In an editorial that mirrors the Senate race in Connecticut, the NY Times today endorsed Ned Lamont in a piece centered on Lieberman’s failings. They mentioned Lamont’s views and abilities only in passing.

Lieberman’s main crime, according to the Times, is cooperating a little too enthusiastically with the Bush administration. There is too much complicity in his type of loyal opposition. More to the point, Lieberman has bought the Bush line that 9/11 can justify any government action or policy.

At this moment, with a Republican president intent on drastically expanding his powers with the support of the Republican House and Senate, it is critical that the minority party serve as a responsible, but vigorous, watchdog. That does not require shrillness or absolutism. But this is no time for a man with Mr. Lieberman’s ability to command Republicans’ attention to become their enabler, and embrace a role as the president’s defender.

…

If Mr. Lieberman had once stood up and taken the lead in saying that there were some places a president had no right to take his country even during a time of war, neither he nor this page would be where we are today. But by suggesting that there is no principled space for that kind of opposition, he has forfeited his role as a conscience of his party, and has forfeited our support.

No, I kid about that and it’s an inside blog joke. But . . .

The Tennessean endorsed Bob Corker, stating that he is an honest, energetic man. Now, The Tennessean says:

One of Bob Corker’s television ads in his campaign for the U.S. Senate is seriously misleading.

That’s bad, but the Corker campaign turned what should have been a one-day story into a character issue by sticking with the flawed assertion even after it was exposed.

Corker’s original ad claimed that both of his GOP opponents, Van Hilleary and Ed Bryant, voted while in Congress to increase their pay.

That’s not true.

The bill in question was the massive appropriations bill in 2000; Bryant and Hilleary both voted for it. But there was no language in the bill that increased congressional pay.

Jack McElroy, whose paper also endorsed Corky, goes a step further and calls it a lie.

I wonder if these papers will retract their endorsement? Of course not. Instead of lying, shouldn’t you be telling us why you’re more against abortion than your opponents are? Or maybe telling us why you’re different?

A couple of folks wondered where my link to them went. Well, a bit back, I went from using bloglines to manage my blogroll to WP’s links function. I may have missed some folks. If that’s you, sorry. Let me know.

So, apologies to American Drumslinger, with a nice gun rack (boobie warning – not safe for work) and Fugger, who has some pics of guns and gardening.

That quote is attributed to Memphis Police Public Information Officer Sgt. Vince Higgins. He supposedly said that to the press after an armed individual used his firearm to detain a man who had been stabbing people in a supermarket. Trouble is, he didn’t really say it:

… Sgt. Higgins was quoted completely out of context and not even quoted correctly.

I spoke with the Sarge the day after our Alert came out. He returned my call and was friendly and gracious. He had 15 years as a street cop in a nasty section of town and we swapped some stories on how departments and politics can screw things up and how reporters do a good job of screwing them up all the time.

Here’s what the Sarge really said and did. When the reporters gathered the Sarge took them through the motions of what happened and what Mr. Cobb, a CHP holder did. He praised Mr. Cobb as a genuine hero from start to finish saying he acted in a totally professional manner through-out the entire ordeal. He then continued to say that concealed permit holders were top notch and he’d rather have some of them “…..backing me up than some police officers I know”.

Now, I know you’re wondering where in the heck that reporter got that other part from. Here it comes. The reporter asked the Sarge what he thought of citizens jumping in to help. The Sarge said that he had no problem with permit holders but if it were someone who had no training with firearms, did not know the law and had just grabbed up a gun it might not be a good idea. Guess what the reporter grabbed up and ran with. Yellow journalism at its worst. Or, just what you would expect.

What media bias against guns?

Lots of out of state get Utah carry permits because they’re fairly simple to get and have reciprocity with many states. But Utah is picking up the tab for it:

Utah has become the nation’s bargain basement for permits to carry concealed guns. But it’s no bargain for Utah taxpayers.

As The Tribune reported last Sunday, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of permits issued to out-of-state residents. About 58 percent of the 16,000 projected applicants in 2006 do not live in Utah.

