The LA Times editorial board is apparently about as smart as a box of rocks. And they molest children.

See, I have no facts to back up those assertions I just know they must be true. What? You mean that’s uncalled for? Kinda silly? Perhaps even libelous? You’re damn skippy it is. But that’s they way I would write stuff if I took a lesson from the LA Times editorial board, who in a piece ironically entitled Deadly, Intentional Ignorance on Guns, write:

TWO YEARS AGO THIS MONTH, the federal ban on assault weapons expired. Since then, sales of such weapons have almost certainly increased, and the number of crimes in which they have been used has undoubtedly risen. Unfortunately, there’s no way to know for sure. That’s because the public and law enforcement agencies no longer have access to information they could routinely get just a few years ago.

There’s plenty of ways to know. Try reading the newspaper. Or try doing some research. The facts are these weapons were used in a ridiculously low percentage of crimes before, during and now after the ban. Or, you know, you could just sit down and make stuff up, which is what the LA times did.

And the last sentence is a lie as well. Law enforcement still has access to gun information when the information is related directly to a crime. To be honest, I don’t know that the public ever had access to the information. And that information wouldn’t tell you how many previously banned weapons were used in crimes.

Terry Frank on gay marriage:

The Professor is right. Gay marriage won’t affect my marriage at all. But he knows better than to act as if that will be the only fallout.

Ayup. But

It’s naive and disingenuous to state that teaching children in direct opposition to their parents beliefs is and will not be a potential problem. And given that school choice is nearly unanimously denied across this nation, I don’t see how the argument is ignored.

I didn’t know they taught gay marriage in school. And, if they do, it’s rather the parents’ job to discuss such complex issues with their kids.

On jury nullification:

Assume you’re a juror in a criminal case where you think the defendant is clearly guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — but you also believe that a conviction would be unjust. Maybe you disagree with the law on its face; maybe you just disagree with its application in this particular case. For whatever reason, a conviction is clearly the legally correct thing to do, but it might bother your conscience.

Would you ever convict in such a situation?

No. And he asks:

If your answer is that you would never convict in such a situation, then what would you do if faced with a choice between your conscience and the rule of law?

Conscience wins everytime. Sticking to the rule of law when your conscience says otherwise is for bureaucrats. The I was just following orders defense doesn’t cut it.

I went looking for an example and found one pretty quickly. Here:

a petty criminal has been sentenced to 30 years for selling $20 worth of marijuana.

Sure, I could vote on a jury that, yes, he is guilty of selling a teeny amount of marijuana. But if I knew he would get 30 years, no way in Hell. Even if it’s his 12th strike. That punishment seems so cruel and unusual.

Of course, I’d be unlikely to convict for any sort of victimless crime.

Update: that was quick, here’s another:

Since when did taking $15 worth of produce from a garbage can become a felony. Two members of the Rainbow Family were given 6 months in jail for stealing food from a dumpster behind a grocery store.

It’s almost like it happens all the time.

Knoxnews:

An 8-year-old boy was hospitalized Saturday afternoon after he was shot by a neighbor who said he was trying to scare off some dogs, according to the Blount County Sheriff’s Office.

Rule four: Be sure of your target, and what is behind it.

Foxnews:

Gunman Kills Tourist, Wounds Six Others in Jordan

In other news, Jordan gets tourists?

The Geek answers that question:

Blogs are the 21st century equivalent of the town tavern, where people go to discuss and argue the events of the day. They are the people’s electric soapboxes.

They are democratic, in that anyone with a computer and an account can join, and they are meritocratic, as your readership and reputation are directly proportional to the quality of your thought, the validity of your arguments, and the correctness of your facts.

Shams, fakes, mistaken facts and weak arguments are exposed by Readers and other bloggers pretty quickly, and often without mercy.

They are a force for political change, in that people with like interests can draw together to propose, accept, and act upon a plan. It is also a vehicle for forming a concensus within and among various factions.

There’s more.

CCA says they have some Wolf 7.62X39 ammo in. I still have a case somewhere but you might need some.

Dianne Feinstein Memorial Assault Shotgun. Heh.

Over at The Gun Blogs, AIM_SMALL_MISS_SMALL looks at Building a Grand Strategy for Restoring the 2nd Amendment.

The AP:

Steve Irwin, the hugely popular Australian television personality and conservationist known as the “Crocodile Hunter,” was killed Monday by a stingray while filming off the Great Barrier Reef. He was 44.

Crikey. He had an interesting life and a good show. So long, Steve.

Go Vols.

Past coverage here. Kevin has the latest:

They can come in, steal your property, show no I.D., use a warrant that is so secret that the Sheriff could not see it, charge you with no crime, and then tell you, “we are keeping your property, and we will give/sell it to whomever we want.” If they do charge me (up to 5 years from now), and I win, will I get back my property that they sold/gave away to someone 5 years earlier? What do you think?

Remember, KT was raided. To date, no charges have been filed against them.

