California Gun Grabbing

Two recent stories that caught my attention should send chills down your spine. The first talks about a recent session inside the Public Safety Committee of the California State Legislature. In that meeting, a total of six bills were advanced out of committee. All six bills are gun-grabbing measures advanced by the usual suspects in war on the second amendment. As part of the process, the committee heard testimony from both sides of the argument. One exchange featured Leland Yee, state senator and Sam Paredes, Executive Director of Gun Owners of California. During this exchange, Paderes called Yee out and corrected the fallacy that because of some "loophole" in a previous gun ban, there were now illegal guns on the street. Yee confronted Paderes and let his anger over being called out over his misrepresentations be known. You can read the story for yourself here, Inside the Committee. You can also watch just the video exchange between Yee and Paredes.

If Yee put half as much energy into getting criminals off of the streets as he does into creating new criminals out of law-abiding citizens, he might actually do some good for the state. His misguided progressive vision of Californian Utopia prevents him from doing anything that actually advances the cause of freedom and upholds our constitutional rights. 

What troubles me, among many things, is illustrated by Yee every time he speaks on the subject. He has no idea what he is talking about. He ignores facts, makes up his own version of reality and uses this erroneous information to demolish the constitution which he is paid to and swore to uphold. He and his ilk are absolutely relentless in the pursuit of this end. Why do people continue to vote for people like Yee? I believe that there is a large chunk of society, that is otherwise smart enough to see the truth, that don't necessarily believe what these people say, but they want for it to be true. If they desire a thing to be true hard enough, maybe it will magically transform into truth. I don't know about you, but I don't like my liberties being decided by fairy tales. 

Another story highlights the recent resolution passed by the Los Angeles Community College board of trustees to ban all firearms on all nine of its campuses. This effectively put an end to gun safety courses that had been taught here for the past six years. These courses were co-sponsered by the National Rifle Association and taught by Gerry Koehler, an  NRA certified pistol instructor who is also certified by the California Dept of Justice for Handgun Safety training[1]. Koehler asked for an exception to use plastic toy guns in the classes, but they are specifically banned as well. No word on whether he could use Pop Tarts or not. The resolution goes so far as to ban use of the word "gun" in campus literature. That should make you feel safe. 

The lunacy of this is far reaching. Board of Trustees Vice President Scott Svonkin had some very interesting things to say regarding this decision. Among them, this:

“I believe that the NRA’s goal is to promote gun ownership, and that guns lead to deaths,” he said. “So, not having the NRA teach classes, not having the NRA classes on our campuses, is a good thing. I’m much happier with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department protecting our students and our staff and our faculty than having some random person who took a three-hour class and thinks that they’re Dirty Harry.”

The implication that the NRA's goal is the cause of death by gun violence is pathetic. No one on that side of this debate ever seems to take into account personal responsibility. It is always the fault of the gun or an organization or something other that the person perpetrating the crime. 

He is also happier with law enforcement protecting his campus. How happy was he when John Zawhari killed three people on campus before police could respond and kill him? This was after killing his father and brother then setting the house on fire. The same John Zawhari who several years earlier had threatened students and been found to have bomb-making materials in his possession. That infraction cost him the ability to own a firearm for 5 years. The killings took place seven years later. Maybe Leland Yee should think about a law where someone so demented should be locked away instead of counseled for a bit and then set free to do what he ultimately did. 

Svonkin didn't mention how well he thought law enforcement protected his students, he just took the opportunity to equate students taking a gun safety course to legally armed citizens who could have protected themselves and others and possibly saved lives in that incident. Oh, but they couldn't have done that, right? Because they are just "Dirty Harrys". No, because that campus was already a "gun free zone" at the time of the rampage. That rampage was part of the reason they widened the "gun free zone" to all nine campuses. Great plan, allowing a killer to come unchallenged onto the campus and take three lives worked so well, that they have extended the plan to create the same scenario in eight other places ripe with defenseless targets. It boggles the mind...

Koehler is the only one who had anything sensible to say regarding this:

“Don’t expect the police or the government to protect you. YOU are the only one that can protect you and your family. Learn how to do it right. Learn how to do it safely.”

Why should you not expect them to protect you? Isn't that their job, to serve and protect? Not according to the supreme court, who spoke to the matter in Castle Rock v Gonzalez in 2005. Its not just an opinion of some NRA approved Dirty Harry, it's the law. 

