David Codrea:

Those are fine words. They ring true, like something gun owners can believe in. Or at least they would were NRA not helping Reid, Schumer and Durbin hold on to power by declining to endorse AQ-rated Republican Dan Sullivan in one of the key races needed to flip the Senate. They would were NRA not giving an inflated grade to Democrat Mark Begich that fails to hold him fully accountable for two Supreme Court betrayals and a host of other bad votes on gun-related issues.

David is referring to a recent NRA mailing.  Go read it for yourself.  I got it too, and it’s a crying shame when the very stated goals of the NRA are ignored in their nuts and bolts grading of candidates.  It’s like their incompetent, or dishonest, or something.

Federal Appeals Court strikes down ban on possessing guns for self defense on Army Corps of Engineers property.  The take away from all of this is that regulation of guns evolving to outright bans violates the very rights enshrined in the second amendment.  So the court says (United States Court for the District of Idaho).  I’d like to see this ruling addressed in “may issue” states where corrupt law enforcement officials turn a right into a privilege by use of discretion.

Kurt Hofmann:

Much of the video focuses on the claim that “forty percent of gun sales happen just like this [without a background check].” Right away, the Brady Campaign is counting on an audience of dummies. They need an audience incapable of discovering that the “forty percent” claim is so hyper-inflated that even the reliably, rabidly anti-gun, pro-Obama Washington Post “awarded” the president “three Pinocchios” for the clearly fraudulent claim.

It also pretends that in the presence of universal background checks criminals won’t find other avenues to obtain whatever too they wish to use to perpetrate their crimes.  I know someone who spent a number of years in Hong Kong, and he found it interesting that he would meet a number of people on the street whose faces were disfigured.  When I asked him why, he stated that a common practice of criminals was to obtain sulfuric acid and throw it in the faces of victims.

Here is a current assessment of Marine Corps attempts to test women for combat.  Not so good.  And you know my views.

Mother Jones claims that the rate of mass shootings has tripled since 2011.  Is that true?  My take – ignore all of this.  The data isn’t statistically significant.  I’m not being dismissive or coy.  I mean exactly what I said.  It doesn’t meet the Central Limit Theorem and thus proves nothing.  It would have a very high standard deviation, probably higher than the mean, thus indicating that the mean can go negative (an impossible and physically absurd conclusion).

Via Mike Vanderboegh: “GOA’s brief defends the Fourth Amendment property right to the security of one’s person. If no law has been violated, then the government has no superior interest in detaining a person or seizing property, and thus the search and seizure was unconstitutional no matter how “reasonable” the police may have acted.”

I thought all of this had already been dealt with before, leading to the necessity for all stops to be “Terry Stops”?  What’s the matter with the N.C. Supreme Court, except for being stupid collectivists?

WSBTV:

The parents of a little boy critically injured when a police grenade landed in his crib are speaking exclusively with Channel 2 Action News.

They’re talking about a grand jury’s decision not to press charges against any of the deputies involved in the accident.

Channel 2’s Kerry Kavanaugh has been following story for months.

She traveled 800 miles to the boy’s new in Janesville, Wisconsin, where the family says they will continue to fight for justice.

The family told Kavanaugh that they felt like victims all over again when a grand jury announced they would not file criminal charges. They have been home in Wisconsin since July. Much has happened in the case since they left Georgia.

The family says they don’t believe the grand jury got the full story.

“It’s a relief to know we still have him alive,” his mother, Alicia Phonesavanh, said.

Two-year-old Bounkahm Phonesvanh, also known as baby “Bou-Bou,” is happy and energetic.

The toddler was burned and disfigured May 28 when a police grenade exploded in his crib during a mistaken SWAT raid on a Habersham County home.

“We want justice. We want fair justice for our family,” Alicia Phonesavanh said.

Alicia Phonesvanh and Bounkahm Phonesvanh said they feel a grand jury denied them that justice when they declined to criminally prosecute any of the deputies involved.

