[UPDATED] Oregon Gun Ban Measure Introduced — Measure 42 43

[UPDATE] Ballot initiative 42 is now ballot initiative 43. According to Ballotpedia, the original petition was withdrawn to "fix a technical error in text" and then re-filed — and re-numbered — as initiative 43. The title and contents of this post, including links, have been updated to reflect this change. [/UPDATE]

We now have a ballot measure number for the proposed ban on "assault weapons" and standard-capacity magazines I wrote about in my last post.

Measure 43. (A PDF of the measure's text is available at the link.)

It's every bit as bad and overreaching as one might expect:

• Defines "assault weapon" as a semiautomatic rifle with ONE or more of the following:
  1. pistol grip (which goes further to describe how the firearm is gripped, it includes language such that any type of grip "resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing");
  2. "protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand";
  3. folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock;
  4. a "shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel";
  5. forward pistol grip;
  6. flash suppressor, muzzle brake, muzzle compensator, or threaded barrel designed to accept one of these;
  7. bayonet mount; or
  8. grenade launcher or flare launcher.
• "Assault weapon" ALSO includes semiautomatic pistols and semiautomatic (centerfire AND rimfire) rifles with fixed magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition (IF I'm reading this as graciously as possible); semiautomatic, centerfire rifles with an overall length less than 30 inches; semiautomatic pistols that accept detachable magazines and have any of features #2, #3, or #4 listed above, or can accept a detachable magazine outside the pistol grip, or has a "threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor or forward pistol grip".
• "Assault weapon" ALSO includes semiautomatic shotguns that have a pistol grip and folding or telescoping stock; or have a fixed magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, or can accept a detachable magazine; or has a revolving cylinder.
• "Assault weapon" ALSO includes any "conversion kit, part or combination of parts from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession of under control of the same person."
• Defines "large capacity magazine" as "any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds or any conversion kit or combination of parts from which such a device can be assembled". They graciously provide an exception for magazines permanently altered to hold less than 10 rounds, .22 caliber tubular magazines, and tubular magazines contained in lever-action firearms.
• Requires registration with the State Police of all "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" if you intend to keep them after January 1, 2019. This includes criminal background checks, which are run by the State Police, and which they will be allowed to charge for just like they do for retail firearm sales. Currently it's $10 per transfer, but they are ALWAYS trying to pass legislation to raise that, most recently to $27. (No word on whether the State Police must conduct one background check for each gun owner, for each form submitted, or if they will conduct a check for each item being registered.)
• Makes possession of an unregistered "assault weapon" or "large capacity magazine" a Class B Felony.

Yes, mere possession of an unregistered inanimate object will be punishable the same as first-degree aggravated assault!

And that's not even getting into the fact that magazines typically aren't manufactured with unique serial numbers. What will they register?

Also, there are no exemptions for .22 caliber firearms, which means that your Ruger 10/22 is now an "assault weapon"; it's semi-automatic, uses a detachable magazine, and has a section of the stock that wraps around the underside of the barrel, or in other words, "partially ... encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned".

Yes, this wording basically bans ALL semiautomatic rifles, and many semiautomatic handguns and shotguns, and makes no exceptions for caliber or historical significance. M1 Garands and M1 Carbines would be covered, as well as semiautomatic M14 clones. So would the "Broomhandle" Mauser C96, since its magazine inserts forward of the trigger and not in the grip.

And yes, this wording bans any pistols you have with threaded barrels for sound suppressors, since if it's threaded for a suppressor it's capable of accepting a flash suppressor. Even if you don't have one. Even no such device exists for your model of pistol.

Honestly, I'm surprised they didn't go for a .50-caliber ban.

[UPDATE] Reading through the bill again, I find a few other choice nuggets:

• A person seeking to register an "assault weapon" or "large capacity magazine" must also "submit evidence satisfactory to the Department [of State Police] to establish that" such items are stored "securely ... pursuant to existing law and ... as provided in any rules and regulations adopted by the Department specifically relating to assault weapons and large capacity magazines".
  • Here's the kicker: There currently is no "safe storage" law or statute in Oregon. This would allow the State Police to not only create "safe storage" rules and regulations from whole cloth, but also force you to comply with them before you are eligible to register your private property.
  • Personally, I believe this is a "due process" violation, as you would be required to prove your innocence before being found in compliance. It is also a Fifth Amendment violation, as attempting to register (as required by law) potentially requires you to self-incriminate about what a nameless somebody in the State Police might consider a "safe storage" violation.
• Also included in that "submit evidence satisfactory to the Department" clause, an owner of an "assault weapon" or "large capacity magazine" may only possess them on their own property, on others' property only with the express permission of the owner (and must be securely stored; so forget carrying your concealed handgun with your "large capacity magazine" in public), on the premises of a licensed firearm dealer or gunsmith, at a "legal gun range" (though this term is used in several places, it is not legally defined anywhere in ORS), at a firearms competition or exhibition, or while transporting between these "approved" places.
• You may not sell or transfer your registered private property, except to a licensed dealer or gunsmith for repair.
• You may not ever purchase another "assault weapon" or "large capacity magazine".
• You must report the loss or theft of an "assault weapon" or "large capacity magazine" within 48 hours of the discovery of loss or theft.

Sounds great, right? [/UPDATE]

Right now, it's in the first stage of the referendum process, gathering sponsorship signatures. They only need 1,000 for this — that should be a breeze in ultra-"Progressive" Portland(ia) — so expect that to happen quickly. Then the state's Attorney General will draft an "impartial title" for the measure (if there is such a thing for this type of measure).

After that comes the big petition drive. Since this is a petition for a statutory change and not a constitutional change, the threshold to get it on the ballot is lower: 6% of the number of votes in the last gubernatorial election, or 88,184 signatures. Again, in uber-liberal Portland(ia), that shouldn't be too hard, especially if they mislead prospective signers on the effects of the bill — which they will; giving the (probably undeserved) benefit of doubt, I'm not entirely sure they realize themselves what they're proposing.

The advice from the last post still applies: wake up every gun owner you know, get them registered to vote if they aren't already, and implore them to vote "No" on this monster. Oregon is a 100% absentee voting state, so all most of them have to do is mark "No" and mail the ballot. Should be easy peasy, but it's going to take all hands on deck come election day.

Even better, though, would be if we build up a large group of pro-gun activists to reach out to non-gun-owners and get THEM to vote against it, too. If we're going to beat this thing, we CANNOT let a small minority try to carry all the burden for the rest.

My next project will be to come up with photos of firearms they want people to think they're targeting, versus what's actually covered, and circulate the comparison as a meme. It'll post here first.

As always, stay safe.

Call to Action — Oregon Anti-Gun Group Launching Ballot Measure to Ban "Assault Weapons" and Standard-Capacity Magazines

From Oregon Firearms Federation:

03.15.18
Anti civil rights groups are meeting tonight to launch a ballot measure to ban modern firearms and feeding devices.

At this point, they're probably just starting to gather petition signatures. But if they get enough — and let's be realistic, they will — it will go to a general vote. As OFF notes, ballot fights in Oregon are typically won in Multnomah County; it's the population center of Portland(ia) and carries WAY above its weight in (blue) votes. No doubt that's why the anti-gun groups are choosing a ballot initiative fight versus petitioning the Legislature; they think they can get more restrictions more easily.

