Politico:

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Thursday positioned himself as a pragmatic, pro-compromise presidential candidate, dismissing 2016 rivals whom he said merely seek to be “critic-in-chief.”

Perry in recent weeks has sought to portray himself as a more moderate, thoughtful contender than he was during his 2012 campaign, when he entered the race as a firebrand conservative. In an appearance before the socially conservative group American Principles Project in Washington, Perry argued that Republicans should nominate someone with a message that goes beyond merely opposing the other side, an apparent swipe at fellow Texan Ted Cruz, a conservative hard-liner.

Guess one subject on which he has “moderated” his views?  That’s right.  Guns.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) said Thursday he was skeptical of open carry gun laws, as conservatives in his home state are attempting to push such measures through the legislature …

In an interview with the The Texas Tribune and The Washington Post, Perry said he was “not necessarily all that fond of this open carry concept.” His concerns, however, seemed to be more practical than philosophical.

“I don’t want the bad guys to know if I’m carrying,” he said. “I don’t want to be the first person shot if something’s going down.”

A Perry spokesman didn’t immediately return a request for clarification on whether Perry would sign open carry legislation if he were still governor.

In his interview Thursday, Perry also said gun owners should be “appropriately backgrounded, appropriately vetted, appropriately trained.”

“We license people to drive on our highways,” he said. “We give them that privilege. The same is true with our concealed handguns.”

The most important revelation about Perry’s views isn’t his opposition to open carry, although he wouldn’t advocate that LEOs conceal rather than open carry (and thus his view here is hypocritical).  The most significant revelation pertains to his view of licensing carriers, noting that it is a “privilege.”

Privilege it isn’t, as God has not only granted the right of self defense, he has stipulated that men will be prepared to protect their families at all times if they want to honor His laws.  It is more than a privilege.  It is a duty before God.  In attempting to track towards the middle, Perry won’t gain a single vote in his corner, but this will come back to haunt him with gun owners.  Another one bites the dust.  His political career is dead.

The GOP is so corrupt and wasted that it can only think about fielding men like Perry (a gun control moderate), Christie (who made his fame in gun control in the great collectivist Northeast), Rand Paul (an open borders freak), and Jeb Bush (wrong on everything under the sun).

Baltimore Sun:

Where do criminals get guns? I’ll explore that question a lot this year because the supply of guns to people prohibited from having them remains a principal cause of Baltimore’s violent eruptions. When a convicted felon can allegedly walk out of his house with an AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle and a 9 mm handgun and kill two men in a dispute over a parking space, we need to know: Who enabled him? Where’d he get the guns?

If he stole them, the case ends there.

But if he bought them, then those who supplied the weapons ought to be held accountable, too. The way I see it, they are accomplices to murder.

Oh goody.  That’s just what we need.  Another progressive “exploring” the issue of guns.  I can’t wait.

While Welch-Sutton is a federal case, the straw purchases they admitted to are exactly what the Maryland General Assembly had in mind when it toughened up the state’s firearms law in 2013. The law now requires people who want to buy a gun to submit to a background check, fingerprinting and four hours of gun-safety training.

Opponents of the measure called it an infringement on liberty.

But it’s no such thing. The intent is to discourage straw purchases, to keep old buddies from buying firearms for felons. It’s one piece of what should be a steady, comprehensive effort to reduce the size of the black market of guns that end up causing so much havoc and death. More to come.

Here’s what you won’t find Mr. Rodrick’s focus on: machetes.  Or Chicago gang violence with machetes and knives.  Like this.  Or hammer attacks and the need for a ban on assault hammers and background check before purchasing one.  Or finally, the need to disarm the police because attacking officers and perpetrating crime upon their person for the sole purpose of stealing their weapons has become a favorite tactic of criminals.

Because despite what Mr. Rodrick says about this not being infringements on your rights, it really is about that, and about the state having even more power than it does now.  All progressives want more state control, because it is in their nature.  It’s part of their DNA.  It’s their all encompassing world view.  The hippie movement was never about freedom, love and peace.  It was all about changing ideas and replacing those in power with their own people so they could control things.

David Codrea:

Attempting to further bolster a de facto monopoly of violence in New York City, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton proposed additional edicts to tip the power scales even more in favor of enforcers over citizens, the New York Observer reported Wednesday. In addition to stiffening penalties for things like wearing protective body armor, tinting windows and holding police to similar information disclosures that “civilians” (a telling attitude in itself ) are subjected to, Bratton said it would be “very helpful” if charges of resisting arrest were upped from misdemeanors to felonies.

