Ballot Measure 114: About that Required "Firearm Safety Course"....

Continuing on the Very Bad Thing™ that is Measure 114. Full text available here (PDF warning).

From Section 4 — the "Permit-to-Purchase Process" section — subsection 1:

(b) A person is qualified to be issued a permit-to-purchase under this section if the person:
[...]
(D) Provides proof of completion of a firearm safety course as defined in subsection (8) of this section....

So now let's go see what Section 4, subsection 8 says:

(8) As used in this section, "proof of completion of a firearm safety course" means the following:
(a) Proof of completion of any firearms training course or class available to the general public that is offered by law enforcement, a community college, or a private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by a law enforcement agency, and that includes components set forth in paragraph (c) of this subsection; or
(b) Proof of completion of any law enforcement firearms training course or class that is offered for security guards, investigators, reserve law enforcement officers, or any other law enforcement officers, and that includes components set forth in paragraph (c) of this subsection;
(c) A firearms training course or class required for issuance of a permit-to-purchase must include:
  (A) Review of federal and state laws in place at the time of the class and other safe practices related to ownership, purchase, transportation and use of firearms;
  (B) Review of federal and state safe storage laws in place at the time of the class and other safe practices related to safe storage, including reporting lost and stolen guns;
  (C) Prevention of abuse or misuse of firearms, including the impact of homicide and suicide on families, communities and the country as a whole; and
  (D) In-person demonstration of the applicant's ability to lock, load, unload, fire and store a firearm before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency. This requirement may be met separately from the other course requirements in subpargagraphs [sic] (A), (B) and (C) of paragraph (c), which may be completed in an on-line course, provided the on-line course has been conducted by a trainer certified by law enforcement.
(d) Proof of successful completion of a training course in order to meet the requirements for a concealed handgun license issued under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 may be submitted for a permit as a substitute for the requirements in paragraph (c) of this subsection, provided the completed course included each of the components set forth in paragraph (c) of this subsection.

Some people might read this and think, "So what? This all seems reasonable. What's wrong with this?"

Let's get started.

Starting from the end, subparagraph (d) says that proof of completion of a training course or class to qualify for a Concealed Handgun License (CHL) can be provided as a substitute for the course or class to qualify for a permit-to-purchase, IF (big "IF") that course or class includes "each of the components set forth in paragraph (c)". That sounds good, until you check the training required for a CHL.

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 166.291, subsection 1, paragraph (f) reads:

(1) The sheriff of a county, upon a person’s application for an Oregon concealed handgun license, upon receipt of the appropriate fees and after compliance with the procedures set out in this section, shall issue the person a concealed handgun license if the person:
[...]
(f) Demonstrates competence with a handgun by any one of the following:
  (A) Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife or a similar agency of another state if handgun safety was a component of the course;
  (B) Completion of any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course if handgun safety was a component of the course;
  (C) Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by law enforcement, community college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or a law enforcement agency if handgun safety was a component of the course;
  (D) Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, reserve law enforcement officers or any other law enforcement officers if handgun safety was a component of the course;
  (E) Presents evidence of equivalent experience with a handgun through participation in organized shooting competition or military service;
  (F) Is licensed or has been licensed to carry a firearm in this state, unless the license has been revoked; or
  (G) Completion of any firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a firearms instructor certified by a law enforcement agency or the National Rifle Association if handgun safety was a component of the course;

(Astute readers might notice that Measure 114's section (4)(8), paragraphs (a) and (b), look like they were copy-pasted from ORS 166.291(1)(f), subparagraphs (C) and (D), with "Proof of" inserted at the beginning.)

There are two problems here: First is that the only consistent requirement from all these option is that "handgun safety" was a component. Locking, loading, unloading, firing, and storing — as required by Measure 114 — are not part of a typical CHL training course. Thus, most certificates of completion for a CHL won't qualify for a permit-to-purchase.

Second, a CHL applicant has a broad array of options to meet the training requirement: a course can be conducted by a trainer certified by law enforcement OR the Department of Fish & Wildlife (or another state's equivalent) OR the military OR the National Rifle Association. Even participation in organized shooting sports could count for a CHL application! Measure 114 removes ALL these other avenues and requires you to take a law-enforcement-certified class instead.

However, most CHL trainers are certified by the NRA, not law enforcement, and thus their certificates of completion for a CHL won't qualify for a permit-to-purchase. (It's ironic that cutting the NRA out of the training options has been on the anti-gunners' wish-list for some time, given that the NRA was formed for the express purpose of teaching civilians how to shoot. Regardless, the anti-gunners got their wish.)