The worst part is: historically, they're not wrong.

The counter-solution is to Get Out the (Non-Urban) Vote. We will need to engage all gun owners for this one. If you're registered to vote in Oregon, make sure you cast your ballot. If you're not registered, get registered. And if you know any gun owners who aren't registered, offer to take them down to get registered. We're going to need everyone on board.

I'm not going to bull-s**t you, it's an uphill battle we're not likely to win. My biggest hope is that since this is an off-year election, the Multnomah County liberals won't feel like putting in the effort. Don't count on that, though; I fully expect money to flow freely from out-of-state anti-gun billionaires to fund advertisements in support of the measure. The pro-gun side will not be able to match those resources.

Therefore, for the pro-freedom side, "staying home" is not an option if you care about your Second Amendment rights...

... especially since Oregon votes 100% absentee. You can stay home and still vote; there's no excuse for failing to mail your ballot.

I'll post an update as soon as the signature-gathering is complete and we have a measure number.

Until then, stay safe.

"Baldr Odinson" Being Disingenuous Again

*tap tap* Is this thing still on? Yes? OK.

My apologies to our dear readers for the lack of content. Life tends to interfere with blogging, and when life speaks louder, you have to listen or get left behind.

My thoughts are not yet collected on the school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Every time I turn on the news, it seems, the narrative has changed again, the "authorities" appear even more amateurish, and the "children" are even more exploited by the media.

It's painful to watch, really.

So instead, today we'll visit our old friend and resident Oregon anti-gunner, Jason Kilgore, a.k.a. "Baldr Odinson". He's had quite a lot to say about the Parkland shooting, little of it accurate or true (he IS an anti-gunner, after all). One recent post in particular, however, needs some fisking fact-checking, as he's (intentionally) omitting certain very-important truths.

Let's get started below the fold. As always, his words will be in block-quoted italics, and most of his links will be omitted.

Recent Happenings and Stuff

I tell you, you step out for a while to deal with mundane things like work, family, and holidays (OK, some of those aren't so mundane), and you miss out on sharing some important happenings.

This won't qualify as a "tab-clearing", but I do have a couple things to report and share.

First, there are a couple legislative items in the upcoming "short session" in Oregon. From OFF, we have two anti-gun bills proposed:

• LC 250 [PDF warning], introduced as a "committee bill" (so nobody's name is on it, though it's suspected perennial anti-gunner Floyd Prozanski wrote it), allows certain persons to call the Oregon State Police Firearms Unit to report a "mental health crisis", causing a 30-day hold on the ability to purchase a firearm. While it's not a full-on "gun violence restraining order", a la California (wherein the police actually seize any guns currently owned), the list of acceptable reporters is pretty long and the conditions pretty loose, with civil immunity for reporters acting "in good faith" and misdemeanor penalties for knowingly making false reports. The identities of such reporters are not released, though, so good luck proving bad faith (or even raising the accusation).
• LC 263 [now HB 4147 — ed.] [PDF warning], "Prohibits transfer of firearm by dealer or private party if Department of State Police is unable to determine whether recipient is qualified to receive firearm." Translation: No more "default proceeds". If you receive a "delay" during a firearm transfer, there's no transfer until the "delay" is definitively resolved.

Both bills, naturally, invoke the "emergency" clause, so they go into effect immediately. Oregon voters won't be allowed to fix or repeal them for at least two years.

Oregon gun owners, it's time to take action. Call, write, e-mail, visit in person, whatever you can do to help stop these bills.

In other news, Mike Vanderboegh, gun rights and liberty activist, citizen journalist, unofficial founder of the III% movement, and proprietor of the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog, is not long of this earth. His friends are asking that people who receive value from his work over the years (and there has been a lot of work, over a lot of years — among other things, "Operation Fast & Furious" would still be unknown if not for him) make a "gratitude offering" to help him get his final affairs in order and see that his wife, Rosey, is taken care of. More information from David Codrea here. They are also organizing work parties to help get his home and yard in working order, so if you have skills, tools, or even just a good work ethic, and are in the Pinson, Alabama, area, see if you can drop them a line and help out.

This last is not gun-related, or even news, but this particular track has been on my heart quite a bit lately. Maybe our dear readers will find inspiration and/or enjoyment in it as well. I could not for the life of me find an "official" video, but I actually like the imagery in this lyric version:

As always, stay safe.

On Failed Solutions and "Scapegoat[ing] the Mentally Ill"

So Oregon's resident anti-gun personality, "Baldr Odinson", recently attended "A Town Hall Forum on Gun Violence in Eugene" (warning: link goes to his anti-gun site).

This article does not rise to the level deserving of a full fisking, but there are a few points that stand out and need to be hammered down commented upon.

First off is this:

I was impressed with the solutions that people suggested, such as smart gun technologies, suicide prevention strategies, mandatory proficiency training for gun owners, and mandatory safe storage of guns, among other suggestions.

"Baldr" must be easily impressed. There is nothing new here. There is nothing that hasn't been tried, measured, and found wanting (by both sides) here.

I'm not going to re-hash the problems with all these "suggestions"; that's been thoroughly done elsewhere. However, I will reiterate that every one of these hinges on whether violent criminals will suddenly start obeying laws. That's not going to happen, so all these will only serve to harass peaceable citizens; indeed, it's all such laws can do.

Second was this:

See below for [CeaseFire Oregon President] Penny Okamoto's response regarding mental illness, and how the NRA and other pro-gun supporters scapegoat the mentally ill [link removed, underline emphasis added]

What do you mean, "how the NRA and other pro-gun supporters scapegoat the mentally ill"? Setting aside how transferring a gun to someone adjudicated mentally defective has been illegal since 1968 (you do recall that some Gun Control Act or other was enacted around then, right?), are you not hearing the NRA itself advocating better mental health reporting and treatment services, along with keeping guns away from such individuals? Heck, even PBS talked about the NRA supporting such measures!

Are you not hearing people on your side saying the NRA just wants to arm every criminal and lunatic?

Which is it, "Baldr"? Is the NRA "scapegoat[ing] the mentally ill", or advocating arming them with no questions asked? You can't have it both ways.

Stay safe.

On "This Generation's 'Duck And Cover'" — A Fisking

Oregon's resident anti-gunner, Baldr Odinson (a.k.a. Jason Kilgore), put up a post recently (OK, a couple weeks back — I've been remiss in checking on him) about school lockdown drills, School Lockdown Drills Are This Generation's 'Duck And Cover'" (warning: clicking through will take you to an anti-gun blog; the safety of your intelligence and sanity cannot be guaranteed). Like so many things over there, it's just begging for a good fisking.

As usual for fisks, "Baldr"'s words will be indented and italicized, and my responses will appear in normal, standard formatting. To be clear, unless otherwise stated, by "you" I'm referring to Baldr. Click through for the takedown.

Yesterday my 10 year old daughter had another Lockdown Drill at her school.

"Another" lockdown drill? Oh, the horror! Do you keep track of these things, and are you concerned they're happening too frequently?

At least the weather was nice.