“The grand jury should have known the real, whole truth story before they make decision,” Bounkahm Phonesavanh, the boy’s father, said. “We read the report and when we had read that the grand jury had stated our children were in danger from the moment we moved in, my mind was blown. That’s a complete fabrication.”

The family doesn’t believe the jurors got the whole story.

“When we first saw him, I thought he was going to die,” Alicia Phonesavanh said.
Alicia Phonesvanh says that was five hours after the explosion.

“They had taken my son away in an ambulance without us knowing. They had told my husband and  I, ‘Your son is fine. He lost a tooth,’” Alicia Phonesavanh said.

Bou-Bou was burned and disfigured.

“It wasn’t a drug house. That’s why they didn’t find any drugs, no weapons, no suspects,” Alicia Phonesavanh said. “They’ve crippled my family physically; they’ve crippled my family emotionally. They’re crippling us financially.”

The family says Bou-Bou will have to have surgeries every couple of years because he has so much scar tissue.

They say doctors will also have to monitor his brain because he suffered a traumatic injury.

Queue it up.  No accountability even from the public via a grand jury, lies at the time of the raid (“He lost a tooth”), failed goals from the raid, a baby almost blown up, lies and coverup by officers of the court during the presentation of facts (i.e., the lawyers), and financially crippled innocent victims.

There you have it – that sounds about right for our corrupt and worthless criminal justice system.

Prior: Grand Jury Recommends No Charges In Georgia Police Raid That Severely Injured Toddler

KUOW:

In rural parts of the Northwest, many believe owning a gun is sort of like owning a garden trowel. You just have one or two around.

In November, Washington voters will decide on two gun-related initiatives. Initiative 594, aims to close loopholes on gun sales without background checks and fresh polls say it’s likely to pass. But in rural areas, some people are skeptical the initiative will hit its intended target.

The Ben and Frank Wolf are brothers who farm together in Palouse country in southeast Washington. They run nearly 3,000-acres. The brothers raise wheat, peas, lentils and even loads of garbanzo beans for big-city hummus.

The Wolf brothers have been busy with harvest, so they hadn’t even heard of I-594. And these brothers weren’t too excited to learn that loaning a gun to a friend, a neighbor or a twice-removed relative is going to be harder if it passes. At least, for people who follow the new law.

They say that doesn’t make much sense on this farm.

Just like loaning someone a lawnmower.

“The people who have guns are still going to have them,” Ben said. “And the bad guys who have guns or want them are going to get them one way or the other.”

I-594 says anyone transferring a gun that’s not immediate family needs a background check by a licensed dealer.

Frank and Ben say that’s a problem.

On the one hand, since these are farmers who are working for a living (unlike so many Americans now who live off of the backs of those who do work), I want to be understanding about the lack of time to stay abreast of recent politics.

On the other hand, the right of firearms ownership is one of the most fundamental God grants to us, and there will never be an end to the totalitarians who want to infringe on that right.  It is incumbent upon all men of good faith and who love liberty to monitor the aspirations of evil men and fight back to preserve righteousness.

These men, despite how busy they are, should have known about I-594, as should all other good men in the state of Washington.  And knowing, they should fight back with all of their might.  It will be easier in the long run to kill evil designs before they have become ensconced within the system of laws than live with the consequences of those evil designs.  And it will be easier for the rest of us when those evil designs have had a chance to mature and grow like a cancer.

Breitbart:

The Association of Chief Police Officers’ (ACPO), the body that represents senior police officers in the United Kingdom, has begun a campaign to send police to enter the homes of legal gun owners to snoop on them. Many of those who may receive visits cannot understand why they would be targeted and suspect it is to discourage gun ownership in Britain.

The Countryside Alliance pressure group fears that the new initiative will target ordinary members of the public, and is due to begin on Wednesday, 15th October. The group has launched a campaign to alert Members of Parliament to the issue. The policy is also the latest in a series of ‘power grabs’ by ACPO, which is effectively a trade union, but regularly demands executive powers with little accountability to the public.