So your CHL training certificate probably won't work. You'll have to take additional training.

But where do you get it? This creates a few other potential problems:

• Trainers certified by law enforcement tend to be law enforcement themselves, with all the normal duties of a sworn police officer.
• There's no requirement for any law enforcement agency to certify anyone else to provide permit-to-purchase training.
• There's no funding secured in the measure for any law enforcement agency to review private trainers' curriculum or issue certifications. (The "Defund the Police" movement further complicates things here.) This could mean their in-agency trainers are the only local people qualified to provide courses.
• Law enforcement trainers' time is limited. Tasking them with training private citizens adds an additional set of responsibilities, from developing curriculum and running the courses, for which they will (quite reasonably) expect to be compensated. Private citizen classes will likely be very costly.

And that last assumes their agency's brass doesn't continually fill their schedules with additional law enforcement classes, rendering them unavailable to train private citizens. Or create policies imposing arbitrary limits on permit-to-purchase class sizes. Imagine if a local department's only trainer is allowed to offer the course no more than once per month, with an attendance limit of six people. How long do you think before you can get in?

So training is required before you can apply for permission to purchase a firearm, but it's not necessarily a given that training will be affordable or even available.

And yet, that's still not the most glaring problem of the training requirement.

Ready for it?

The most glaring problem is in paragraph (c), subparagraph (D): "In-person demonstration of the applicant's ability to lock, load, unload, fire and store a firearm before an instructor certified by a law enforcement agency."

Before a prospective gun owner can apply for a permit to receive a firearm, they must first demonstrate — in-person before a law-enforcement-certified trainer — the ability to safely handle a firearm they are not yet allowed to have. Where is this firearm supposed to come from?

And if someone were allowed to bring a gun they already own for the in-person demonstration, and then the background check for the permit-to-purchase revealed they are a "prohibited person" who cannot legally possess that firearm, how is that not a Fifth Amendment violation?

(On that note, will a private trainer who lacks "qualified immunity" want to open themselves to the legal liability of possibly letting a "prohibited person" handle his/her guns?)

This measure is a mess. I'd say someone who doesn't understand existing gun laws wrote it, but it's becoming clearer and clearer that measures like this are written to sound good and reasonable to people who don't know the current law, while dovetailing with the specifics of existing laws to create an impassable legal quagmire for current and prospective gun owners. It is deliberate.

More to come on this measure later. Stay safe out there.

Quote of the Day — Oregon Ballot Measure 114

From the highly-restrictive "gun control" ballot measure that narrowly passed (50.83% to 49.17%) on Tuesday:

A permit-to-purchase issued under this section does not create any right of the permit holder to receive a firearm.

[Full text of the measure available here at Ballotpedia. PDF warning.]

This is from the Section 4 — specifically, Sectiom 4(6)(a) — of the measure that mandates a permit-to-purchase for all non-family firearm transfers (remember that Oregon prohibited private transactions outside immediate family members a few years ago). To qualify for a permit-to-purchase, an applicant must:

• Complete an application (form to-be-determined) with legal name, current address, telephone number, place and date of birth, physical description, and any other information the agency issuing the permit deems necessary;
• Sign the application in front of the permit agent;
• Provide proof of completion of a firearm safety class approved by law enforcement;
• Provide government-issued photo ID;
• Submit to fingerprinting and additional photographing by the permit agent;
• Submit to a criminal background check through the Oregon State Police (OSP) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) — more on this in a moment — and,
• Pay the fees associated with the fingerprinting and background check, which the measure says shall not exceed $65 (read: shall be $65).

The measure also allows up to 30 days for the permit-to-purchase background check (and if you think the permitting agency getting an answer back early means you'll get your permit early, I've got a bridge in Alaska for sale at a great price). Presenting a permit-to-purchase to the gun dealer, as required by this measure, also does NOT replace the OSP-run background check at the point of sale OR its $10 fee.

The fingerprint card gets sent to the FBI as part of the process, and this bit is "interesting" — from the measure, Section 4(1)(e): "The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall return the fingerprint cards used to conduct the criminal background check and may not keep any record of the fingerprints." Does the State of Oregon have the authority to tell the FBI what information it may and may not keep? I doubt it.

But back to the QOTD above. While I understand that neither the U.S. or State Constitutions nor any legislative bill or ballot measure "create" any rights, this line's appearance in the text would mean that even after jumping through all the hoops, passing all the checks, and paying all the fees, a permit holder could still be denied a firearm.

