Think the Democrats Won’t Take Your Guns? Think Again.

Wayne LaPierre (who has fixed the picture issue) notes that:

In Jackson, Mississippi, Mayor Frank Melton is scheduled to go on trial for illegally carrying his concealed firearm inside a church, a school, and a park.

…

Melton was one of the first mayors to sign up with Bloomberg’s anti-gun group, and he followed his meeting at Gracie Mansion with a call to ban all gun shows in Jackson.

I guess that’s enough to keep him in Bloomberg’s good graces, because as of this writing, he’s still on the list of mayors fighting for New York-style gun-control laws… even in Mississippi.

Yeah, what happened?

Mr. Completely made one out of a Taurus.

Top 10 battle rifles.

Rog has been doing a series on Conservative Persons and Accomplishments Appreciation Week. It’s quite funny. Federal spending, Schiavo, and The Internet Gambling Law. I have to confess, I had difficulty getting past the pics of the cheerleaders but once you do, good stuff.

Those whacky conservatives. They get in power and abandon, well, nearly everything they stand for, except the God and gay-cooties-hating stuff. My nominee for a future Conservative Persons and Accomplishments Appreciation Week: Bush’s broken veto pen. It shows up only once to say no to stem cell research funding? Feh. Maybe it will wake up for the next two years.

Over at Knoxviews, Lumpy responds in comments about the gun safety issues:

Hi this is Greg “LUMPY” Lambert I don’t usually post here but I decided to address some of the issues that have come up. The video clip of me drawing the firearm was staged. My weapon was unloaded and the clip was removed. The reporter asked if I could show her what happened using the gun as a prop, I unloaded the firearm and showed her and the camera man how to determine that a gun is unloaded.

Pointing even unloaded firearms at something you don’t intend to shoot in an unsafe practice and should not be done under normal circumstances, however firearms are often used as props. When using a firearm, as a prop normal safety rules don’t apply, in this situation the gun was unloaded and checked immediately before the footage was taped.

If something ongoing were being produced (like a movie or TV show) an air soft (realistic toy) gun would be used or the weapon would have been permanently modified so that it could not chamber a live round. In the case of a short one-time sequence like the footage for the news story often a real weapon (usually the actual weapon used in the events that are being recreated) are used but it is absolutely essential that the weapon be checked and rechecked to keep accidents from happening.

So says everyone. From Fark, some campaign posters:

South Africa, a country still struggling to shed its legacy of discrimination, has taken a huge step toward ending marriage discrimination. The SA Parliament overwhelmingly voted for something akin to full and equal marriage rights. South Africa joins Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, and Spain as countries that have equal access to marriage.

The new law offers something something slightly less than equality in that government officials can refuse to marry same-sex couples “on the basis of conscience”. This bigot’s loophole will be challenged in court, and under South Africa’s very progressive constitution, the error will hopefully be remedied quickly.

“We can’t be in the situation where civil officers can decide who they want to marry and who they don’t want to marry,” she said. “They aren’t able to refuse to marry a black person and a white person. This is unconstitutional.”

Congrats to South Africa! Let’s hope they finish the job soon!

In comments here, Countertop says:

Just had a long leisurely lunch today with a former high ranking Clinton Administration official and long time Friend of Bill from Arkansas (who works as an outside consultant for one of my clients). There were less than half a dozen of us sitting at the table at the Capital Grill gaming out possibilities over the next two years for moving legislation and the difficult minefields we have to walk through. Someone brought up the subject of Pelosi keeping her troops in line – and I mentioned the gun control agenda and calls for a renewed AWB. This guy, fell off his seat and said thats the most toxic issue a democrat could touch and as far as he (and presumably the Clintons) were concerned they (specifically including Nancy Pelosi who is a smart smart politiican) are smart enough not to touch that third rail.

He compared it to the stem cell blunder Republicans made in Missouri and thought that they (gun banners) would have to fight even to get face time with Pelosi (much less Harry Reid who could lose his majority to defections over the issue).

To further press his point – Harold Ford Jr. walked by – and he simply said Tester, Webb, and Ford. No one would have imagined their success this election – and if gun control were an issue in any of the races, Reid would be in the minority.