On its campaign website the Countryside Alliance said: “Legitimate gun owners are always ready to support sensible, evidence based proposals to improve firearm licensing and security. For instance we fully support unannounced checks on license holders based on specific intelligence on risk.

One stark difference between American gun owners and British gun owners is that I (and many of my readers) absolutely will not support proposals of any kind to “improve” licensing of firearms.  And the security of firearms is my business, not that of the government.

This doesn’t seem too far fetched for America, though, police entering homes to “inspect” guns under anti-terror laws.  After all, we already violate rights against illegal search and seizure and right to due process under anti-terror laws (i.e., the Patriot Act).  But here’s a word to police in America.  You try to enter homes and inspect firearms in your neck of the woods, and you may get shot.

New Haven Register:

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy may have reconciled differences with the state’s teachers, but not with firearm manufacturers.

Malloy, early in his administration, insulted teachers as he embarked on education reform, when he said all they have to do to earn tenure was just show up for four years. He has since apologized and the governor now has the backing of both the AFT Connecticut and the Connecticut Education Association.

But the firearms industry is another story.

Joseph H. Bartozzi, an officer with O.F. Mossberg & Sons, in a forum piece in the New Haven Register, defended industry efforts to make guns safer.

The manufacturers and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represent the trade group, vehemently opposed the state’s strict gun reform bill adopted in 2013 after the killing in 2012 of 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown by a lone gunman.

The new law expanded the need for permits, banned magazines with more than 10 bullets and outlawed 100 more assault weapons in Connecticut. Residents who had bought them prior to the ban could keep them, but they had to be registered.

The law is playing a part in the gubernatorial election between Malloy and Republican Tom Foley.

Bartozzi repeated Malloy’s statement to CNN in April 2013 on his perception of what motivates the gun industry.

“What this is about is the ability of the gun industry to sell as many guns to as many people as possible, even if they are deranged, even if they are mentally ill, even if they have a criminal background,” the governor said at the time. “They don’t care.”

In a meeting with the New Haven Register editorial board Monday, Malloy was asked if that continued to be a fair characterization.

“Pretty much … pretty fair. Otherwise they would be advocating for universal background checks. I have had discussions with people who work for Mossberg, as well as every other major gun company who have actually indicated to me, on a personal basis, that they don’t have a problem with universal background checks, but they are afraid of the NRA and they won’t stand up to it,” Malloy said.

He said the one company who did, Smith & Wesson, “was driven into bankruptcy because they did … when they advocated making changes in the gun laws. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t be supporting and captive of an entity that opposes what 90 percent of Americans support, and that is universal background checks.”

In my open letter to Mossberg & Sons I told you that Malloy didn’t care about facts – facts like universal background checks have nothing whatsoever to do with crime.  I told you he didn’t care about having the input of “experts.”  I told you that this was exclusively a calculated, political decision based on Malloy’s totalitarian world view.

Now, not only is Malloy telling you the same thing, he is calling Mossberg & Sons liars and reiterating his claim that you are out to sell as many guns to dangerous people as you can.

So how long will you, Mossberg & Sons, continue to ensconce yourselves in a state where you aren’t welcome, and where you’ve been told that very thing by the Governor himself?  We know exactly where Malloy stand on the issues.  There is nothing to see here.  The surprising thing is that Mossberg continues to take the beating.

News from Connecticut:

A New Haven man claims a SWAT team wrongly invaded his home and took him into custody for hours, according to a lawsuit filed against the New Haven Police Department, Chief Dean Esserman and the city of New Haven.

The lawsuit states that a New Haven SWAT team entered the Peck Street home of Joseph Adams on Oct. 21, 2013 throwing “flash bombs” and kicking in doors.

“So, I looked over the balcony and I saw two gun barrels and I was like, oh my God, I’m being robbed,” Adams said.

According to Adams and the lawsuit, he was taken into custody for two and a half hours while officers searched his home. Adams claims that he and a neighbor informed police that they were at the wrong apartment and needed to go to the apartment next door.