There are two problems with this.

First, the concealed-carry permit program does not pay for itself. The Utah Department of Public Safety, which issues the permits through the Bureau of Criminal Identification, must subsidize the program through other parts of its budget.

The program is expected to raise about $500,000 this year, but it will cost about $610,000. That understates the subsidy because the revenues are deposited in the state’s general fund, and the Legislature only appropriates about $88,000 to run the program.

Program supporters claim that it would be self-supporting if all of its revenues were dedicated to paying expenses. But it appears to us there still would be a shortfall.

Expect an increase in fees or for the permit.

Update: Jeff, who already covered it and I missed it, emails:

Actually, I covered this in last week’s Weekly Report and Cam Edwards & I discussed this on the air. The problem isn’t with the cost of the permits, the state collects over a half-million dollars from them and THAT is the problem: The permit fees go into the general treasury of the state. Then, Utah gives only a fraction of that back to the BCI (Bureau of Criminal Investigations) that actually processes the applications. If the application fees actually went to the BCI in the first place, the fee would (or could) drop to about $25 dollars!

Ok, then.

That’s an awful long way to go to get to a dick joke.

A lawsuit over the killing of several dogs is going forward.

A lawsuit will proceed in U.S. District Court on November 6 over a May 8, 2003 incident where Pennsylvania Constables Richard Seeds, 41, Greg Balliet and Vincent Stahl fired eleven shots killing two dogs and five puppies while serving an arrest warrant for unpaid parking tickets in an Allentown home

What is worth taking note of is the words of the law right before the shootings.

Judge James Knoll Gardner allowed the prosecution to let the jury know that just before the incident, Seeds told his colleagues, “I have to get something to eat or I am going to shoot somebody.”

An admission:

Federal law prohibits ATF from establishing “any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions and dispositions.” Instead, ATF relies upon federal firearms licensee (FFL) records to trace firearms recovered in crimes through its National Tracing Center. Inaccurate or incomplete record keeping makes the tracing of firearms involved in violent crimes virtually impossible.

Isn’t that pretty much a system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions and dispositions? Just asking.

Her statement on the recent prohibition of confiscating guns in an emergency:

While House leadership accuses the New Orleans police department of going door to door confiscating guns in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the superintendent of the department states that was not the case. Does anybody really believe that the New Orleans Police Department used its limited resources to harass gun-owners in the hours after the levees broke? Of course not. In the midst of looters and snipers taking aim at rescue workers, police arrested people who were breaking the law on the streets of New Orleans.

Crazy woman, I’ve seen the video. In fact, here it is:

Times Union:

One proven way to reduce urban crime is to choke off the supply of guns on the street.

Proven where? I’d like to see the source.

The carnival of cordite is up for your gun blogging fix.

Only the French would consider the presence of testosterone in a man’s system suspicious.

I mentioned it here that Gun Owners of America may have endorsed Ed Bryant. A little birdie emailed me the endorsement of Ed Bryant for US Senate by Gun Owners of America. So, consider it confirmed. Good.

If you use registration (like I do), you should turn it off. More here.

… he did what he considered to be the humane thing and beat them to death with a hammer.

Alrighty, then.

Barry:

On the side of the road I noticed a campaign sign for Sheriff Tim Hutchison that said “For Safer Neighborhoods”. Nothing unusual in and of itself, but then I thought…shouldn’t they be about as safe as you can make them by now? Sheriff, you’ve been in office for, like, 16 years. Are you implying that you haven’t gotten around to it yet, but if we reelect you, you’ll now get to work on making our neighborhoods safer?

Heh.

Kim is looking to move and he has criteria that are important to him. Go help him out. A commenter there noted a website called Find Your Spot. You enter your info (including political, weather, economic) and it tells you a place that fits the bill. Turns out, it recommended to me the town that I already live in. The city (my the city) of Maryville, TN. Cool.