I just report it as I hear it.

Don’t let your guard down, but don’t get too worried

Since the local press is All Lumpy All The Time, it’s no surprise that the inevitable bit about carry permits pops up. That’s a fine and noble cause until you start giving people misinformation that can get them arrested or killed. WATE’s Kristin Farley did just that in this piece. So, annotated with Uncle’s corrections (bear in mind, Uncle is no lawyer):

If you choose to carry a gun for protection, there are some places that are off-limits while you’re armed. Those include buildings where alcohol is sold and served, all courtrooms, school campuses, public parks and playgrounds.

Unless you’re a handgun carry permit holder or are transporting the firearm, all places are off-limits. If you choose to carry a gun for protection, you must first obtain a handgun carry permit. This includes taking a training course, passing a background check, and paying a $150 fee.

As for self-defense laws, the state of Tennessee says you are justified in threatening or using force against someone when you believe your life is in immediate danger from that person.

Actually, your life or the life of another are both justification for the use of force.

If you’re inside your home, you have increased protection under the law. That means, you’re justified in using deadly force, even if the perpetrator isn’t armed.

The perpetrator being armed is irrelevant. What matters is that you’re in fear of great bodily harm to you or others. For example, if a 6 feet, six inch tall 320 pound man is threatening severe bodily harm to a 5 feet, 2 inch 90 pound woman, use of force is justified.

But in the case of the attempted robbery at Knox County Commissioner Greg “Lumpy” Lambert’s car dealership, increased protection goes away.

No, it doesn’t. A place of business is neither more nor less special than a home.

Legally, Lambert could only use his gun if the suspect had one, too. And in that case, he did.

Err, wrong. If Lambert was in fear of his life or the threat of severe bodily harm, use of force is justified. For example, if the young man had grabbed a baseball bat or was easily capable of overpowering Mr. Lambert physically, use of force is justified.

WATE has done a disservice with this report and it could cost someone dearly. I hope that they correct this error.

Update: One I missed. In comments, Rustmeister notes that the report errs when it says off-limits places include where alcohol is sold. Actually, it’s where alcohol is sold for on-site consumption (i.e., grocery store that sells beer is OK, whereas Hooters is not).

Meanwhile, at WATE’s message board is exactly why a correction is needed:

Kristin Farley’s article about how to legally protect yourself is amazing to me! As a Wisconsin citizen whose right to security and defense is illegally being restricted by our state governor and being endorsed by the local media, it is very refreshing to see that other parts of America live free.

I hope you folks down there appreciate that even your media understands that presonal (sic) protection is a right guarenteed (sic) by the Constitution and not a privilege granted by law.

If a reader is registered there, they may want to let this person know.

Update 2: Heh. I get it wrong too. In comments, Kevin says:

Now, I am not a lawyer, but as a Tennessee permit holder I feel the need to clarify a few things. (Assuming the law hasn’t change in the two years since I took my permit course)

If you’re inside your home, you have increased protection under the law. That means, you’re justified in using deadly force, even if the perpetrator isn’t armed.

The perpetrator being armed is irrelevant. What matters is that you’re in fear of great bodily harm to you or others. For example, if a 6 feet, six inch tall 320 pound man is threatening severe bodily harm to a 5 feet, 2 inch 90 pound woman, use of force is justified.

Actually, if you’re inside your home you are always justified in using deadly force against an intruder. The act of illegally entering a home creates the presumption that you intend to commit serious bodily injured to the occupants.

But in the case of the attempted robbery at Knox County Commissioner Greg “Lumpy” Lambert’s car dealership, increased protection goes away.

No, it doesn’t. A place of business is neither more nor less special than a home.

No. A business is less special than a home. As above, any illegal entrance into a home creates the legal presumption that you are there to cause serious bodily injury to the occupants, therefore use of deadly force is always justified against intruders. In a place of business there has to be a threat of serious bodily injury before deadly force is justified.

Not meaning to pick a nit with the any of the above, but I think it’s important to get this stuff exactly right.

Uncle says: Indeed it is and corrects his error.