The effective date is not stated in the measure (which is another "interesting" aspect), but is assumed to be 30 days after passage, or December 8, 2022. That doesn't give permit agencies much time to standardize forms, review and approve "safety classes", or implement an entire permitting scheme, does it?

It's not hyperbole to say this measure is a major blow to the firearms industry in Oregon. I already know of multiple dealers whose plan in the face of this is to sell their existing stock (which due to panic, should be done by this weekend) and then either close up shop or move out of state. Nobody will be able to buy or sell a firearm until permits-to-purchase are in-hand, which will be 30 days after the effective date, assuming "safety classes" are available (more on this in another post). That's at least a month of zero legal firearm sales.

And this is only one section of the measure. I'll have more to post on it in the coming days.

Yes, it's going to be challenged in court, especially in light of SCOTUS' Bruen decision, but that will take time and resources. In the meantime, we have to live with it.

Stay safe out there.

"Compromise," Huh?

The Washington Examiner reports, David "Camera" Hogg and his "March for Our Lives" group have released their newest "gun control" plan as a "compromise" (embedded link in original):

March For Our Lives recently unveiled their sweeping new gun control plan, which includes:

• A national licensing and registry system for guns and ammunition.
• A ban on high-capacity magazines.
• Raising the age for all gun purchases to 21.
• A federal version of Extreme Risk Protection Orders, commonly known as "red flag" laws.
• A limit of one firearm purchase per month.
• A ban on all online firearm and ammunition sales or transfers, including gun parts.
• The creation a "National Director of Gun Violence Prevention," who will report directly to the president.

Click through to the embedded link, and you get some more details. In addition to the above, the plan includes "a multi-step approval process" (including background checks, in-person interviews, reference checks, "rigorous" mandatory training, a 10-day waiting period, and fees), new fees on firearm and ammunition sales (with higher fees on "bulk" items), a "buy-back" program to reduce the number of "firearms in circulation" (read: privately-owned guns) by 30% — that's around 100 MILLION guns, for those following along at home — licensing fees and "refresher training" which must both be renewed every year, and a few other "goodies".

Also sought is a commitment from the next President to revisit the Heller v. District of Columbia decision's interpretation of the Second Amendment as an individual right, as if that didn't have 200+ years of jurisprudence supporting it.*

And they're billing this as a "compromise".... Right....

I don't know what kind of literary education they offer at Parkland high schools, but this is an egregious misuse of the word "compromise". Either that, or he's lying. (I know which I would bet on.)

But that's his offer, so in the spirit of real compromise, let me make mine:

First, toss your Soviet-approved "Five-Year Plan" in the trash. Then:

• Repeal the Brady Act, the Hughes Amendment, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act of 1934, and every other "gun control" law, regulation, and policy on the books.
• Cease all federal monetary grants to any state or city who doesn't do the same, and arrest and charge every official in those places under 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242.
• Disband the entire BATFE except for the alcohol and tobacco units, which we'll send to the FDA.
• Get rid of the 4473 forms and publicly destroy all the paper "firearm transfer" records the ATF and FBI have been storing for the past several decades.
• In return for the above, we'll allow the FBI to keep the NICS system provided it becomes 100% voluntary and opened to private citizens, in case they decide to verify the backgrounds of their children's babysitters.

Note: This is not an exhaustive list; just a starting place.

So now, let the negotiations begin.

Because that's how compromise works in the real world.

David "Camera" Hogg is, of course, welcome to weigh in in the comments below, as are our regular readers (all five of you fine folks!). Unlike many/most anti-freedom bloggers, we here at Not One More Gun Law do not moderate or delete comments; we welcome the discussion.

Stay safe out there.

[Hat tip to Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger. If you're not reading his stuff, you really should.]
------------
* - There, revisited. "March for Our Lives" is welcome to cover my consultancy fee of $250 per hour, with a 40-hour minimum. You're welcome, Mr. Hogg.

[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.

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.

Michael Moore Relies on the 2nd Amendment

         Big screen fabulist, noted hypocrite, virulent anti-gunner and left-wing barking moonbat Michael Moore may be supporting Michelle Obama’s claim that chronic obesity can lead to early-onset senility.

The Big Wheezel
patdollard.com

Very early Thursday morning, the big chunk took to Twitter to demand the immediate release of every African-American in prison for drug or nonviolent offenses. For his next belly-flop into insanity, Moore imperiously demanded the police be disarmed. 