This is what I find scary. The law says, you are responsible for your own safety, yet the lawmakers are increasingly saying you are not responsible enough to defend yourself and are systematically taking your means to do so out of your hands. We can only hope that Sam Paderes and those like-minded individuals will ride this wave all the way to the supreme court and once there that the supreme court will uphold our second amendment rights as they have in the Heller decision. 

Is hope enough? Don't rely on it. Don't rely on others to speak up for your rights. Don't become dependent on someone who is not responsible for your safety and freedom. You are responsible. Be so. 

Reactionaries and Guns

Reactionaries and guns; This could be about any number of people who over-react, misrepresent, lie, freak out or attack over the sight of a gun. We have an unlimited supply of those who fit any or all of these descriptions it seems. I want to focus on two recent stories however.

Recently in New Jersey, a man posted a photo on facebook of his son holding a .22 rifle he received for his 11th birthday. Some busybody friend of his(presumably on facebook) reported the the family to the Department of Children and Families(DCF). The DCF along with the Carneys Point Police Department soon paid them a visit[1]. After much duress and discussion with the police and the DCF, Moore was able to keep all of them out of his residence without having to show anyone anything. This was three days ago and no further action on the part of authorities has taken place. We can only assume that they were satisfied and legally restricted from acting any further.

This man, Moore is a certified firearms instructor for the National Rifle Association, an NRA range safety officer and a New Jersey hunter education instructor. In short, there are probably few people in the state any more qualified to own a gun or to teach his own son about gun safety. Even the child has a New Jersey hunting license and recently passed the state’s hunter safety course. He too is probably more qualified than most in the state when it comes to handling a firearm. You can even see in the photo that he is following safety guidelines in the manner in which he is holding the rifle. You can't tell from the photo, but I would bet you any amount that the gun is not loaded.

Someone who probably knows next to nothing about firearms, other than how evil they must be, decided that they were acting in such a reckless manner that they were obviously endangering the welfare of the child by allowing him to pose with his new rifle. To the point that child protective services must be called. If Moore didn't have the wherewithal to call his lawyer, he could very well have had his child taken by these reactionary thugs. The DCF worker that came to the home wouldn't even identify themselves when asked. What kind of policy is that? Luckily, the police had a little bit of sense in the matter and the constitution stood.

What about the person that reported this to begin with? Are they responsible for starting a witch hunt that produced no witches? Not according to a spokesperson for the DCF, "the person who reported the false allegations of abuse cannot be held liable", she noted. “You can’t be prosecuted for making an allegation of child abuse –even if it’s false" Why not? You can be prosecuted for false allegations for anything else. Couple this with the recent news that New York is planning on rewarding citizens $500 for reporting anyone for illegally owning a gun if it leads to an actual conviction. Again, in this scenario, you don't(you can't as far as most cases would go) even have to prove an illegal gun is possessed, you just make the accusation and let the snowball start rolling. This is bad news for all of us, not just for someone illegally possessing a weapon.

In the case of Mr. Moore and the photo of his son, so far, it has turned out ok. They left him alone when he confronted them with his legal rights. It is still a scary situation for anyone to have gone through. I fear that we will hear many more stories like this in the near future.

UPDATE ON THE MOORE CASE : 3-26-2013 Governor Christie gets involved

On the other hand, there is a completely different kind of lunacy at work on this front. Take the well publicized story of 7 year old Josh Welch from Maryland[2]. He had the recent misfortune of being suspended from his second grade class for bringing a fully automatic Thompson Machine Gun, fully loaded, with a plan to... Wait, wrong story. He actually had a Pop-Tart that his teacher decided had been nibbled into the shape of a gun. She alone was offended by this. No students complained, no one was injured, no one even knew about it until the teacher went ballistic. Welch was suspended, notes were sent home with the rest of the kids explaining that an incident had happened and there would even be counselors available for whom ever needed them after this horrible traumatic event.

I have very little to say about this that doesn't personally attack the intellect of all of those, except Welch, involved. Seriously, if anything, give the kid credit for being possibly the only 7 year old who knows what a Walther PPK looks like(if in fact, he intended to nibble himself a gun). He claimed he was making a mountain. Oddly enough, it is the teacher and school that ended up making a mountain out of a misidentified molehill.