Haven’t had the meaning of the second amendment debate in a while? Well, go here. Via Jeff, who says she’s trying to defend the Second Amendment against some of her commenters. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to go help her out. Be logical and reasonable.

The Boston Herald:

U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan, who has been heading the federal criminal probe into the fatal Big Dig tunnel collapse, was tapped by President George W. Bush yesterday as acting director of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Sullivan, in Washington yesterday for the announcement, will not step down as U.S. Attorney when he assumes the new position heading the ATF, the agency charged with investigating and preventing illegal possession and trafficking of firearms, explosives, alcohol and tobacco.

Spokeswoman Christina DiIorio-Sterling said Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Loucks “will act on (Sullivan’s) behalf” in Massachusetts while he takes on his new role in Washington.

…

In a statement, Sullivan said he was “excited about the challenges that lie ahead, and committed to fulfill the trust reflected in my appointment.”

“It is certainly an honor to be afforded the opportunity to work with the men and women law enforcement professionals of the Bureau, an agency that is known for its excellence and integrity,” Sullivan’s statement said.

Excellence and integrity? Would that be the flip-flops that endanger otherwise lawful gun owners; the squandered tax dollars; the kitten stomping; or agents testifying that the registry of NFA weapons is seriously deficient that you find excellent?

Here’s Sullivan’s bio.

Update: David Hardy:

I know nothing of him, but anyone interested in rising in MA politics is, for me, a source of worry in the firearms area.

Ayup.

Physical today. All fine, perfectly healthy. New doctor for me, seemed to be sharp. I had trouble looking him in the eye and having a conversation with him. I mean, how do you look a man in the eye who just took a long hard look at your pooper?

Microstamping doesn’t pass in the California house.

Dale Franks over at QandO bought himself an SKS. He also mounted a reflex sight on it, which I’ve never really seen on an SKS other than the side mounts. Looks sharp.

Not that I doubt the neo-libs are pro-gun, they just don’t seem to talk about it much.

Alright, Glenn Reynolds, we’re gonna fight. I’ve been plugging away at this blogging thing for, err, four years now. I don’t send you an email every time I post. In fact, I’ve probably only sent you about 10 or 15 emails total ever. And I do that when it’s something I think needs broad exposure. For example, I appreciate when you linked to my story on Barrett Rifles and media bias. I emailed you the link. Thanks. But most of the times you’ve linked here and driven some major traffic my way, it wasn’t because I asked you to (go ahead, search your email archives, I’ll wait) but because you saw it somewhere else. And I appreciate the 20 plus instalanches in my time blogging.

I don’t pester you. I don’t beg for the mighty insty link. In fact, barring some big to do, I don’t ask for links from anyone. I plug away, and my readers found me. But everytime I write something over at No Silence Here, you link to it. See, look.

Now, that’s cool and I appreciate being more widely read. But if you like me so much, would it kill you to read my blog. It’s here. You might find other stuff you like. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad you like what you see enough over at No Silence Here to link to it but if you’d throw a link to my blog regularly, that’d be good too. I mean, maybe your readers are also libertarian-leaning, gun nuts with a penchant for politically incorrect dogs. And, well, I have to clean some posts up on occasion so they’re palatable to the Knoxville News Sentinel. You’re denying your readers the full uncle. You even said before you should link to me more often.

And Michael Silence, being the smarty pants he is, thinks this is funny. He always thanks me for the Instalanche.

Crossposted at No Silence Here.

Seems a gun is cheaper and always there:

The Lowrance family is far too familiar with Memphis crime.

“The neighborhood we were in previously, we were broken into five to six times,” says Collie Lowrance. “And yeah, it frustrates me.”

So Lowrance decided to pay $75 a month to hire private security to patrol past his home in the Belle Meade section of East Memphis.

“If there’s a problem,” he says, “the security gets here very quickly. Much quicker than police usually.”

In response to my post on Law Enforcement Against Prohibition‘s apparent support for gun control (see here), Allison from LEAP writes:

LEAP is a single issue organization. Every board member and supporting member of LEAP agrees on one thing: the drug war has proved a dismal failure leaving us with one solution: legalized regulation of all illicit substances. While I understand that it is tempting to conflate Mr. Stamper’s or any other LEAP Speaker’s personal opinions on certain issues with his or her vocal role in LEAP as an opponent of the drug war, it must be understood that there is a very opaque line between the two.

If a LEAP Speaker brings up gun control during a LEAP presentation he or she would be speaking out of turn. Mr. Stamper’s comments did not take place in the context of a LEAP presentation and therefore LEAP is not responsible for his opinions. LEAP simply does not have one cohesive stance on gun control. The official position of LEAP on gun control is that we have no official position on gun control.

Regarding the allegation that Mr. Stamper used his role in LEAP to further an independent agenda:

In this particular instance Norm did not, as you charge “use the position accorded to him by LEAP” to state his opinion on gun control, rather the status and experience that he has gained based on his own work afforded him the opportunity to have this particular op-ed syndicated in many newspapers and journals. Norm Stamper is a prolific writer on myriad topics, many of which have nothing to do with drug prohibition.