Oddly enough, he justified that stupidity by noting; “We have a 1/4 billion 2nd amendment guns in our homes 4 protection.” Although somewhat true (Moore may have underestimated), that's very odd reasoning from someone who wants the public’s firearms seized at gunpoint by the police. You wonder if there is any cognitive dissidence echoing around behind his overused pie hole. 

However, it does seem that even that blind pig can find an acorn of 2nd Amendment truth once in a while.  

Go to bed Mikey, you’re drunk on yourself.

 
Twitter images courtesy of dailymail.co.uk

Update on the "Universal Background Check" / Registration Bill

I've been a bit remiss in reporting on this. For that, you have my apologies.

Here's where we're at now: Senate Bill 941 has passed through the Senate. As I said earlier here and here, Senator Prozanski pushed it through the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote, sending it to the Senate floor. Senate President Peter Courtney (himself no friend to gun owners) got a full vote on it rather quickly, and it passed on near-party-lines; one Democrat — Betsy Close, and actual pro-gun Democrat (yes, they exist!) — voted against it, but even with her dissent it passed.

So now the bill is in the House, assigned to the House Rules Committee. (Why not Judiciary, as in the Senate? Because it could face opposition there. The Rules Committee is much more receptive to anti-gun bills.) House Speaker Val Hoyle — who courted gun owners during her election campaign — has intimated that it will get through the House quickly.

If that happens, it's a near-certainty that ultra-"Progressive" Governor Kate Brown will sign it into law.

So right now the fight is in the House Rules Committee, and they will be holding a public hearing on the bill tomorrow, April 22nd, at 1:00 pm in Room 50 (in the basement of the Capitol building). People wishing to testify in person will need to sign up starting at 11:30 am. We're expecting anti-gun groups like CeaseFire Oregon and Bloomberg's Demanding Moms to try to pack the House (literally, in this case), so any extra support we can get from the pro-gun side will be helpful.

This is it. This is very likely our last chance to fight this thing. If any of our most excellent readers can be there, it will be appreciated. And if you can't be there but live in Oregon, contact your Representatives and urge a "No" vote.

[ADDED:] If you can't make it to the hearing, but still want to submit written testimony, e-mail it to hrules.exhibits@state.or.us. They prefer written testimony in PDF format. [/ADDED]

Stay safe, everyone.

The Corruption of Diane Feinstein

Senator’s Husband Stands To Profit Big From Government Deal

     How big? One Billion dollars of big. 

     One of the obvious dichotomies in the political process is the amount of money spent to win an elected position that only pays pennies on the dollar. Not so apparent is the steady increase in many politician's wealth as their power and influence grows. Many pols retire extremely wealthy. The Divine DiFi (Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA) is now one of the 50th wealthiest women in the world; her personal net worth is an eye-opening $70 Million. Interesting, as she started as a lawyer in bathhouses of San Francisco. She largely amassed that fortune during her decades of  public service (a term definitely used advisably.)

Senator Dianne Feinstein
(bp.blogspot.com)

      She stands to get even richer, as her husband Richard Blum, of Blum Capitol Partners, is a recipient of a sweetheart deal to sell government buildings. As the sole negotiator for 54 USPS buildings, his company would rake in commissions averaging $18.5 Million a building. That's a damn fine payday. Or payoff.

      It would seem this is a fine example of the "soft" corruption that is endemic in our nations political class. Deals are cut and slotted to those with connections to the leaders. It a relatively small group, known to us as the "Elites". Money flows from the People, to the Government, and then to their friends and compatriots. The Government benefits not the People, but the elite class.

     To the focus of this blog, our leaders jealously accumulate not only money and wealth, but power too. The arms owned by the populace are a significant power not controlled by the elites. Which may explain why DiFi hs for so long been adamant about removing arms from the hands of the populace.

(humanevents.com)

    Read the above link and decide for yourself. Guard your money -- and your rights.

HT: Drudge and NY Post

A Monster Fisking

You keep using the term, but last time I checked “wishful thinking” and “emotionally laden nonsense” weren’t synonyms with “common sense”.
        Larry Correia, Fascist Cisgender Normative Male and Author

 

Larry Correia
International Lord of Hate
and Combat Accountant

Larry Correia writes some of the most violent, blood-soaked, bullet and explosive laden, misogynistic, unapologeticly cisnormative, non-vegan, best selling and downright fun fantasies around. You'll find his Grimnoir, Monster Hunter International and Dead Six series perennially perched in the best seller lists. They're diverting, oft bloody romps, with encompassing world builds, surprising characters, and fast paced plots. The author is known for his creativity, wicked sense of humor, weapons-grade sarcasm, sheer inability to suffer fools gladly, and what is assumed to be an epochal case of the 'roids.