An email announcement went out to us parents from the Principal, a few days before. From the email:

During our drill on Friday, an intercom announcement will inform staff and students that the drill will begin. Staff will then be asked to secure their classrooms. Teachers will lock classroom doors, close the blinds, move students away from the windows, turn out the lights, and ask students to remain quiet. The drill will last about three minutes, at which point another announcement will be made that the drill is over.

And when the time came during class, the teacher locked the door and turned off the lights, and the kids had to huddle in the corner, absolutely quiet and still while they imagined an armed madman walking the halls of their school.

The e-mail sounds like a pretty standard lockdown drill, and it's nice they let the parents know ahead of time. Of course, that defeats the purpose of a "drill", which should be unannounced.

But was imagining an armed madman wandering the school a mandatory part of the drill, too, or were the kids allowed to daydream about Oreos and video games instead?

The teacher explained to them that, if the windows above them were shot out, it would be a harmless shower of safety glass cubes that could not cut them. Then, he practiced walking quickly and orderly out the back door of the classroom, across the school grounds, and to a staging area in the neighborhood across the street.

Have you ever seen safety glass shatter? It breaks up into small glass cubes with very sharp edges. It can and often does cut skin — not deep enough to be dangerous, but saying it cannot cut skin just invites the kids to play with it, which is a bad idea.

Did the teacher practice walking the kids out the back and across the grounds, or did he abandon his charges and go by himself?

The last time my daughter's school had a lockdown drill, she was in an after-school activity with a mixed-age class of kids, mostly younger than her. Many of them were confused and started to cry, traumatized by the image in their mind of an armed lunatic coming toward their room.

As one of the older kids in the room, did your daughter try to calm the younger kids, or did she join in and/or increase the general hysteria? How have you trained her to respond to these things?

And again, was that mental image a mandatory part of the drill? Who is writing the procedures, and who's verifying that each student is doing their part?

Or is this just Baldr projecting his own mental images onto the kids?

This is the new normal in America. It is practiced in my daughter's school at least as many times a year as fire drills, and more even than earthquake drills. My 11 year old son had a drill in his school the week before.

Given Oregon's position on the Pacific "Ring of Fire", you'd think earthquake drills would be pushed hardest. It sounds like your school district has its priorities reversed.

But if you don't practice any drills, the students won't know how to react in a bona fide emergency. That's what these "drills" are for, right?

But as traumatizing as this is, it is an increasingly-necessary precaution taken by schools.

Is it actually traumatizing the kids? Or are you traumatized by the thought of it, so you assume it's traumatizing the kids? (I'll touch on the necessity of drills in a sec.)

Since our federal politicians continue to do nothing at all to keep guns out of the hands of murderous madmen, schools are left to pick up the difference, preparing their staff and students to fight for their lives or hide in darkened corners, or to follow the NRA's suggestion, highly-opposed, to make an armed camp out of our children's learning environment (which hasn't turned out so well for some schools). [self-link omitted]

Wrong. Our federal politicians have refused to take actions that would discourage or disallow law-abiding people to exercise their rights, specifically because there is no causal link between those laws and keeping "murderous madmen" disarmed.

Schools are doing as their told by their school boards, who take their marching orders from state and federal Departments of Education. And really, it's a minor addition to include security lockdown drills with fire drills and earthquake drills and tsunami drills and tornado drills and hurricane drills and whatever other drills they might be doing based on local needs. It's all part of a comprehensive emergency plan, and another part of that plan is rehearsing each person's role. That's what the drills are for!

Or do you oppose having emergency plans, too?

Just this last week in the town of Springfield, Oregon, not far from where I live, Riverbend Elementary had to go into lockdown. Police had gotten a tip that a convicted felon, high on meth and suicidal, was armed with a gun and headed to his child's school. The school responded with the lockdown. Luckily, police intercepted the man. He was armed with three firearms in his car. [link in original]

That right there is a perfect example of a school responding appropriately to a potential safety threat. Good on them, and good on the police for finding and arresting him, and thank God nobody got hurt.

However, did anyone else notice how Baldr isn't even questioning how a suicidal, convicted felon was able to procure three firearms? Is that little detail not important? Or should they just disarm you and me?

Two days later, in Salem, Oregon, three schools went into lockdown for 45 minutes, including South Salem High, Howard Street Charter Middle School, and Bush Elementary schools, when there was a shooting in the streets nearby. One man was injured in the shooting. [link in original]

Another good example of schools responding appropriately. If there's a known, continuing safety threat in the surrounding neighborhood, it's reasonable to hold the students indoors until it's resolved.

No doubt, though, that the Bradys and Bloomberg's Demanding Moms will count this as a "school shooting".

A few days before that, two schools in Portland, Grant High School and nearby Beverly Cleary School, went on lockdown when two men were openly carrying semi-automatic assault rifles next to the schools. [link in original]

Open carry of any firearm (unless you've got the blessing of government) is illegal in Portland, so I'll request some additional context to this claim. I'll not get it from Baldr, but I have to ask.

Absent any other information, this is yet another reasonable response by the schools to a reported danger.

Sensing a pattern yet?

And, of course, we can't forget the Umpqua Community College shooting a couple weeks ago. [self-link omitted]

Of course not. Nobody wants for "forget" the UCC shooting, but some of us choose to learn from such tragedies rather than continue pursuing laws and policies that don't prevent them.

Remember the "Duck and Cover" movement of the 1950's and '60's? A whole generation of school children were asked to imagine a nuclear bomb hitting their little American towns and cities. They were told that, if there was a big flash or a little warning, they were to immediately take cover under their desks and wait for an all-clear signal. In their minds, they could imagine a nuclear bomb exploding and a massive fireball washing over their schools, burning them alive. Nowadays, it's not a specter of a giant bomb killing them, but a more personal, and realistic killer walking their halls. [link in original]

Not quite correct. The kids weren't asked to "imagine" a nuclear attack. They were asked to respond to the potential of a nuclear attack. They could imagine the bomb, or they could imagine Davy Crockett walking out of his Army camp to visit his family. (Seriously, why the continuous focus on what the children should be forced to imagine?)

Not that "duck and cover" would save any of them during an actual nuclear attack, but I'll use this as an opportunity to segue to another key topic: morale. "Ducking and covering" represents something to do. When you have something to do, you have something to focus on, and you have less worry and fear about what could happen. Focusing on action helps prevent the hysteria Baldr's daughter witnessed during her previous lockdown drills.

I don't expect Baldr to understand that part, but there it is.

It's happened 150 times since 2013! See an interactive map of them here. [link in original, but be forewarned; it goes to an Everytown site]

Oh, look! The infamous Everytown school shootings list! And in interactive map form! How helpful!

Except that it's crap. CNN found only 15 of the originally-reported 74 to be "school shootings" (that's about 20%, for the math-challenged), and Politifact rated Everytown's list "Mostly False". Mind you, neither of those outlets are particularly pro-gun by any measure. Those articles are from June 2014 (the 18th month since 2013 started), when the list was 74. Now, another 16 months later, and they've doubled the number. Looking at the rate of increase over the original, I have little faith — let alone evidence — that Baldr and/or Everytown are being any more honest in their numbers.

And school shootings are increasing.

Citation needed.