Regarding the allegation that a representative of an organization in any official capacity, is – by association – a representative in many other facets. It’s not a 9-to-5 job: This claim cannot necessarily be contested or denied. Sure, practically, we associate someone’s views with the organizations that they belong to. We also see someone committed to a particular issue that we identify with and naturally assume that this person’s views on all issues coincide with our views.

People will congregate under one umbrella issue but their viewpoints on other issues are likely to vary or be entirely disparate. Drug policy is certainly an issue within which people will arrive at the same conclusion by following very distinct paths; libertarians, conservatives, anarchists, communists and liberals alike fall under the drug reform umbrella. Our speakers are not elected officials representing an electorate. They are former members of law enforcement who disagree with the drug war for various reasons. They are resolute in their stance that prohibition must end to improve the current situation. Their opinions on other issues simply are not the prerogative of LEAP.

The bottom line is whether or not you feel that one speaker’s personal stance on gun control is reason enough to refuse support for an organization with a goal of affecting a broad social and economic policy.

Gunner:

Now the kidnapping and murder is already illegal. Another simple law will not stop bad people.

What will is a nice jacketed hollow point fired from a .357 magnum at close range

Balko says he would deceive to be on a jury to nullify a law. Patterico says:

I have said I would support jury nullification in extremely rare and desperate situations, where the fabric of our society was falling apart and our laws were inconsistent with basic humanity. For example, I would not convict someone of helping a slave escape his master. If we somehow passed a law making it illegal to be Arab, or Jewish, or black, or Mexican, I would not convict someone for that “crime.”

and:

Lying your way onto a jury isn’t the right way to fight these battles.

Well, in the event you see one of these extremely rare and desperate situations, how would one get on the jury without deceiving? After all, they’d be asked about it?

Would you, being the good sort of civic minded person you are, lie to get on a jury to challenge an unjust law? Even if the case was not extremely rare and desperate?

That’s a sticky situation. Sacrifice one set of principles for another?

The NY Sun:

Mayor Bloomberg has been hit with another lawsuit in connection with his campaign to crack down on illegal guns.

A South Carolina gun dealer became the second storeowner to sue after Mr. Bloomberg targeted it a few months ago in an undercover sting operation designed to stymie illegal gun sales.

The lawsuit, filed in South Carolina, seeks damages and claims that the city smeared the storeowner’s reputation.

No mention in the Sun about whether or not there’s mention in the suit of allegations of law-breaking on the part of Bloomy’s investigators. Bob Barr’s suit addresses that:

Bloomberg conspired with others named in the lawsuit to deceive Adventure Outdoors in order to falsely and fraudulently purchase a firearm. By doing so, the conspirators falsified an ATF form which is a clear violation of federal and Georgia laws. Furthermore, Bloomberg then released misleading statements to national news media, which damaged the reputation and business of Adventure Outdoors in this scheme to defame and violate the law.

In his statement, Barr expressed his confidence in a successful outcome for Adventure Outdoors and further stated that “Mayor Bloomberg’s and the other players’ actions were careless, willful and clearly illegal.

David notes:

A second dealer has filed a counter-suit in his home state, a NY dealer they charged with criminal offenses had to be let off with disorderly conduct (in most states, about a minor a misdemeanor as they have), they seized guns from that dealer but had to return them, the city has settled with two on terms that have them audited by a special master (whom the city has to pay)… oh, and a third dealer now says he’s going to sue.

I’ve said before that:

And, by the way, California is one generation away from making all such weapons illegal:

Pursuant to California Penal Code section 12285(b), any person who obtains title to a registered assault weapon by bequest or intestate succession shall, within 90 days, render the weapon permanently inoperable, sell the weapon to a licensed gun dealer who has a permit from the Department of Justice to purchase assault weapons, obtain a permit from the Department of Justice to possess assault weapons, or remove the weapon from this state.

When someone with such a weapon dies, their heirs must destroy the weapon or sell it.

There is a willful effort in the state to disarm the law-abiding. Tam notes the recent efforts at microstamping serve to further that end:

With the passage of the “Microstamping” bill by the California state senate, gun ownership in California moves a microstep closer to death by a thousand cuts. The situation in the Granola State is a fascinating illustration on how civilian disarmament in this country could finally be effected.

Indeed. The good news:

California, seen as a progressive state by the victim disarmament crowd, is their test lab; the thin end of the wedge of laws they’d like to try elsewhere. Thus far it’s not working, not spreading to other states the way they’d like it to, but that doesn’t mean that gun owners elsewhere in America can stop watching that train wreck on the left coast; it contains lessons needed to stop our rights here from being derailed.

Sort of. This type stuff is big in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Illinois (well, OK, Chicago). Interesting times to be a gun owner.

Seems people keep falling for the American Hunters and Shooters Association. This organization is as pro-gun as the Brady Campaign and the Million err Eight Mom March.

All you gun-owners out there would be well-advised to let your pro-gun friends know that.