Reason and accountability may prevail in this case as well. Sen. J. B. Jennings, a Republican representing Baltimore and Hartford counties, introduced Senate Bill 1058 -- "The Reasonable School Discipline Act of 2013" on Thursday. The bill would, absent a direct act of violence on school grounds, prohibit students from being suspended for "making a hand shape or gesture resembling a gun" -- the bill would also stop principals from expelling students who bring to school "any other object that resembles a gun but serves another purpose." Like a creatively nibbled-on Pop-Tart, a piece of torn notebook paper or a map of Florida.

It is a sad state of affairs when someone feels the need to introduce a piece of legislation to encourage teachers to stop being complete pantywaists and use 1/10 the amount of common sense it would take to blow their nose. But, I guess this is what we've come to. You have the leaders of our country brainwashing people into believing that guns are evil and evil people are not to blame for evil acts. You have lawmakers from the top down trying to ban guns in every way imaginable while letting 1000's of dangerous, hardened criminals out of jail to wreak havoc on society at large. You have the VP giving seriously detrimental advice on how to use guns to protect ourselves and senators giving equally bad advice on how to check for a pulse if you happen upon a homicide victim in your office.

We have to start educating people and we have to start now. We are in a war right now. It is a war of words, ideas and ideals. It is a war that can be won by telling the truth. Truth can not be refuted. We need to arm ourselves with as much truth as we can find and refuse to fight battles based in emotion. The opposite of truth is deception. Lies are being told by so many people and they have to be confronted. They have to be confronted. The truth doesn't have much of an outlet right now. You won't hear it on the evening news. The only way the truth is going to be heard is by us shouting it from every pulpit we have at our disposal.

This is no time to be silent. Stand up for your rights. Speak up for yourself. You have to believe that no one else is going to do it for you. If you believe otherwise, you may as well travel to Washington DC and kiss the constitution goodbye.

Speak Up and Shut Up!

When given the opportunity to talk, our legislators infrequently resist. Especially when they are talking about eroding liberties. There are countless examples of this. Instead of trying to list them here, which would probably well exceed any amount of bandwidth I could obtain, I'm just going to highlight two recent examples I've seen. 

Jan Schakowsky, U.S. Representative for Illinois 9th Congressional District, was recently speaking at the "One Billion Rising" rally in Washington DC on February 14th, when Jason Mattera[1] was able to have a brief conversation with her regarding gun control. Jason presented himself as someone who seemed to agree with her views and she was more than happy to talk to him. 

Among other things, she spoke of the proposed assault weapon ban being just the beginning. She mentioned background checks, according to the Brady Campaign, being one of the "most effective" tools to reduce gun violence. We know that "reduce gun violence" actually means "increase gun control". She went on to say, "we are going to push as hard as we can, as far as we can". She stated, "I mean, I'm against handguns(I know, big surprise there)". She then backed up her stance with the very factual sounding comment, "In Illinois, we have the Council Against Handgun... something". I'm guessing here, but I think she means The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV), "the oldest and largest statewide organization in the U.S. working to prevent the devastation caused by firearms, founded in 1975". 

I find it odd, that in support of her being against handguns, she couldn't remember the name of that organization, the oldest in the nation, based in her home state. You would think someone in her position would have been working hand-in-hand with an organization like that for years. It wouldn't seem so since she can't even remember the name of the group. The part she could remember was "council against handgun", that's the important part I guess. 

She goes on to talk about a possible way to be able to ban handguns being the rights of municipalities, communities and states. We can see how well this has worked in Chicago over the years. Some of the strictest gun laws in the nation has resulted in one of, if not the highest murder rate in the country. Meanwhile, the ICHV website states:

ICHV successfully advocates for policies designed to minimize the impact gun violence has on Illinois residents. As a result, Illinois has some of the most progressive gun laws in the country, and we are recognized as a model for other state based gun violence prevention groups. Over our long history working together with our dedicated members and coalition partners, not only have we defeated many of the gun lobby’s key measures, we have also made numerous other accomplishments...

Of the accomplishments they list, one is [c]ontributing to a 20% decrease in the number of Illinois residents killed by guns since 1995, and a nearly 60% decrease in the number of children and teens killed by guns during that time. That stat must not include Chicago's, roughly, 10,500 murders since 1995. Chicago apologists will tell you that crime has been on the decrease since the gun ban, and they are right, sort of. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower. Additionally, Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect. 