Oh, wait … no, it's not. And no, they're not.

The Trace did a study of lockdowns and found an astonishing 100 school lockdowns (not drills!) in just a two-week period. From the article:

[A]t least 100 lockdowns made the news during those two weeks. That’s an average of about 10 lockdowns due to a potential threat per school day. Of the 10 school days tracked, only one was incident-free."

And that's just the ones reported by media, that they could find with their searches. [link in original, but be forewarned; it goes to The Trace, Bloomberg's gun-control-advocacy-disguised-as-news site]

Note the implication in the context. We've moved from school shootings to reported school lockdowns, implying that the lockdowns were because of shootings or armed threats. Perusing the interactive map (Yay, another one!) at The Trace, many or most don't have anything to do with guns. A short list, going loosely West-to-East (copied directly; any grammatical or factual errors are in the original):

• Redmond, WA - 10/8/2015: Ridgeview High School went into lockdown after a student threatened another student over text.
• Forest Grove, OR - 10/2/2015: Forest Grove High School was placed on lockdown after students reported seeing another student with what they thought might be a gun. [emphasis added; No threat or weapon was found, and one student was charged with making a false report.]
• Coos Bay, OR - 10/2/2015: Schools in Coos County were locked down because of a non-specific threat. [No weapons mentioned, threat found to be unsubstantiated.]
• San Jose, CA - 10/7/2015: A suspect who escaped from a bail bondsman put a nearby middle school on lockdown. [Suspect was unarmed, and most of the students had already left for the day.]
• Los Olivos, CA - 10/8/2015: An apparent murder-suicide triggered a lockdown at three Los Olivos schools. [Apparent domestic dispute. A gun was used, but it all happened within the home.]
• Santa Fe Springs, CA - 10/5/2015: Three schools were placed on lockdown while officers searched for a man suspected of domestic violence. [No weapon mentioned, and he wasn't charged with any weapon-related crimes.]
• El Cajon, CA - 10/5/2015: An El Cajon elementary school went into lockdown after a woman crashed into a police car and claimed she had a gun. [emphasis added; This sounds like an attempt at "suicide-by-cop" that happened to occur near a school.]
• Newhall, CA - 10/1/2015: A Newhall elementary school went into lockdown as authorities investigated reports of a gun-toting teen. [No person with a gun found. The "dot" on the map has this one in Iowa for some reason. Layers and layers of editorial oversight.]
• Reno, NV - 10/2/2015: Two south Reno schools went under lockdown as police searched for a suspect in the area. [Car burglary suspect; no weapon mentioned.]
• Las Vegas, NV - 10/8/2015: A Las Vegas school went into lockdown while police searched for a suspect.
• Meridian, ID - 10/8/2015: A direct threat against Meridian High School led to a locked of all schools in Bosque County. [The type of threat was not disclosed.]
• Pocatello, ID - 10/7/2015: Pocatello Police Department and school district staff placed Highland High School under lockdown to address a potential threat. [Again, the type of threat was not disclosed.]
• Peoria, AZ - 10/8/2015: An elementary school went on lockdown as police pursued a burglary suspect. [No weapon mentioned.]
• El Paso, TX - 10/2/2015: Schools and offices in El Paso were locked down because of a suspected armed person. ["Suspected" armed person. Two people who initially claimed there was a "gunman" later told police they never saw a gun.]
• Stafford, TX - 10/2/2015: Stafford schools went into lockdown because of reports of a suspicious person. ["Suspicious person"; no weapon reported.]
• Denver, CO - 10/5/2015: The Denver Center for International Studies was placed on lockdown following a report of a student with a knife. [No gun, just a knife.]
• Pueblo, CO - 10/7/2015: A Pueblo County High School went into lockdown after a student was seen walking down the hallway Wednesday in a gas mask and a trench coat. [No weapons found.]
• LaMoure, ND - 10/6/2015: A school in LaMoure went into lockdown while police hunted a suspicious male. [No weapons reported; authorities said no imminent danger.]
• Detroit Lakes, MN - 10/1/2015: A bomb scare put Detroit Lakes schools into lockdown. ["Suspicious device" scare; no other weapons reported.]
• Minneapolis, MN - 10/7/2015: The Eden Prairie Police Department says a statement made by a student prompted a “soft lock down” of Central Middle School. [The AO of another famous anti-gun personality, "japete" (a.k.a. Joan Peterson). Statement found to be unsubstantiated, no credible threat, no criminal charges.]
• Oklahoma City, OK - 10/8/2015: Deer Creek schools went into lockdown while police searched for a burglary suspect. [No weapon reported.]
• Toshimingo, OK - 10/6/2015: The Tishomingo County School District issued a lockdown because of a non-specific threat. [Type of threat not disclosed; no weapons mentioned.]
• Liberty, MO - 10/7/2015: A lockdown of all Union County schools was issued after a general threat. [Non-specific threat. Report mentions in passing bomb threats issued against other districts.]

I could go on, but I'm getting sidetracked. Heck, when I was a kid, I remember all the schools at my end of town being locked down due to a reported tattooed, neo-Nazi rapist (no, I'm not kidding) at a different school two miles away (the report turned out to be unsubstantiated). But needless to say, that's how many non-school-shooting lockdowns we have on the list — in total, 22 out of approximately 35 (over 60%, for the math-challenged), and most of the rest involve armed suspects but still aren't "school shootings" by any measure — and we haven't even crossed the Mississippi River!

It would seem that conflating "lockdown" with "school shooting" might be just a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

Moving on:

School systems are now making videos and programs to teach students and faculty how to respond in the event of an active shooter incident.

Good. Nothing wrong with an informative and educational video.

One video, from an Ohio school system, even suggests that the students attack the shooter if they come in the room. See it HERE. It teaches the ALICE program (which stands for "Alert-Lockdown-Inform-Counter-Evacuate"), which is being taught in a number of schools and colleges around the nation. The video, which is shown to students, shows a man with a handgun enter a classroom and the teen students attacking and swarming over the man, holding him down, all the while stating, "If it is necessary to counter the aggressor's attack, you may be able to distract and disrupt the aggressor's plan by putting him on the defensive and possibly even disarming him by swarming him into submission until police arrive." One student gets shot and goes down before the other students dogpile the shooter.

That's right, they are recommending that child students attack the shooter if cornered.

It's not enough now that school kids have to worry about grades, homework, tests, relationships, sports, and all the usual things that kids have to think about. Now we are asking them to think about cold-blooded killers stalking their halls, and potentially having to fight them to the death! [link and emphasis in original]

Again, nothing wrong with educating students on all their reasonable options in the face of an emergency. That "counter-attack" video was presented to high school students. Teenagers, some of whom will be legal adults, and plenty of whom will be athletes. To hear Baldr, you'd think they're advocating kindergartners swarm a violent, armed man, but personally I find no problem in offering the 300-pound defensive tackle a chance to … y'know … tackle someone, as a possible life-saving solution to a violent crime-in-progress.

And nobody is advocating they kill the attacker. Subduing him is good, too. Whatever it takes to stop the attack, and no more.

This has to end.

I agree; this fear-mongering article has gone on far too long.

Oh, you mean the drills, the lockdowns, and the culture of helpless fear you yourself contribute to have to end. Huh.