“I was like, ‘I think you want the guy next door.’ And they’re like, ‘why would you say that?’ I was like, ‘because I talked to him a while ago and he has a criminal record,’” Adams said.

The lawsuit states that Adams was released and the SWAT team took his next door neighbor, Bobby Griffin Jr., into custody under suspicion of murder. Several days later, Adams sought out an attorney.

“It feels like you’re living in a police state suddenly. The people who are supposed to be there to protect you are, you know, stomping down your door, throwing flash grenades into your house and goose-stepping their way over your freedom,” attorney Max Rosenberg said.

Adams told FOX CT that he filled out a form to request payment from the New Haven Police Department to repair damages in his apartment from the incident. He claims the department said there was no record of the incident ever happening.

We’re not suddenly living in a police state.  It happened gradually while the American public dumbed down their education, focused on football and dumb ass sitcoms at night time, and elected totalitarians to rule them and “take care of them.”

How nice, though.  This one has a new twist.  There is no record of the incident ever happening.  Of course there isn’t.

David Codrea:

While the National Rifle Association will not be endorsing an Alaskan candidate in the Senate race, the gun group still provided reasons for gun owners to support incumbent Democrat Mark Begich. NRA assigned him an “A-” grade, compared to an “A” grade for Republican challenger Dan Sullivan based on his answering the political questionnaire. That lack of distinction between the two candidates may now be all the edge Begich needs to retain his seat and deny a majority to the GOP.

Well, I suppose the moral of the story is that NRA endorsement means absolutely nothing and the NRA is throwing their power around like pearls after swine.  In this case, you should completely ignore what the NRA is telling you.

Is Beretta and Winchester throwing gun owners (and potential gun owners) in Australia under the bus for the sake of sales?

I-594 bleeds support.  Yea, well, we’ll see won’t we.  If you really want to see the collectivists lose big, do your best to send good information around to combat their propaganda.  I’m serious about this.  I have great readers who do a great job of activism and research.  I simply do not have the time to find all Facebook pages, gun shop e-mail addresses, personal contacts and other potential avenues.  We need the help of readers like you to kill the Bloomberg/Gates bill in Washington.

Begging Remington to stay in N.Y.  I think Remington wants to, but in the end I think it’s the wrong move for them.

News from Michigan:

Authorities who went to the wrong house in search of a wanted fugitive and shot a beloved family pet are refusing to take responsibility for their actions, according to a Michigan attorney who has filed a lawsuit against them.

“These officers came into the wrong house, shot this dog, told the owners they would take care of it and then never returned their calls,” Royal Oak attorney Chris Olson told The Huffington Post.

Olson is representing Erica Moreno and Katti Putnam. The couple’s 15-year-old mixed breed dog, Clohe, was shot in the face during the mistaken police raid, Olson said.

Clohe survived the shooting, but has had to endure three surgeries, and lost part of her tongue and a canine tooth.

“Clohe’s not been the same since,” Putnam told HuffPost. “It really angers me and makes me concerned for the system and how things work.”

On Oct. 3, Olson filed a federal lawsuit against Michigan Department of Corrections investigator Ron Hughes. The lawsuit alleges that in shooting Clohe, the defendant violated Moreno and Putnam’s Fourth Amendment rights.

According to Putnam, the events leading up to the shooting began on June 18 when Hughes, along with several Michigan State troopers, went to Moreno and Putnam’s home to recover a wanted fugitive.

“It was a hot day, the windows and back door were open, and I was sitting inside reading a book,” Putnam said.

The peaceful summer day was interrupted by a loud bang at the front door.

“The next thing I knew there was a tactical team surrounding our house,” Putnam said. “I went onto the front porch and they said they were looking for a fugitive. I was answering their questions when an officer looked at the address on our house and said, ‘We’re at the wrong house.'”

According to Olson, the tactical team had mistaken Moreno and Putnam’s house for that of a neighbor’s home — where the fugitive they wanted was allegedly staying.