So, beyond this, the ICHV, which is so endeared by Schakowsky, has accomplished, according to its website, six other notable things, five of which are directly tied to gun control and the suppression of our liberties. The sixth is a poetry contest...

While Schakowsky is more than happy to talk to Mr. Mattera about taking away our rights, another Congressman, Jim Moran, during a townhall meeting recently, was less than eager to speak up[2]. He was asked by a participant in the audience why lawmakers are less than eager to support a woman's right to defend herself. His response was to ignore her question completely and move on to the next guy. When someone asked why he wouldn't answer, he responded, "I'm choosing to move to the next question". 

There is really no other way to describe his actions other than cowardly. He could have dodged her question in any number of ways. Don't they teach these guys how to avoid the tough questions in Liberal Logic 101? Instead, he basically told her to shut up.

A tale of two liberal positions. They speak up when the opportunity to quash freedom exists and they tell you to shut up when you dare ask a question that makes them uncomfortable. The bully pulpit is alive and well.

We need to continue to expose these people for who they are. They don't care about freedom. They don't care about people. They care about power. They care about progressive, statist agendas. They care about themselves, plain and simple. 

If we care about the future of our country, we better start speaking up about it. also, when we are told to shut up by bullies, we need to stand up to them. The only way to stop them is to fight back. 

Senator Chris Murphy, Bully

Senator Chris Murphy hates the NRA. This is my determination.  He has released no less than seven press releases concerning the NRA since his swearing in in January. Some of his words to describe them include bizarre, unhinged, depraved, extreme and out of touch[1]. He further believes that they show a "disregard for public safety" and endanger law enforcement by supporting a bill in Indiana that was passed by an overwhelming majority and had support from numerous law enforcement agencies. His reasons for non-support was in direct opposition of Governor Mitch Daniels, who said:

"[C]ontrary to some impressions, the bill strengthens the protection of Indiana law enforcement officers by narrowing the situations in which someone would be justified in using force against them." Governor Daniels went on to explain, "So as a matter of law, law enforcement officers will be better protected than before, not less so."[2]

He, being a senator from Connecticut, was no doubt affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary killings. He has also released nine press releases regarding this incident or things directly related to this incident, such as Obama's statements on gun violence in general. I am not condemning the man for his desire to prevent things like that from happening again.

One of his most recent press releases concerns a letter[3] he wrote to Brian France, Chairman and CEO of NASCAR. He wrote a letter in regards to NASCAR's decision to partner with the NRA in having them be the primary sponsor for the upcoming race at Texas Motor Speedway. The event will be known as the NRA 500. In the letter, he repeatedly accuses NASCAR of inserting itself into political debate. Also showing itself to be an ally of the NRA in the current gun debate. He also accuses them of taking sides against the families in Newtown tragedy. He rattles of a series of statements intended to make the NRA look exactly as he sees them, evil. He asserts that NASCAR has historically been careful not to insert itself, and its hard-earned good reputation, into political and legislative fights.

Remember when NASCAR's top tier changed its name to the Nextel/Sprint Cup? Remember what it was called before that? The Winston cup. Winston as in RJ Reynolds flagship brand of cigarettes. RJR was the primary sponsor for NASCAR from 1970 until 2003. Thirty three years of sponsorship that resulted directly from the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1971. If you'll recall, tobacco companies and the government were in a virtual war for much of that 33 year period. RJR, not NASCAR finally succumbed to the laws and regulations of the FDA and were forced to cease advertising in sports. NASCAR has also been involved in controversies relating to safety mandates and fuel consumption. It has only flinched in so much as it was forced to do so as a matter of federal regulations. So, the senator is dead wrong in his opinion of NASCAR not concerning itself with its reputation as seen by federal regulatory acts.

His intent in this letter is to intimidate NASCAR into backing out of the relationship it has with the National Rifle Association. There can be no other way to describe it. In response to this, I wrote the Senator a letter. The following is the full text of that letter.

Dear Senator,
 I am a U.S. Citizen, a staunch supporter of our Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment and a longtime NASCAR fan. I went to my first NASCAR race the year you were born. You are right about NASCAR's fans(at least this one) inferring its support of the NRA. I applaud them.