The answer isn't to arm every teacher, faculty, or even students, as the gun lobby has suggested, or to turn our schools into fortresses. The answer is to keep from arming the lunatics in the first place. And the only way to do that is to pass sensible gun laws, such as universal background checks (like the one enacted this year in Oregon)… [self-link omitted]

Are you referring to that universal background check law that went into effect BEFORE the Umpqua Community College shooting? Wasn't that law supposed to prevent events exactly like that from happening, by keeping guns out of the hands of people exactly like that scumbag?

Epic. Fail.

… better mental health reporting to the background check system…

Who gets to decide what's reportable, and on what basis or evidence? That's just ripe for abuse.

… child access prevention (CAP) laws to keep guns out of the hands of school kids… [self-link omitted; Baldr runs that site, too]

"CAP" laws are a euphemism for so-called "safe storage" laws, and the kind you're talking about — that mandate firearms be stored separate from ammunition, and either disassembled or trigger locked — were struck down in Heller v. D.C. in 2008.

… and a renewed ban on assault rifles and high-capacity ammo magazines.

Yes, because the last such ban did so much to reduce violent crime rates or school shootings, right?

Oh, wait. It didn't. Research For The Win!

Naysayers might point to this report (PDF warning) from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), but those authors clearly say the "assault weapon" ban had no clear effect on murder or violent crime ("assault weapons" being rarely used for crime to begin with), and could only suppose that a long-term ban on "large-capacity magazines" might have some effect, and supposed so with the understanding that the use of "large-capacity magazines" by criminals to fire more than 10 rounds without reloading is at best unknown.

So why are we pushing for a ban, again?

Perhaps, if we pass such laws, lockdown drills at our schools will become a nightmare of the past, like "Duck and Cover" became, and we will find a new trajectory for our schools and communities away from gun violence. [emphasis in original]

Or maybe, lockdowns will continue, because there are plenty of reasons to lock down a school other than "gun violence". Review my list above, pulled from Everytown's own map. Many of those security lockdowns — including my personal anecdote — had nothing at all to do with guns.

ADDENDUM (10/21/15): One pre-K school teacher from Washington state describes what it is like during a lockdown drill with her small students, trying to convey urgency without inciting fear or alarm, and the mental considerations that she has to endure as part of the process. From the article "Rehearsing for death: A pre-K teacher on the trouble with lockdown drills":

Instead of controlling guns and inconveniencing those who would use them, we are rounding up and silencing a generation of schoolchildren, and terrifying those who care for them. We are giving away precious time to teach and learn while we cower in fear.

[bold and badly-done link in original]

(BTW, Baldr: the author of that article in your addendum, Launa Hall, is from Arlington, VA, not Washington state. It says so right on top of the article. Schmuck.)

Done incorrectly, we could argue that lockdowns themselves "rehearse for death". Does anyone want to claim that Sandy Hook Elementary didn't try to lockdown as soon as shots were fired, but made the mistake of locking down with the killer inside?

With all due respect to that pre-K teacher, we're not talking about "controlling guns and inconveniencing those who would use them". We're talking about banning guns and making criminals out of those who would use them. That's the end game of "gun control".

Dear Ms. Hall: Maybe instead of "rounding up and silencing" your students, you could take an active role in protecting them. Maybe instead of "terrifying those who care for them", you could empower those who care for them to take decisive action (remember that morale thing?). Maybe instead of "giving away precious time to teach" by "cower[ing] in fear", you could be teaching them to remain calm and follow instructions in an emergency while projecting an image of a protector who keeps them safe.

Maybe, just maybe, you — as someone who calls herself a "teacher" — are approaching this the wrong way. Be a leader. Set an example. If you want them to grow to be strong, level-headed adults, you need to show them what a strong, level-headed adult looks like (hint: it's not always Batman or Superman, or even Officer Friendly). It starts with you. Be the person you want them to grow up to admire.

Dear Readers: As always, stay safe.

ALERT: Oregon Gun Owner Action Required!

That didn't take long.

Barely two months after S.B. 941 (Oregon's shiny new "universal background check" law) went into effect, and two weeks after the mass killing at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, we have the anti-gun crowd's new demands for infringing our rights.

From Oregon Firearms Federation, we have a partial list (shamelessly copied from the alert, [with my thoughts in brackets]), including but not limited to:

• Central registration of all firearm owners and their weapons, and coordination of this data with criminal, mental health, and domestic abuse records at both the state and federal level. [Holy S@#t, they're going after the big fish, here.]
• Enactment of a 28-day waiting period on all firearm purchases. [Four weeks? Isn't that a bit excessive?]
• Institution of a license requirement to possess or purchase a firearm, with obtainment of a license requiring a gun safety course, an evaluation of personal history and mental well-being, and a thorough background check. [So Oregon will require some hybrid of Illinois' FOID card and Washington, D.C.'s gun license?]
• Requirement of a license to buy, sell, or transfer a firearm and ammunition, including through registered weapons dealers, private sales, individual transfers, and family transfers. [Knocking down all the exemptions in their already-extreme S.B. 941, I see, along with requiring another, separate license to transfer a firearm or to purchase ammunition.]
• Require that weapons be stored unloaded, in a gun safe, with a trigger lock. Possession of these safeguards should be necessary to obtain a firearm license. [Weren't "firearms must be stored incapable of being fired" laws struck down in D.C. v. Heller?]
• Render concealed carry illegal, and ban the open carry of a loaded firearm. [Weren't effective outright bans on carry struck down in multiple Ninth Circuit cases (of which Oregon is a part), including Peruta v. San Diego County?]
• Restrict ownership of automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and handguns to existing owners and require their storage at a licensed gun range. [There's currently no licensing scheme for "gun ranges". Are we going to set that up, or will this become a de facto ban? And again, weren't bans on whole classes if firearms also struck down in D.C. v. Heller?]
• Ban any clip or magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. [You knew this was coming, right? At least they're now recognizing a distinction between "clip" and "magazine".]

These proposals, if passed, would represent a severe blow not only to gun ownership in Oregon, but to home- and self-defense.

Most, if not all, of these demands are blatantly unconstitutional, but I doubt our Legislature (with a Democratic super-majority) or unelected anti-gun Governor will care much. They'll see "new gun laws" and jump at the chance of passing them.

I hate to beg, but please, please, please hit up OFF's mailing form (at the bottom of same link) and strongly consider donating to the cause of fighting these outrageous proposals, none of which — separately or together — would have prevented the UCC murders.

It's time to act.

Stay safe.

Fisking CeaseFire Oregon's New "Gun Law Survey"

Oregon's resident anti-gunner, "Baldr Odinson" (a.k.a. Jason Kilgore), has been busy posting on his "New Trajectory" site lately.

On Friday (Sept. 25) he linked to a CeaseFire-Oregon-promoted survey of Oregon's gun laws. I won't link to his article, but here's the survey: How Well Do You Know Oregon's Gun Laws?

It's a short, 10-question survey that's in dire need of a good fisking, so here goes (correct answers will be underlined).