ABC 7:

The state’s highest court has ruled that Marylanders can lend a gun to a friend without going through the seven-day waiting period and background check required by state law before guns can be transferred or sold to a new owner.

The Court of Appeals, in a 4-3 decision, said lending a gun to another person does not constitute “transfer” of a weapon and therefore is not covered by the gun control law dealing with the waiting period and police background checks of potential buyers.

The ruling came in an appeal filed by a District of Columbia police officer who had lent a handgun to a friend. The friend’s guns had been confiscated by police because he had a Glock pistol in his car but did not have a permit to carry it. The officer was convicted in 2003 of illegally transferring a regulated firearm and was fined 200 dollars.

The Court of Special Appeals had upheld the conviction, but the majority of the state’s highest court disagreed and overturned the conviction.

I’m shocked that the vote was close. But, it is Maryland.

Friend of mine: So, what’d you and the Mrs. do on your vacation?

Me: We went on a booze cruise.

Friend of mine: What is that like a Japanese children’s show?

Bug out bag, for those not in the know.

Seems that talk of survival kits and emergency supplies are all the rage these days. Insty, Les and Kim chime in. I’m surprised Glenn doesn’t mention firearms and that Kim only takes a 22 rifle and handgun. A firearm is important, I think. If the SHTF, then you’ll need to protect all the stuff you worked hard to prepare. After all, you don’t want some schmuck like me using his AR-15 to take your crap.

Update: This topic seems to come up on the blogs every once in a while. Must be something in the water.

Denise says something oughta be done:

As Lott and Bane point out, we can no longer buy guns in Wal-Mart or other stores. I remember when a trip to Sears involved a good look at their guns. That’s a thing of the past.

Now, I’m not saying that Wal-Mart or Sears are the best places to buy guns. They’re not–Support your local gun shop and all. But we’ve lost a time when guns were common, ordinary tools to where they’ve become mythologized and demonized.

Michael Bane has more. It is hard to be in the gun business (believe me, I’ve thought about it – too much hassle). Regulations get in the way and, until recently, the threat of being financially ruined through litigation was a major concern.

it’s what’s for dinner.

At Google Watch:

Federal agents requested and retrieved records from Google concerning a Gmail account that contained threatening speech, Google Watch has learned.

The agents requested the records on June 22nd, 2006 after the National Association of Colored People (NAACP) notified the FBI they had received a threatening e-mail.

It’s not like I didn’t know that was going on as I’m pretty sure the feds snooped in mine recently. But I have to say that, in this case, there’s no foul. Google was served a warrant and they complied with it.

B4B says:

I just learned that on July 26, 2006, the Gun Owners of America (via their GOA Political Victory Fund) announced their endorsement of Ed for the U.S. Senate.

Rob Huddleston says:

I have been informed that Gun Owners of America, in a letter from the Gun Owners of America Politiical Victory Fund Vice President Tim Macy, has endorsed Ed Bryant in both the GOP primary and the General Election against Harold Ford, Jr. in November.

It’s significant because the GOA is the hardcore pro-gun group. They don’t cater to only the Fudds like the NRA. I can’t find any info about the endorsement on GOA’s site. They did endorse Bryant in 2002 so I’d say it’s a safe bet they did. I also notice they gave Ford an F ranking.

Nate Anderson:

The case made its way to a Nevada court, which found Romm guilty. An appeal of the case went to the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, which was charged with deciding an important issue: can border patrol agents search laptops without a warrant and without probable cause? The court’s ruling was handed down on Monday, and said that yes, agents can search laptops for any reason.

The court argued that the forensic analysis fell under the “border search exception to the warrant requirement.” This exception was established by United States v. Montoya de Hernandez in 1985, and says that “the government may conduct routine searches of persons entering the United States without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or a warrant.” The court goes on to note that international airports count as border terminals, even if not physically located on a US border.

Hats off to Charleston Daily Mail’s reporter Justin Anderson who writes:

On the Fourth of July, Raleigh County Sheriff’s deputies killed a man they said was shooting an “AK-47” off in his neighborhood.