“I went inside to get my identification and I heard a pop,” Putnam said. “I looked out the door to the back yard and there was an officer with his arm raised and a gun in his hand. I immediately realized Clohe had gone outside.”

Jimmy Armstrong, a neighbor who witnessed the shooting, wrote in a signed affidavit that he saw Clohe enter the backyard. He said she was not attacking or threatening any of the officers.

“[Hughes] shot Clohe for no reason at all,” Armstrong wrote in the affidavit, according to the lawsuit.

Hughes allegedly fired a second shot, which missed Clohe, prompting Putnam to place herself in harm’s way — between the officer and her now injured pet.

“I was yelling at him,” said Putnam. “I said, ‘Why are you shooting my dog? What are you doing? You’re at the wrong house.'”

During the exchange, Clohe made her way back inside the house, leaving a trail of blood in her wake.

“I followed the blood trail into the bedroom, where my partner was cradling Clohe and crying hysterically,” Putnam said.

According to the lawsuit, a Michigan state trooper told Moreno and Putnam, “We’ll take care of this” and urged them to get their wounded pet to a veterinary clinic.

[ … ]

“They should not have been in our backyard,” she said. “Clohe did not charge them or anything. She is old. She has a hard time getting on our couch as it is and she hobbles down the steps when she goes outside. She does not run or charge.”

I am always loath to disarm people (note my defense of the so-called “mentally ill”), even the police.  Law enforcement has as much right to self defense as I do, but this has become an epidemic.

As a side note, I’ve said before that if you are in law enforcement and cannot handle animals, you are unfit, unsuited and unqualified for the job.  Go spend some time at a farm or ranch doing the things you should have learned to do as a little boy.  If you are a pussy around animals, you surely shouldn’t be hunting for felons.

But to the main point, one by one, police force after police force, if you prove that you cannot handle yourselves with maturity, decency and respect for ordinary folks, you should not be armed.  You should forthwith turn in your weapons to your superiors, and if you don’t, you should be forcibly disarmed by the National Guard (or the unorganized militia).

View from Connecticut:

In 2013, Gov. Dannel Malloy pursued a closed-door legislative agenda to impose strict gun laws on Connecticut’s citizens and to cast an historic state industry, employing thousands here, as a villain. In campaign commercials, he continues the false narrative.

Gov. Malloy either doesn’t know much about an industry with a significant economic presence in his state or is so uneducated about federal and state law, as well as longstanding programs and practices, that it should be embarrassing.

First, the governor and his inner circle decided the people who know the most about firearms would be frozen out of any policy discussions. Then, on April 7, 2013, he decided to attack the industry on CNN.

“What this is about is the ability of the gun industry to sell as many guns to as many people as possible — even if they are deranged, even if they are mentally ill, even if they have a criminal background,” Malloy said. “They don’t care.”

Not one bit of this is true. We sent the governor a letter well over a year ago in an attempt to set the record straight. We are still waiting for a reply.

The governor made the conscious decision to go well beyond arguments about firearms features to castigate an entire industry. He must see a political advantage in using the industry as a straw man. But, this is not leadership and it does not represent responsible and inclusive governance. It is the politics of divisiveness and a lot of Connecticut citizens know it’s wrong.

No one in the firearms industry wants to put guns in the hands of criminals or seriously mental ill individuals. The firearms industry works with local, state and federal law enforcement officials every day to help prevent that from happening. We back that commitment with proven, practical programs.

Police departments across the nation distribute Project ChildSafe gun safety education material and gun locks to help prevent unauthorized access to firearms. Launched more than a decade ago with the assistance of a federal grant, Project ChildSafe is now funded solely by the firearms industry and a small number of public donations. The Connecticut State Police recently passed out Project ChildSafe locks at the Big E.

To help ensure that the appropriate mental health records are in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the industry launched the FixNICS campaign that resulted in 12 states adopting laws so that all the relevant records are submitted to the national database all federally licensed firearms retailers use to stop prohibited persons from buying firearms. One of the governor’s campaign ads says “Tom Foley refuses to support mandatory background checks for people with mental illness.” The charge is insensible, given there is only one check system for both criminals and those with adjudicated mental health records.