Quote of the Day — "Bill Volckening" (March 27, 2015)

From the comments of an OregonLive.com article on Oregon Senate Bill 941, "Oregon lawmakers introduce bill to expand gun background checks":

"@Blind Archer @Bill Volckening Sorry, but if you're a gun person, we have nothing to discuss. You're koo-koo-kray-kray."

Sorry, there's no way to link directly to that specific comment, but for the sake of posterity and "memory hole insurance", I got a screen cap:

(Full disclosure: Yes, I'm the "Blind Archer" to whom he's responding.)

The first part is a lie; he's not sorry — not one bit. You can tell from the scorn and disdain nearly leaking from the computer monitor.

But the sadly funny thing is, I didn't ask for anything particularly difficult or unreasonable. You can read the exchange, starting from his original comment…

… followed by the brief back-and-forth:

So much for that "national discussion on 'gun violence'" we're supposed to have. Was that too much, to ask that he respond by citing actual incidents and keep name-calling and ad hominem attacks to a minimum? (Rhetorical question)

This is what they think of us: we like guns, and so we are too crazy/stupid/unstable to converse with. We're the "Other"; less than human — certainly less then themselves — and therefore less worthy or deserving of even basic courtesy.

Makes you wonder: what other rights and courtesies would they be willing to deny us, given the chance?

Stay safe.

Why Are Anti-Gunners...

... so damned violent?

I'll just leave these two headlines — referencing the same story — here for your perusal.

Anti-Gun Filmmaker Attacks, Hospitalizes Pro-Gun Cameraman

Anti-Gun Oregon Filmmaker Arrested After Attacking Gun Rights Supporter

Money quote, from the first article:

[T]his brutal attack is just a sample of what we in the pro-gun movement has [sic] said all along. Gun owners seem to show more responsibility and restraint, while the anti-gun movement has repeatedly shown a violent streak.

Runner-up money quote, from the commenter "Jeff S. Howard" at the second article:

If Pro Gunners were as violent as Anti Gunners say we are...there would not be any Anti Gunners left!

Word.

And the best part is, the first people the attacker tweeted afterwards were two of the most rabidly anti-gun politicians in the Oregon Legislature — Earl Blumenauer and Ginny Burdick — and a political planner, Jake Weigler. Greater minds than mine can play "What's the Connection?" if they wish.

Stay safe.

(Hat tip: David Codrea)

"Graphics Matter" — Five Years and Counting

Linoge, who runs the excellent Walls of the City blog, just posted up the latest in his annual "Graphics Matter" series:

• graphics matter, year the fifth (part one, comparing U.S. population, firearms ownership, and firearm-related homicide [a.k.a. "gun deaths"])
• graphics matter, year the fifth, part two (comparing U.S. population, firearms ownership, and firearm-related crime [a.k.a. "gun crime"])

To anyone who's kept track of these things, his conclusions are no surprise. However, unlike the anti-rights crowd, Linoge publishes his numbers and sources, and welcomes people to go over them checking for errors.

Spoiler alert (highlight the text between the brackets to read): [The negative correlation between U.S. gun ownership and "gun death"/"gun crime" is even stronger than in previous "graphics matter" posts, once again utterly disproving the "more guns == more 'gun deaths'" and "more guns == more 'gun crime'" hypotheses.]

Now, personally, I don't buy the statistical arguments against gun ownership to begin with. Rights are rights, and are therefore not subject to popular opinion or statistical references. If they were, they would be privileges, to be revoked at any time if the popular opinion (fickle and arbitrary thing that it is) goes against them — and good luck getting them back once gone.

That said, Linoge once again shows (using delightfully-colored and easily-readable charts and graphs) that the anti-rights folks don't even have the statistical analyses on their side. The science is becoming increasingly settled, and not in their favor.

Previous installments of the "Graphics Matter" series can be found here.

California Anti-Gun Dreamin’

As part of a continuing effort to build their Golden Utopia upon the breaking bones of California, our Loonislature has put four more bad anti-gun bills on the governor’s desk. They vary from the ridiculous regulation of BB Guns as firearms to the sublime un-Constitutional stripping of Second Amendment Rights based on simple accusations. 

To Wit(less):   

AB 1014 (Skinner, Williams)

        Establishes shall-issue “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” and “Firearm seizure warrants” to be issued by California’s notoriously anti-gun courts

SB 808 (De León)

        Criminalizes home-built (hobbyist) firearms without serial numbers

AB 1609 (Alejo)
          New firearms importation regulations, penalties

SB 199 (De León)

        Expands regulations on BB guns

All is not lost, as our Governor Moonbeam, "Flaky Jerry" Brown, is now an island of reasonableness in the Looney-Left sea of Sacramento. Such is the state of California politics. All friends of Gun Rights should contact the Governor’s Office and oppose all these bills.   

Governor Jerry Brown

c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 445-2841

Fax: (916) 558-3160 

E-mail and fax Governor Brown

Oregon's New Political TV Ad from Bloomberg's Everytown Moms

I just saw this while watching the news this morning:

Oh HELL No!

The majority of gun owners want background checks in place.

Indeed, the majority of gun owners support background checks. The majority of gun owners, however, DO NOT support expanding or enhancing the current background check system.

We need to be clear(er) on this point. The polls and surveys ask, "Do you support background checks on gun sales?" Most of us are OK with them as long as they're non-intrusive and cannot be used to build a registry of guns or gun owners, but the poll answers are being conflated to include actions we don't support.

[sarcasm] Because everyone knows, if we support background checks, then we obviously must support a draconian mental-health-evaluation, traffic-tickets-included, due-process-stripping, 90-day-waiting-period, 100-page-questionaire, felony-if-you-answer-wrong, strip-naked-and-get-up-on-the-probulator* "background check" applicable every time a gun passes from one hand to the next, even if only for a few minutes, right? [/sarcasm]

On top of that, he claims to be a gun owner, but he's playing on his victim status, having lost his brother during the Clackamas Town Center shooting. I'll be the last to downplay his loss, but let's do some fact-checking here.

Here's the Wikipedia article on the shooting. Like a lot of Wikipedia articles, it's a bit short on details, but the pertinent bits are there.

• The Clackamas Town Center mall has a "No Guns" policy.**
• The shooter stole his rifle, so no background check was performed; he exploited the "steal-a-gun loophole", I guess.
• Even if he had tried to purchase the rifle at a gun store or gun show (no "gun show loophole" in Oregon since 2001; see ORS 166.433), he had a clean criminal background and no previously reported mental health issues. He'd have passed.
• The shooter evidently planned this to be much bigger (he'd purchased ammo and AR-15 magazines before stealing the gun), but seemed to be shooting randomly, without aiming; he attacked a crowded food court, but missed with 13 of his 16 shots (#17 was used on himself).
• Importantly, but disregarded by many news articles on the shooting, the shooter was confronted early on by a concealed handgun license (CHL) carrier who did not fire due to the proximity of bystanders, which may have caused the shooter to retreat and take his own life, ending the incident.

So like we tend to ask after every such tragedy: Which new "common sense" law being proposed would have stopped this?

And on that note, I will NOT be supporting John Kitzhaber's re-election campaign for Governor of Oregon.