Four years ago, police said a man walked into a Kanawha County school board meeting and shot a teacher with one.

But when police talk about a suspect wielding, possessing or shooting a so-called AK-47, it isn’t the World War II-era Soviet machine gun.

The gun that hits the news is typically a semi-automatic replica. You can buy them from licensed gun shops with a fistful of cash and a relatively clean criminal background.

The original AK-47s, and variations on the originals, are fully automatic and can’t be bought from just any gun shop like their civilian counterparts.

At least one expert estimates West Virginia collectors own only a handful of the originals. They have to be registered with the federal government.

Gun manufacturers trying to capitalize on the true AK-47’s mystique churn out the replicas.

But there’s no reason to fear a proliferation of so-called assault weapons in West Virginia. Even the replicas are rarely used in state gun crimes.

I’ve said all that a thousand times. Good to see someone in the press try to clarify. I am speechless.

Gun laws don’t stop illegal possession of guns. The AP:

Investigators seized 100 firearms including assault rifles, machine guns [there’s no difference in the eyes of the law – ed.] and a grenade launcher from homes of two men with previous weapons convictions, authorities said Thursday.

It was unclear how the pair had acquired the weapons, Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota said, calling the collection of firepower “a police officer’s worst nightmare.”

Somehow, this will be blamed on rogue gun dealers even though the sale of those three items by gun dealers to civilians is illegal. And I’m sure the other firearms were obtained illegally as well. More:

Acompora’s attorney, Frank Panetta, declined to comment on the specific charges, but said his client has cooperated with investigators and did not believe he was doing anything wrong. Prosecutors did not immediately have information on who represents Brozski.

Acompora was released on $5,000 bail and was due back in court on Friday. Brozski was released on his own recognizance and was due back in court on Aug. 9.

A while back, I wrote about some Illinois police officers with illegal guns and how the police were like you and me only better. Well, one of the guys plead guilty:

Illinois State Police trooper Gregory Mugge pleaded guilty to one charge of possessing an unregistered machine gun in federal court on Tuesday, according to an announcement from the U.S. attorney’s office.

Mugge, 52, of Jerseyville, was indicted in January, along with Illinois State Police Sgt. James Vest, 39, of O’Fallon, and John Yard, 36, an Illinois State Police special agent assigned to the Collinsville office, each face separate charges of illegal gun possession.

Mugge faces up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000 and a maximum three years of supervised release.

His sentencing is in October. Twelve local police chiefs and sheriffs, and two state senators asked to give him administrative punishment instead of prosecution. I doubt they’d extend such a courtesy to me or you.

Doug Black. Mr. Black pulls some real whoppers:

New York City suffers hundreds of gun-related deaths each year, but some weapon manufacturers are bent on boosting the toll in 2006.

But carrying guns is already illegal in NYC, unless you’re well-connected or famous.

And if the last week is any indication, the city’s murder enthusiasts had a lot to be thankful for.

Ah, hateful rhetoric. The mark of any clear thinker.

three men were found in possession of “cop-killer” handguns that are specially engineered to penetrate the protective body armor of police officers.

Er, handguns don’t penetrate anything. The ammo does. The armor piercing ammo for this gun is already illegal for civilian ownership.

While the lives of our friends and neighbors are doubtlessly valuable, you have to sympathize with our nation’s beleaguered artillery merchants. These days, it’s getting harder and harder to make an honest buck selling killing machines.

Feel free to E-Mail the Editor.

I am in the process of filling out ATF Form 1, Application to Make and Register a Firearm so that I can turn El Nino into a short barreled rifle. One question on the form is:

State why you intend to make firearm

As such, I present to you the top 10 answers I considered for that question:

10 So it will fit in a pizza box
9 For the hell of it
8 Because I collect tax stamps
7 Because it looks cool
6 To defend against invaders
5 To make Diane Feinstein cry
4 So an angel will get its wings
3 To compensate for the size of my penis
2 To annoy my wife
1 Actually, the real reason I put on there is For any and all lawful purposes.