Some paper's Social Justice Warriors got all butthurt when a feminist cancelled her appearance because the Utah State University couldn't cancel the audience's 2nd Amendment Rights. The Deseret News editorial staff saw fit to publish an emotional, cliche riddled, bitterly anti-CCW editorial. Unfortunately for them, they happened to be Larry Correia's local paper. This caused Larry to put down his side of beef, gird up his keyboard, and carpet bomb some logic and facts all over their sloping foreheads. In a deliberate, brutal, line by line Fisking, Correia knifes through the feldercarb to cut away the misrepresentations and unicorn-based assumptions of the unsigned editorial.

Fisk me, baby!

The Deseret News' own summary of the editorial: "It’s time Utah law stood up for safety, not the empowerment of bullies" gives just a hint at the over-emotional fear and fuzzy thinking it contained. Larry not only makes short work of the editorial's overheated verbiage, but he provides a damn good basis for the necessity of concealed carry. He also provides a link to his seminal work supporting gun rights that he wrote shortly after the Sandy Hook tragedy. Both of his posts are HIGHLY recommended.

It should be noted that Correia writes fantasies that some see as excessively violent. In reality, they're simply entertainment. The blood splattered across his books is ephemeral, existing only in the imagination. On the gripping hand, the editorialists advocate for laws that disarm the law-abiding populace, leaving them helpless before the true threat.

The blood that can flow then is very, very real.

HT: Miggy of GunFreeZone.com

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

Home Invader Forces Woman Onto Her Roof

Woman Escapes to Roof Fleeing Home Invader
(Alexandria Thompson - Venice311@twitter.com)

In a situation that could have very quickly gotten much worse, actress Melora Rivera retreated onto to the roof of her Venice Beach, CA home to avoid an intruder. Holding only a cell phone, Ms Rivera's last refuge was a gable's slight overhang. She was fleeing from Christian Hicks, who broke down a door and pursued her through the house to the roof. At one point, Hicks got within 10 to 15 feet of the terrified woman. Hicks is known to area residents and the police, and is thought to be a mentally ill transient.

Woman Evades Mentally Ill Home Intruder By Hiding Half-Naked On Roof

Hicks was detained earlier in the day for breaking into a yard, but was released by the cops. It was fortunately for Rivera that the police were able to respond in only about 2 minutes to the trendy Venice Beach address. Hicks was in custody approximately 30 minutes after the incident's start. From photos, Hicks is a large, athletically built man, and even unarmed, certainly posed a serious threat to the petite Rivera.   

A question to the Mad Moms: do you still demand that this woman, and millions like her, be disarmed in the face of an immediate, overwhelming threat? Ms Rivera is lucky to live in a well-to-do, well policed area like Venice Beach and to have survived this assault. 

Many women aren't that lucky.  

HT: Fox News

BREAKING! NPR: Holder To Resign Today

AG Eric Holder
(theatlantic.com)

Eric Holder To Step Down As Attorney General

Good Riddance. He was/is a highly polarizing figure and no friend to the Rights community or the Rule of Law.

However, the timing is interesting: done now in order to get a controversial replacement through the Senate while the Democrats still control? If so, the mind recoils at who will be put in his place. Hard leftist California Attorney General Kamala Harris? Or another close to Obama? Could Holder be leaving for his rumored, long-desired judicial appointment - again to be confirmed by a still compliant Senate?    

Did he jump -- or was he pushed? 

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.

True Believers Confronted By Truth

While this link isn't gun related per say, it does examine the fanatics that compose the activist core of the climate change movement. It's a story of true believers confronted by those inconvenient truths known as facts. The result is often increased levels of rhetoric, emotion, hysterics, demonstrations and sometimes violence. In their need to triumph, the true believers will say and do anything, including outright lying and making even crazier demands.

The Crumbling Climate-Change Consensus
Extremists’ rhetoric heats up as their case falls apart. 
  
And Then They Came For The Bolt-Actions

Congressional Candidate Just Wished Ebola on NRA

Now does it sound gun related? I give you the Brady Bunch, Bloomby, SCGV, the Mad Moms, etc. You can't ignore the politicians, however, they're apt to be just mercenary.
  

Click to Imbiginate   (obamacartoon.blogspot.com)

And it's from John Fund.  Come on, John Fund...


Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.
     George Santayana

HT: NRO, Mark Vanderberg and Bob Owens