------------
* - Yes, that's a "Futurama" reference.
** - It's worth mentioning that in Oregon, "No Guns" policies -- even clearly posted ones (which this one isn't, IIRC) -- carry very weak force of statutory law (case law is different; IANAL, yadda yadda). If a person is discovered carrying against the policy, he/she can be asked to leave. If they don't, they can be arrested/charged with trespassing -- a misdemeanor (see ORS 164.265). However, it's a distinction only LEOs, attorneys, and CHL holders would recognize. I doubt the shooter considered it.

More on Washington's I-594

Quite possibly the worst gun bill ever, possibly second only to bills with the word "ban" in the title.

Source: NRA's VoteNo594.com page

From Lee Williams at the Herald-Tribune:

You're at the range.

A longtime friend comes over and asks if he could try your handgun, as he's contemplating buying one.

Of course you agree. That's what gun owners do.

If this scenario occurs in Washington State after the passage of Initiative 594, both of you have broken the law.

Initiative 594 would classify this as a transfer -- something that would require paperwork, fees, a waiting period and if it involves a handgun, government registration.

There's been a lot of misinformation about this bill, but make no mistake: it's a bad one for gun rights. Mr. Williams calls it "ill-conceived" and "poorly thought out", but I think he's being too generous; there's no way something this damaging is an accident.

Its supporters tout it as a simple background check bill on firearm sales/purchases with no registration.

The reality? The bill is 18 pages (what 18-page law is "simple"?) and specifically names transfers (broadly defined with very few exemptions), not "sales". As for registration ... I-594 doesn't need it; if passed, it will piggy-back on an existing-but-little-known Washington law requiring that people purchasing handgun sales through dealers undergo a background check and submit paperwork for Washington's handgun registry.

Yes, Washington has a handgun registry.

And I-594 would require that nearly all handgun "transfers" (broadly defined, remember?) go through a dealer's background check, which means nearly every handgun transferred in Washington will be required to be registered, including "private" sales and temporary loans. In the case of temporary loans, the paperwork must be filled out, background check passed, fees paid, and handgun re-registered, on both sides: when you loan the gun, and when you get it back.

If you're in Washington State -- or even if you're not but you know people in Washington -- please help spread the word. Read Lee Williams' article (it's short), check out the NRA's Vote No on 594 page, and if you like, print off their "pocket guide" (PDF warning) for a handy-dandy list of talking points and dispelled myths.

Source: WAGunRights.org

And while you're chatting with Washington folks, do what you can to promote SAF's Initiative 591. It's a half-page, two sentence measure -- supported by law enforcement groups and nine (and counting) individual county Sheriffs -- that provides that a) background checks in Washington comply with a uniform national standard (a.k.a. the FBI's NICS check), and b) firearms cannot be confiscated or seized by law enforcement without due process.

If I-594 passes, you can expect similar ballot initiatives to come to your area, and be funded by billionaires trying to buy your local elections and your rights. We need to shove this in their faces and make it clear this tactic is a waste of their money.

[UPDATED TO ADD:] Dave Workman weighs in (again):

"Gun prohibitionists continue to portray themselves as underdogs when they have a $7 million advantage, and are asking $1,000 to co-host the [Seattle Mayor Ed] Murray event, $500 to sponsor it and $250 to support it.

Nobody is asking for money to attend the [pro-gun] Westlake Center Park rally. This is grassroots possibly at its finest...."

Just so we're all clear on which side has the monetary advantage, and which side is being honest about who has the monetary advantage. [/UPDATE]

(Hat tip: Herschel at The Captain's Journal)

Moms Demand Action - But Not Truth

Moms usually demand the truth, especially when looking over a broken lamp at a snot-nosed brat. (I speak from experience.) That doesn't seem to be the case with Bloombergs's astroturfing Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Shannon Watts, founder of the shrewish ant-gun org, has told a whopper, and few seem interested in calling her on it.

Watts/Troughton & Bloomby
(Ruth Fremson/The New York Times)

Watts of Moms Demand Action: Good guy ‘has never’ stopped bad guy with gun

Never? Mein Gott.

CNN's Victor Blackwell's convoluted, artificially constrained question asked Watts “Is there an example in school shootings or a mall shooting or these public facilities, where that has been wrong? Where a bad guy with a gun has been stopped in any other way or by a person other than a law enforcement officer with a gun or by killing himself?” MDAG's Watts replied “This has never happened. Data shows it doesn’t happen.”

Wow.

Jeanne Assam Stopped Church Attack
(arprice.com)

Even without Google Assisted Memory, I can think of quite a few instances where a good guy (or gal) with a gun has stopped a mass killing. Those in schools, churches, shopping malls,theaters, etc. have benefited many times from an armed citizen's actions. Anecdotal evidence even suggests that the mere possibility of a CCW being present caused a spree killer to specifically chose a theater disarmed by a gun-free sign. To answer with an absolute "Never"... Well, Watts was either wildly incorrect or she deliberately misspoke - i.e. lied.

It wouldn't be the first time. 

Nick Meli Stopped
Clackamas Mall Shooting
(kgw.com)

We often justly damn the gun control industry for their emotion laden misrepresentation of the facts. They're so welded to their position that they're compelled to make the most outrageous lies. Winning at all costs, by any means is their goal; as (wait for it) the ends justify the means. It should come to no ones surprise that Shannon Watts is herself a disingenuous construct. Thanks to Miggy's (Gun Free Zone blog) work, we find that Watts is also known as Shannon Troughton, a high-powered executive with extensive experience as a professional shill; excuse me: corporate communications and political public affairs officer. In the 1st Freedom Sep 14 issue article; Not Watts She Seems, the NRA also examines the the false front that is Shannon Watts. She's hardly the carefully crafted stay-at home mom portrayed in the media. In that context, a finely nuanced, bald face lie in support of Bloomberg's anti-gun agenda can certainly be expected.   

It is important that we do not sink to the level of our foes. Watts/Troughton has been given a free pass - we would not. In any case, we should not want to be like them.   


"You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."
       Daniel Patrick Moynihan



HT: Guns.com, Gun Free Zone, CNN, NRA 1st Freedom

Bloomberg/Watts' Revenge - Kroger in the News Again

Alternate title: "Store Wars: The Empire (State) Strikes Back"*

(source)

Some time back, we reported that Kroger opted not to bow to pressure from Shannon Watts' and
Michael Bloomberg's gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety, to ban the peaceable carrying of firearms in their stores. Kroger's perfectly reasonable statement (emphasis added):

The safety of our customers and associates is one of our most important company values. Millions of customers are present in our busy grocery stores every day and we don’t want to put our associates in a position of having to confront a customer who is legally carrying a gun. That is why our long-standing policy on this issue is to follow state and local laws and to ask customers to be respectful of others while shopping. We know that our customers are passionate on both sides of this issue and we trust them to be responsible in our stores.

 Like I said: perfectly reasonable. Law-abiding folks will abide by laws, responsible folks will conduct themselves responsibly, and respectful folks will respect others. In other news, water is wet (ZOMG, insert dramatic "Dun dun DUUUUNNNN!!" sound here).

Naturally, though, when dealing with megalomaniacal billionaires (like Bloomberg) and control-freak busy-bodies (like Watts), you just knew this wouldn't go over well.

