most damning statistic from the DOJ report is that fewer than 1 percent of these thugs (0.7 percent) got their guns from gun shows.
Another 1 percent got theirs from flea markets. A staggering 78.8 percent got their guns from friends, relatives, on the street or by other illegal means.

The solution to violent crime in this state won’t be found in laws that target gun shows, sport-utility rifles or law-abiding gun owners. Yet
“close the gun show loophole” is the broken-record mantra that clearly proves CeaseFire and its friends in Olympia have an agenda that has nothing to do with crime prevention or punishing criminals.

They want to put gun shows out of business by holding gun show operators and patrons liable for crimes they did not commit.

Dave Workman is senior editor of Gun Week (www.gunweek.com) in Bellevue, and author of Washington State Gun Rights and Responsibilities.

Originally published: February 7th, 2007 01:00 AM (PST)

Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 73 IH

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 73

To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in
defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such
right.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 4, 2007

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland introduced the following bill; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in
defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such
right.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2007′.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to
protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:
(Continued)

From the latest NRA-ILA Alert:

H.R. 226, introduced by U.S. Representatives Cliff Stearns’ (R-Fla.) and Rich Boucher (D-Va.), would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any state, as follows: In states that issue concealed firearm permits, a state’s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal “bright-line” standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.

• Today, 48 states have laws permitting concealed carry, in some circumstances. Forty states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have RTC laws. Thirty-six have “shall issue” permit laws (including Alaska, which also allows carrying without a permit), three have fairly administered “discretionary issue” permit laws, and Vermont (and Alaska) allow carrying without a permit. (Eight states have restrictive discretionary issue laws.) Most RTC states have adopted their laws in the last decade.

• Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. Only 0.01% of nearly 1.2 million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other RTC states that keep such statistics. RTC is widely supported by law enforcement officials and groups.

• States with RTC laws have lower violent crime rates. On average, 22% lower total violent crime, 30% lower murder, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault, compared to the rest of the country. The seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (Data: FBI.)

• Crime declines in states with RTC laws. Since adopting RTC in 1987, Florida’s total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32% and 58%, respectively. Texas’ violent crime and murder rates have dropped 20% and 31%, respectively, since its 1996 RTC law. (Data: FBI.)

• The right of self-defense is fundamental, and has been recognized in law for centuries. The Declaration of Independence asserts that “life” is among the unalienable rights of all people. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for “security.”

• The laws of all states and constitutions of most states recognize the right to use force in self-defense. The Supreme Court has stated that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and is “entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.” (Beard v. U.S., 1895)

• Congress affirmed the right to guns for “protective purposes” in the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (1986). In 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution described the right to arms as “a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms.”

Posted: 1/8/2007 12:00:00 AM