It is no secret how you view the NRA, calling them bizarre, unhinged, depraved, out of touch and extreme. You even say the have no regard for public safety. None of this could be further from the truth. I don't expect to change your views, but I do respect your rights to express them. We are guaranteed that right in the Constitution that you swore to uphold in your oath of office.

NASCAR is a private enterprise. They have the freedoms to make such associations and business partnerships as they see fit as long as they are not breaking laws in doing so. No law is being broken in their partnership with the NRA. The only thing that is being hurt are people's feelings. There is no right to not have your feelings hurt(currently anyway). Government and elected officials should not meddle in the affairs of those whom they disagree with solely because they disagree with them. If you don't like the way a business operates, you don't have to give them your support. Consumers do this all the time. It is called free enterprise. Trying to coerce a business into complying with one's ideals is pure and simple thuggery. If government is left to act this way it leads to tyranny. Our constitution, the one you swore to uphold, does not support this way of thinking.

You were elected by the people to do a job. Part of that job is certainly not strong-arming business to intimidate them into supporting your agenda.

I hope you hear from many NASCAR fans on this subject, as I'm sure you will.

Respectfully,

 Senator Murphy and his "esteemed colleagues" in Washington seemingly have no regard for our Constitution. They will subvert it in any way they see fit in order to achieve the goals that they have set for themselves. Recently we've heard Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Colorado representative Joe Salazar and numerous others make some of the most bizarre statements in support of gun control. Murphy is not only jumping on that bandwagon, but also getting very specific in targeting a well-respected, law-abiding American institution. The intent is clear, change your mind or your reputation will be at risk. That would not occur without throngs of loud-voiced bullies shouting them down.

Senator Murphy can be reached here.
NASCAR can be reached here.

We have a responsibility to let our voices be heard.

Hunting Humans and the Advent of PTSD

Dianne Feinstein, who has stated her intent is to ban ALL guns [1], just came out and said that hunting humans is legal[2]. In the article referenced, she states the following:

 “The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices, those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. Limiting magazine capacity is critical because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down.”

Legal to hunt humans? I have scoured the Constitution, state, county and local city ordinances and I have yet to find any law that contends that to be true. Yes, I realize she was being dramatic. Yes, I realize she probably doesn't really believe that is factual. That isn't the point. She said it. She said it on a national stage. It was on TV and now it is the heads of the public. Just like that.

"Of course there's a war - I saw it on TV." --Robert De Niro, WAG THE DOG.

 Not only is it a lie, but it is peppered with factual sounding information to make it even more believable. Comparing it to duck hunting laws? Duck hunting, by the way, is legal. Murder is widely regarded as illegal. Maybe she was confusing real life with the Hunger Games. Maybe, she's becoming senile. Maybe, she's so hellbent on destroying the Second Amendment and the rest of our liberties that she's willing to say or do anything that furthers her stated agenda.

She went on to talk about the opportunity to take down a gunperson(don't want to offend any one's feminist sensitivities) when they are forced to reload because of a magazine capacity limit. I recently saw a video of a sheriff doing a field study of this concept[3]. As you may have guessed, the theory is not true. The time it takes to reload a modern weapon is negligible. Especially telling in the video is the portion where someone tests the limits of disarming someone in the midst of a reload. These are people in a controlled environment with no risk of being killed. They are not kindergarten teachers hiding in a closet in a gun free zone during a massacre. Also, you'll notice that they didn't explore the time it would take for an armed citizen to blow the killer's head off.

Feinstein went on to enlighten us about PTSD: 

 “The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.”

PTSD, a new phenomenon? It is statements like this that seriously draw her credibility on anything into question. PTSD dates back to the early 19th century and one doctor even suggests it was described by Shakespeare and Homer[4]. In any case, it has been formally recognized for over 30 years. The exact timeline is not as important as Feinstein's ignorance surrounding it. Again, by declaring what she did, she set two thoughts in motion. The idea that PTSD is a new thing and the idea that the Iraq war(which everyone knows was evil in and of itself) is the cause of it. She did not state that by mistake. It probably won't be long until someone makes the connection and declares that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is George Bush's fault.