And so it hasn't. Forbes reports (emphasis added):

Michael Bloomberg-backed gun control group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America launched its first ever large-scale corporate campaign on Thursday with an advertising spend of six figures aimed at pressuring Kroger, the country’s biggest grocery chain, to change its firearms policies.

Yep. A six-figure advertising campaign against Kroger, for the audacity of telling Hizzonner to shove it where to go and what to do there to leave them alone and let them make their own decisions on what will and will not be allowed at their own properties.

The ads themselves are pretty pitiful, too, following a pattern familiar to those of us who remember Moms Demand Attention Action's previous campaign against carrying in schools:

Seriously, I wouldn't want to see that in the store, either.
"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service," man!
Click to embiggenate, or spare your eyeballs and don't.
(source: Moms Demand Attention Action)

So again, I'm asking that we, collectively, throw Kroger some business and thank them for upholding the rule of law, and our rights. They did right by us - even it if was just refusing to get caught in the middle - so we need to do right by them.

(Hat tip: Bitter at Shall Not Be Infringed)
------------
* - With the most sincere apologies to George Lucas.

Poetry, Surrealism, and the Anti-Gun Mindset

Our good buddy "Baldr Odinson" (a.k.a. Jason Kilgore) recently posted up a poem and collage, and a preamble to both, by CeaseFire Oregon member Cynthia Jacobi. The works, collectively entitled, "Let's Explain How This Happened In Your School", were created in response to the tragic events at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. They are not dated -- at least, not on the blog -- so it's unknown to me when they were created.



Salvador Dalí, The Persistence of Memory (1931)
A depiction of the relativity, malleability, and
impermanence of memory. (source: Wikipedia)

Now, understand, I'm no expert on poetry and/or literature, so someone with a eye/ear for art might appreciate it more. That said, in my mind it evokes comparisons to surrealist* expressions of anger, frustration, and helplessness.

I won't recreate the full work here, but there are a few bits here and there that stand out (in truth, as it's a short piece, I may end up re-posting more than I originally intended, to keep the context intact).

Starting with the Preamble:

After Newtown, people asked what could you say to those parents who lost children?   

I ask what could we say to the children who we failed to
Protect?  What could we possibly give as explanation?

I'd start with the truth. The tragedy at Sandy Hook was exactly that: a tragedy. It's been covered to death (macabre pun not intended), speculated on, and explained endlessly over the past 20 months. The nation came together as one people and mourned together. E pluribus Unum. From many, one.

To the parents, I'd say: Our thoughts and prayers are with you -- we are with you.

To the children: We love and miss you. Say "hi" to God and Jesus, have fun playing with the angels, and we'll see you when we get there (adjust for religious preference). [Note: I really, truly don't mean to sound callous, but they were 6- and 7-year olds -- far too young to understand all the political-social issues surrounding the events leading up to the tragedy -- so let's try not to overthink what we'd say if we could communicate beyond the veil.]

And now, the poem:

[It happened] because the mother didn’t lock the safe or hide the key 

Which is pure speculation. We don't know -- and won't ever know -- if the mom locked the safe or whether the boy had ready access to it, overtly (i.e. with knowledge and permission) or covertly (knowledge and permission, not so much).

because America sells mega-magazines everywhere
     and Hollywood sells violence

Assuming that "mega-magazines" refers to the firearm accessory of standard capacity, this is the first instance of "blame the 'gun industry'", plus a "blame movies/video-games/music/media" -- neither of which were responsible for the boy's actions.

It happened because of Gun Luv
because we are the land of the brave and the free
     and cowboys and Bonnie and Clyde

This is the first major miss; up until now, it's variations of normal anti-gun talking points (including this invocation of a variation of Markley's Law). But when you start bring up American history and conflating the "land of the brave and the free" and rural farmers and ranchers ("cowboys") with spree criminals.

I might add that I believe Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow would have been a minor footnote in history if their actions weren't both heinous and widely reported by the press, making them outlaws with a celebrity status that still persists today, long after their deaths. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?


Max Ernst, The Elephant Celebes (1921)
The surrealist elephant in the room?
(source: Wikipedia)

Because the boy didn’t need to reload much
It happened because the NRA
     loudspeakers spread dollars and fear
because there was no good guy with a gun
    to shoot the bad guy with a gun

Again with blaming the magazines and the NRA. Recall that investigators found partially-filled magazines all over; he didn't need to reload much, but he did anyway. How would a limit on magazine capacity affect that?

HOWEVER, here she makes a critical mistake: she acknowledges the NRA's point of view as valid. Remember how up-in-arms the anti-gun folks got when Wayne LaPierre acknowledged the proverbial elephant in the room by saying, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"? She's repeating that sentiment, right there!

because hunters of quail and rabbit are silent

I'm not clear on this one.  Did you think that quail and rabbit hunters -- who traditionally use shotguns for that purpose, BTW, not ARs -- would stand up and say, "Totally our fault. Sorry 'bout that!"? Or is just this a dig at "Fudds" for not supporting additional "gun control" -- for not being "Fudds"?

Because reasonable people find no reason to be so

And THAT's a line I can agree with. I may even steal that! Otherwise reasonable people went into full histrionic blame-everything-but-the-person mode, dancing in the blood of innocent victims. Why? Because it served their purpose; they had no reason to be reasonable, and plenty of reasons not to.

And there we'll end our journey into the surreal.  There is some fact and wisdom in there, but it's buried deep within -- and juxtaposed against -- an opposing philosophy. As always, discussion is welcome in the comments, unlike on Baldr's site, where the "No Comments" policy surrealistically juxtaposes with that "national conversation on guns" we're supposed to be having.

------------
* - Surrealist as in, Salvador Dalí and Max Ernst -- a grain of truth or profound thought, illogically and unnervingly set against and amidst its opposite.

James Brady -- Murdered?

Many (most?) of us suspect the area in and around Washington, DC is a reality-free zone. A North Virginia medical examiner has done nothing to quash that suspicion, ruling that James Brady was murdered in 2014 – 33 years after being shot.     

Jim Brady and Ronald Reagan - Fox

First, all due respect to James Brady. A madman severely injured him in the service of this Nation and the Reagan Administration. The brain damage was so severe that only miraculous luck, modern medicine and Jim Brady’s will to live prevented the attack from actually being murder. Furthermore, we've little compassion for the assailant. In a rational society, he should have been circling Dante’s Inferno long ago.

Most commentators are at a loss to explain the ruling. According to the Washington Post, there's little chance of a murder prosecution. Common law holds an assault can only be murder if the victim dies within a year and a day. A jury of average intelligence (yeah, we know) would likely find the 33 year span difficult to swallow. The madman has already been found not guilty by reason of insanity for the attempted murders. The Post lists another handful of good reasons against further prosecution. Like it or not (and we don’t), the attacker will probably never pay for the suffering he caused. But, this is a nation of laws, however imperfect, and we should be thankful for that.

James Brady Surrounded by Antis Frank

 Lautenberg. Paul Helmke and Sarah Brady - AP

Whatever the medical examiner’s reasons: simple-minded bureaucracy, Brady family pressure, political intrigue or something else; the anti-gun industry will certainly relish the chance to wave Jim Brady’s bloody shirt once again.   

HT: Emily Miller, FOX News