In comments here, Sebastion says of the recent Democrat take over:

I am not optimistic. I’d really like to believe this wasn’t a total disaster, but the party is still run by the loons. Here’s what I think is going to happen:

Bush will accept virtually the entire democratic agenda in exchange for the Democrats agreeing to a compromise in Iraq that is less than the “cut and run” they need to really placate their base.

There will be an attempt, a serious attempt, to pass another assault weapons ban in 2007. Probably as an amendment to a bill the Republicans really need to pass. Whether it does pass or not is another story. The new ban will not have a sunset clause and will include 50 caliber rifles. I think we’ll be lucky to get a ban identical to the old one.

There is no chance at all of passing any pro-gun legislation through Congress for the foreseeable future.

Democrats will block any sufficiently conservative candidates for the courts that would uphold the second amendment.
After the assault weapons ban, expect them to try for something else.

Democrats will begin to lose in areas they’ve gained grounds, but the damage will be done. Don’t forget a Republican congress was unable to repeal the assault weapons ban in 1996. Once it’s in there, it’s not coming out.

I think it’s a disaster, and we’re going to be on the defensive for the foreseeable future. We need to be organized, we need to care, and we need to join the NRA. Whether you like it or not, think they suck or not, they are the organization that makes the politicians pay attention. No one else has their clout in Washington.

Over at the gun blogs, another militia type intentionally got arrested for making machine guns specifically to challenge the law:

This is a very important episode in the war on guns and in the fight for our freedoms. Wayne Fincher is a Lieutenant Commander in the Militia of Washington County, a legally organized militia under the laws of Arkansas. They have manufactured several machine guns from demilled weapons and have petitioned the state of Arkansas for protections guarenteed by both state and federal constitutions.

[…]

This arrest of Lt. Commander Wayne Fincher could be the beginning of the overturning of United States vs. Miller . This group has done everything above board and within the constitution. They have informed the State of Arkansas of all their actions and expected this arrest.

Could be a case to watch. I wonder why it’s always the militia sorts that do this sort of thing. The man who was arrested has a spotless record too. Could be interesting.

Massachusetts has spent considerable time and energy blaming its crime on guns obtained in New Hampshire. Odd how New Hampshire doesn’t have the same crime problem. Anyhoo, New Hampshire fires back noting that:

NH says Mass. putting police in danger

The lax approach Massachusetts takes to entering its violent felony and serious offender warrants into the FBI’s national computerized database endangers New Hampshire police officers who encounter these fugitives on the streets with no way of knowing their background.

Radley has a rundown of some more botched police raids and other police abuse.

That’s pretty fuckin’ funny:

Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: To head into the army recruiting office so he could fight in Iraq. Oh, wait. I told that wrong. I forgot to say the chicken was retarded.

Late for Dinner asks what’s wrong with this picture. Yes, some gun safety violations. But speaking of Lumpy, Betty Bean notes his impeccable taste in 380s:

The hapless holdup man, whom Lambert said looked to be about 19, had walked up to the car lot around 1 p.m. saying he wanted to buy a car. He had his eye on a 2005 Ford Focus priced at $10,000 and asked for a test drive. When Lambert went out to his own car to retrieve a dealer’s tag, he said something told him to open the console and retrieve his own gun – a Keltec .380 that he has a permit to carry.

I love my Kel-Tec. Actually, Betty, you don’t have a permit to carry a specific gun. Just a permit to carry a gun. Any handgun but a machine gun, if I recall correctly.

That said, second-guessing Lumpy’s situation is likely unfair and the Beanster points out that:

Lumpy got snookered by whoever did that Channel 6 story — he trusted them to be fair and he allowed himself to be talked into re-enacting the attempted hold-up. In return, they ran a still shot that makes him look like a demented freak instead of a victim. Lumpy would be better off if he were a little less trusting, a little less willing to accommodate those who would set him up.

Oooh, Siggy.

The AP:

Adkins said Justice and King likely were killed by the same weapon, a .22-caliber shotgun.

Dear Schree,

The election was last week. I notice that everyone else has removed their campaign signs from around the area where I work. Yours are still there. They’re kind of an eyesore and remind me of the horrible campaign season that seemed to go on for a decade.

Please send someone to remove them.