Again, this garbage is being disseminated to the mainstream media consuming public en masse. Feinstein is using the First Amendment to destroy the Second Amendment. When, in fact, the Second Amendment is there to protect the First Amendment. She. along with all of us have the responsibility to use our freedoms wisely. Comments like the ones referenced here are doing anything but that. Lest ye think I'm picking on her, there are countless individuals that are doing the same thing in regards to this current gun control madness that is occurring. The only conclusion that I can draw from all of this is that our liberties are not important to these people. If they were, they would be focusing on real solutions, not feigned outrage and reactionary behavior.

Our constitution is being ignored, evaded, trampled on and outright assaulted on multiple fronts. We, as responsible patriots, have a duty to protect it. We, does not mean us versus them, we includes them. The only difference between "us" and "them", is that they took an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. It is up to them to do that. It is up to us to ensure that they do. It is our responsibility.

Joe Fudd Biden

Joe Biden, our vice-president, recently encouraged us, if faced with imminent danger of some nefarious individual breaking into our homes to walk outside and "fire two blasts"[1] from our trusty double barrel shotgun. I'm writing here for a moment to those who are ignorant enough to actually follow this advice. This is bad advice, on a number of levels. First, if you have a double barrel shotgun as your means of protection and you empty it by firing into the air, you no longer have a double barrel shotgun as your means of protection. Now you have a very heavy, odd-shaped bat as your means of protection. Reloading a shotgun is typically not a very speedy process, especially with Mr. Nefarious bearing down own you. Secondly, You have broken three of the four basic rules of gun safety. The only one you haven't broken is to always assume every gun is loaded. By breaking the other three rules, you could potentially kill some innocent bystander as far as a mile away in some instances. Thirdly, you have more than likely committed a crime in most states by firing the gun in that manner. Potentially a crime that, if convicted, could remove your rights to ever legally own a gun again. In addition to these three things, you have probably wasted two shells as well. Priced ammunition lately?

Joe went on to say in a separate interview, in regards to self defense, "just fire the shotgun through the door.”[2] Logistically and legally speaking, this is no better advice than the first nugget he shared on the subject. In fact, in almost every case, it is a felony.

So here we have Joe Fudd consistently giving people horrible and likely criminal advice when it comes to self-defense. I have two questions, why does he do this, and is he liable when someone takes his advice?

Why would anyone give such poor advice from a national pulpit? Does he want people to commit such stupid acts? Is it his intention to create a network of idiots out there breaking gun laws? It would not surprise me in the least if that were the intent. Then we would have incident after incident of otherwise law-abiding gun owners acting recklessly with their evil firearms. The more evil and dangerous they can be depicted, the easier it will be pass laws further restricting the rights of non-idiot law-abiding gun owners. This current fight for our second amendment rights is being played out on multiple stages, and the court of public opinion is a huge stage. People are just dumb enough to believe what they are told in way too many cases.

Could he be liable for such crimes? I'm no law expert by any means. I would love to see this question addressed by someone who is. From my limited research, there could be levels of guilt attached to such a crime and they would depend on the state of the person that was actually enticed into committing the gun crime. I do believe even if he is legally at fault, there are very few prosecutors in the country that would touch that. There are probably even fewer judges that wouldn't throw it out as well. Still, I would love to see someone of stature ask the question.

Joe Fudd, criminally so or not, is one of the most irresponsible people in a position of authority that I can remember. The other that comes to mind is Bill Clinton, who wasn't advocating criminal activity, but was telling everyone that they could get away with adultery and all manner of reprobate behavior if they would just lie about it. Unfortunately, his impeachment hearings did nothing to discourage such behavior either. Bill will get you into dutch with the wife, while Joe will get you prison time if you aren't careful.

Responsibility is obviously not a strong point with either of these guys. Liberty doesn't appear to rank very high on their list of important things either. We have to be prudent in guarding both. We still have the freedom to own guns in this country and it is our duty to be responsible with them. For the most part, legal gun owners are very responsible. We can be counted on to do the right thing. We are not some pack of vigilantes and we aren't much of a danger to turn the movie theater into the wild west as some would have you to believe. Educate those who may not be as responsible and let them know that Joe Fudd and his ilk are not to be trusted with advice on any aspect of gun ownership. It is our responsibility to make sure this kind of stuff has a light shined upon it.

Molon Labe, Joe Fudd!