More anti-gun strangeness. The anti-gun media salivates over the thought that a gun enthusiast might be trying to kill President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, et. al. with ricin…until it is discovered that the suspect’s estranged (and just plain strange) wife is the culprit. And whaddaya know, there are indications that she’s vehemently anti-gun. See here: http://weaponsman.com/?p=9018&utm_source=feedly
Meanwhile, an avowed anti-gunner decides that she will arm herself, using all deliberate ignorance and irresponsibility, in hopes of showing that knowledgeable and responsible gun-wearers must be as ignorant and irresponsible as she. Follow the continuing saga of stupidity here: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/06/12/my-month-with-a-gun-week-one/
I haven’t checked the new DSM-5 to see if they’ve categorized neurofeces (shit for brains). However, we seem to already have a couple of poster children for a prevention campaign.
When I was young, most states had a provision for an ordinary law-abiding citizen to get a permit to carry a concealed and loaded handgun in public, but the issuing of the permit was discretionary to the issuing authority. In many jurisdictions, this “may issue” situation became a code phrase for “we’ll issue you the permit if you’re white, male, rich, and politically connected.” Fewer states were “shall issue,” making it mandatory for the authorities to grant the permit to anyone who applied unless those authorities could show that the applicant was a convicted felon or had been adjudicated mentally incompetent. Only a single state, Vermont, allowed the citizen who was neither a confirmed felon or mental patient to carry without a permit.
And seven states had no provision at all for carrying a gun in public to protect self and family.
Over the last twenty years, things changed profoundly for the better. The great majority of states moved from “may issue” to the egalitarian “shall issue” format. Vermont was joined by three other states in eliminating the permit requirement. And, one by one, those “no-permit” states fell. Wisconsin had been the most recent. Only Illinois was left with nothing in its law to allow the good citizen to carry.
That appears to have changed this week, thanks to a lawsuit brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and a mandate by Federal judge Richard Posner. Leading the fight on the ground in Lincolnland was ISRA, the Illinois State Rifle Association, one of the great grassroots state-level organizations devoted to gun owners’ civil rights. There is much yet to be worked out, and ISRA’s official position on the matter can be found here. http://www.isra.org/
Now awaiting the signature of a spectacularly anti-gun governor, the new bill will establish shall-issue concealed carry in Illinois, the permits to be issued by the Illinois State Police. The bill is, in many ways, less than ideal from the viewpoint of hard-core gun owners’ rights activists, but it’s a huge improvement over the previous situation. When the prohibitionists scream about it as loudly as they’re screaming right now, it’s proof positive of a victory for gun owners’ civil rights.
Stay tuned for how it shakes out as to the fine points. We’re not winning on every front – witness recent Draconian legislation in California – but concealed carry in Illinois can’t be seen as anything but a huge, landmark victory. Thanks to all who made it happen. I hope to go to Illinois soon to raise an adult beverage in a victory toast to those who fought the good fight…and I hope to hear blog commentary on the matter, particularly from our Illinois readers.
The pundits say that gun owners are a smaller-than-ever minority, and that a majority of American homes are “gun-free.” (I hate that phrase, “gun-free.” No, guns are not vermin. Anything which sounds that helpless as “gun-free” can’t be A Good Thing.)
Let’s look at some recent statistics, though. The National Shooting Sports Foundation reports their recent survey of gun dealers that in 2012, about 25% of their sales were to first-time gun owners.
My friend and colleague Dave Workman – such a solid resource that I find myself linking to his stuff more often in this blog than any other source – observes that some 15,000 new concealed carry permits were processed last month in his home state of Washington alone. The list of permit holders increased by more than 60,000 there since May of 2012. http://www.examiner.com/article/cpl-figure-skyrockets-15k-a-single-month.
Brother Workman quotes another outstanding source of solid information, Howard Nemerov of PJ Media, who in turn cites a recent Gallup poll showing that 47% of American adults have firearms at home. http://www.examiner.com/article/waning-gun-culture-u-s-may-be-myth?cid=db_articles . Sounds like a pretty substantial “minority” to me.
Obviously, density of gun ownership is a regional thing. You’ll have fewer guns in Manhattan high-rises, and more in rural farmhouses and on Western ranches, where guns are working tools as well as self-defense implements.
And, let us not forget, a whole lot of folks don’t want to tell strangers that they have guns, whether or not the stranger has identified himself or herself as a pollster. The media has, for decades, stigmatized gun owners. Besides, who wants to announce having in their house one of the very few things besides prescription drugs that thieves can peddle in the underworld for more than their intrinsic value, instead of pennies on the dollar?
We aren’t an overwhelming national majority, but we sure aren’t the weak and fading shadow the Prohibitionists wish we were.
Dave Workman ( left), Mas (center) and Tom Gresham (right) show how anti-gun media reacts to statistics favoring gun owners.
The National Rifle Association’s annual meeting is underway in Houston as I write this. The national media is still claiming that 90% of Americans wanted the flawed Universal Background Check to pass last month. Let’s talk about voting with your feet. 70,000 NRA members are expected to be in attendance before the three-day event is done, and according to reports, only about six anti-gun people showed up to protest. I’m told that they stood on a sidewalk, reading aloud the names of murder victims.
I’m not sure what they thought that had to do with 70,000 Americans who arm themselves against the sort of criminals who commit murder, and fight for the right of other law-abiding citizens to also be able to defend themselves against murderers. I doubt that the six protesters could have explained it coherently, themselves.
The mainstream media claims a majority of NRA members were in favor of the background checks. Make that suggestion at the conference center in Houston this weekend, and you’ll hope you brought some hearing protection: the collective mocking laughter of that many people can get awfully loud.
Before anyone blames every Democrat everywhere for their party’s aggression against guns owners’ civil rights, we should remember that there are many Democrats who have a more realistic grasp of things.