Developed in 2000 with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Don’t Lie for the Other Guy program is the industry’s initiative to assist firearms retailers in the identification of would-be illegal straw purchasers. It uses outdoor and radio advertising to inform the public about the serious penalties involved with the crime. We brought the public awareness campaign to Connecticut in 2013. Maybe he missed the huge billboards.

We are the nation’s firearms safety experts. We equip the American military and law enforcement, working cooperatively with law enforcement at all levels. We also make it possible for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights should they decide they want to both exercise that right and assume that responsibility.

We have not and will not quietly accept the role of villain in which Gov. Malloy has cast our industry whether in pursuit of mistaken and ineffective public policy or in search of a second term.

While Gov. Malloy seems to enjoy the sparring, we would prefer to be spending more time on the programs discussed above and on other cooperative ventures with members of our industry and the public. The governor can still call us if he wants our help, but we don’t expect that he will and we’re not holding our breath. Doing so would not seem to square with the style of slashing politics to which he is accustomed.

Joseph H. Bartozzi is senior vice president and general counsel, O.F. Mossberg & Sons Inc., North Haven.

Since you sent this open letter to Governor Malloy, I would like to send an open letter to Mossberg & Sons.  This letter disappoints me in numerous ways.  First of all, I couldn’t care less that you supply firearms to law enforcement.  I do care deeply about my rights as recognized by the second amendment.

You wrote to the Governor as if he would behaved differently if he had just had “experts” in his policy discussions.  You know better than that.  You know that his behavior is a function of his collectivist world view, and the Governor would just as soon see you completely out of business (or supplying only to law enforcement so that they could retain their monopoly of violence).

The Governor couldn’t possibly care less about gun locks, the NICS, or the jobs of the good men and women who work at Mossberg & Sons.  We recently saw an example of this kind of thing with the boy-Mayor of Jersey City who recently preened his feathers over spending more taxpayer money than he should have purchasing weapons for the police from a supplier who swore on their mother’s grave that they wouldn’t sell except to law enforcement.  It has to do with value judgments, not facts and figures.  The Governor and many others in Connecticut don’t value you or what you do.

You have ensconced yourselves deeper and deeper in a state that doesn’t respect anything about you, me, fellow firearms owners, or the second amendment.  The real story here, and what you should have said in your letter, is that Governor Malloy campaigns against firearms owners and other American patriots.  To be sure, there are good men in Connecticut, but they are in the minority given that collectivists continue to hold court.  If you really believe the things you said in your letter, you need to do what so many other gun manufacturers have done – move South.

David Codrea:

Understanding that much of the electorate reacts based on impressions gleaned from the media, a detailed fisking of the dry proposal seems unlikely to change many minds. That said, there are some “bullet points” that have the benefit of being true which could be persuasive, providing gun owners take it on themselves to be force multipliers and do what they can to pass them along to everyone within their spheres of influence.

The first point is, a background check bill is impossible without creating registration data. That was admitted by no less an authority than Greg Ridgeway, Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice, who wrote a summary report on gun violence prevention strategies in which he concluded “Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…”

[ … ]

You can further move open-minded people with another documented reality: Gun registration only applies to the law-abiding. Many people don’t realize that criminals don’t have to register their guns …

You can also tell them a way exists to ensure prohibited persons are excluded from lawful gun sales, and no information identifying either gun buyers or what they purchased needs be collected.

This is perhaps the most important piece David has ever penned.  His insight into the issue is outstanding, and his logical connections from one point to the next impeccable.  If you have ever involved yourself in political action, do it now.  This is the first step in a multi-state strategy with lots of dollars behind it.

We may not vote ourselves out of the problems that we face, as the saying goes, but it is a moral imperative that we do everything we can to avoid the violence and turmoil to surely follow if universal background checks leads to a national gun registry, like I think it will, and a national gun registry leads to confiscations, like I think it will.