Thank you,

SayUncle

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership has gone to a blog format. Here’s a post on spinning the elections:

The gun lobby’s spin operation in the wake of its sizable defeats last Tuesday is literally unbelievable. How, for example, can George Will say during the Sunday morning roundtable discussion on the Stephanopoulos show that the NRA was a “winner” when they lost over 82 percent of the 46 called races where their endorsed candidates ran against candidates endorsed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence?

Well, the gun lobby hasn’t said that, to my knowledge. In fact, they’re quite down on it. The anti-gun lobby, of course, is spinning it like crazy even though it’s not great for them either.

I’ve not tried to leave a comment yet but I’d guess they’re heavily moderated. They don’t want any truth getting out.

Kopel:

Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi has endorsed John Murtha for Majority Leader, according to The Hill. Murtha is a a southwestern Pennsylvania Democrat with a long-standing A rating from the National Rifle Association. Hoyer is a Maryland Democrat, with a long-standing and well-deserved F rating, although he has sometimes worked to procure federal military contracts for Beretta USA, a firearms manufacturer in his district.

Who would rather elect a dead person than a Democrat. Heh.

Cam says the congress isn’t as pro-gun as we thought:

Just going down the list, I’d have to disagree with his assessment of Carper in Delaware. Countertop says he’s in the middle, but NRA gave him an “F” (as did GOA). Countertop says Florida’s Bill Nelson’s in the middle, but the NRA and GOA both gave him an “F” as well. Same for Tom Harkin in Iowa and Amy Klobuchar in MN. In fact, don’t even get me started with Klobuchar.

Countertop also says Missouri’s Claire McCaskill’s a pro-gun candidate, and I have no idea where that came from. She was rated “F” by both NRA and GOA, she opposed concealed carry in Missouri (as Klobuchar did in Minnesota), and supports renewing the Clinton Gun Ban. Maybe she turns out to vote with gun owners, but there’s nothing in her past that would indicate that’s going to be the case.

Miss any gun news last week? GLN rounds it up.

Xrlq takes me to task for calling Missouri Senator-elect Claire McCaskill “not that pro-gun”, noting her F from the NRA. Fine, she’s anti-gun. So anti-gun that she touted the endorsement of an anti-gun group that fakes being pro-gun to deceive people. See here.

The LA Times says the old liberals (you know, the dumb ones) will be duking it out with the new ones:

After toppling the long-dominant Republicans, the Democratic Party’s incoming congressional leaders have found themselves in another difficult struggle – with their own supporters.

Some of the very activists who helped restore the Democrats to a majority in the House and Senate last week are claiming credit for the victories and demanding their due: a set of ambitious – and politically provocative – actions on gun control, abortion, national security and other issues that party leaders fear could alienate moderate voters and leave Democrats vulnerable to GOP attacks as big spenders or soft on terrorism.

The Democrats are going to have to deal with their internal issues. More:

Similar vows are coming from lobbyists for abortion rights, who want to expand family-planning options for poor women and scale back Bush’s focus on abstinence education, and from gun-control advocates, who hope to revive a lapsed ban on assault weapons. Labor unions, a core Democratic constituency, are demanding universal health care and laws discouraging corporations from seeking cheap labor overseas.

A lot of those pretty new seats you guys have went to pro-gun Dems. I wouldn’t go pushing a ban on weapons that look like assault weapons. See:

At the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the leading gun-control advocacy group, Paul Helmke has high hopes for the assault-weapons ban – and he, too, can list races where candidates backed by his organization defeated those supported by the National Rifle Association.

But Helmke, the Brady Campaign’s president and a former Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., acknowledged that his challenge is to persuade potentially squeamish Democrats that his cause is not “radioactive.”

Many Democratic strategists have come to believe that supporting gun-control laws alienates rural voters and many independents. “Guns are a tricky issue,” Helmke said. “But the elections show there’s nothing to be afraid of.”

You’re half right. The elections were still close and there was only about 6% turnover. I wouldn’t go betting the farm that guns won’t cost the Democrats again, like it did in 1996 after the passage of the assault weapons ban. Remember, even Clinton conceded that:

On November 8th, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946….The NRA had a great night

Don’t go there, guys.

Jed is sporting new blog digs at Freedom Sight.

Contributing to a worthy cause.