Oh good grief.  Is there any depth to which they won’t stoop?  I can see it now.  An otherwise innocent bystander in some crime is confused with the perpetrator of the crime by idiot police, he argues with the officer when apprehended, and is then banged upside the head with a stick and hauled before a court that is sympathetic to the officer in the first place.  He is now a felon, having been guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  And I do mean “the wrong place.”  Who in their right mind would live in NYC?

Rifle-toting deputy takes his post at court building.  You know, for “safety” reasons.  Hey, he’s openly carrying a rifle.  It’s not okay if you or I do something like that.  Just because.

Biasing of temperature data biggest scientific scandal of all time.  Because anthropogenic global warming is a lie.

Daily Finance:

In December 2012, a gunman burst into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and shot 26 people dead. Two years later, sales of guns and ammunition are off the charts.

That’s surprising, to say the least. After all, a lot of people thought that Sandy Hook might be a turning point for the gun control movement in America. Investors sold off shares of publicly traded gunsmiths Smith & Wesson (SWHC) and Sturm, Ruger (RGR) in the wake of the tragedy. Retailers of guns and ammunition — Cabela’s (CAB) and Dick’s Sporting Goods (DKS), and even the much more diversified retailer Walmart (WMT) all experienced slumps in share price post-Newtown. Dick’s went so far as to suspend gun sales to consumers for a time. Private equity house Cerberus Capital Management made plans to exit the guns business entirely, by selling its interest in privately held arms manufacturer Freedom Group.

And yet, according to a new poll out of Pew Research, the percentage of Americans who say they support “the right of Americans to own guns” hit a new high last year, with 52 percent in favor. That’s up 7 percentage points since the shootings at Newtown. Up 20 percentage points since the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. It’s nearly twice the level of support for gun rights at the time of the Columbine shooting in 1999. And support for gun rights is only growing stronger.

It’s only surprising to people who don’t understand America.  For all of you who sold your gun manufacturer stock after Columbine, Sandy Hook, and the Colorado theater shooting, you are idiots.  Each and every one of you.

Northwest Herald:

A suburban Chicago police officer was acquitted Wednesday of felony reckless conduct for killing a 95-year-old World War II veteran by shooting him with a beanbag gun at close range.

Park Forest Police Officer Craig Taylor was charged after the July 2013 death of John Wrana. In a courtroom packed with officers supporting Taylor, Cook County Judge Luciano Panici said there was nothing criminal about Taylor’s actions and that the officer did “what he was trained to do.”

The basic disagreement in the case was whether Taylor was justified in firing a weapon, at close range, that prosecutors said fires beanbags at 190 mph. Wrana died from internal bleeding caused by the beanbags.

Taylor, 43, was one of several officers dispatched to the facility where Wrana lived after a staff member reported that Wrana had become combative with emergency workers.

After Wrana struck a staffer with his cane, he brandished a 2-foot-long shoehorn at officers, prompting them to briefly leave the room. When the officers returned, one officer was carrying a Taser, another one had a shield, and Taylor was carrying a 12-gauge shotgun that shoots beanbags.

Wrana threatened the officers with a knife, and when he refused to drop it, one officer fired at him with the Taser but missed. Then Wrana moved toward Taylor, and the officer fired his weapon five times.

Prosecutors said Taylor had better and safer options than to fire the beanbags at a confused, knife-wielding elderly man, and that the officers didn’t have to storm Wrana’s room. They said he behaved recklessly when he fired five beanbags at Wrana at a distance of no more than 8 feet away.

But Taylor testified he was following the orders of a superior officer and feared for his life and the lives of his fellow officers when he saw Wrana holding the knife over his head and threatening to kill whoever came into his room. He testified that he felt like he “had to do something to stop him.”

The trial was of intense interest among local law enforcement agencies, and on the first day of trial many officers from Park Forest and other area departments showed up to the courthouse in Markham to show their support for Taylor.

Officers expressed anger that Taylor was even charged with a crime after an incident in which he was following orders and had legitimate fear for his own safety and the safety of his fellow officers.

We will all deal with issues of age.  It will go much like the report.  The elderly will be confused, they may issue threats they don’t even understand, they may not even be able to remember things or process reality reliably if they have dementia.  That’s okay.  They’ve earned that right.  As we are told in Leviticus 19:32, “You shall rise up before the grayheaded and honor the aged, and you shall revere your God.”  Or in the KJV, “Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God.”  Honor towards the creator requires honor for the elderly.

A nation that cannot do this not only won’t live long, it doesn’t deserve to.  It is past its useful life.  This officer was weak, both of body and spirit.  My own son Daniel, who did a combat tour in Fallujah, Iraq, talked to me at length about the shots he had to take and the kills he had to make.  But one of the most interesting of his altercations with other men came when one of his fellow Marines was in danger from an insurgent using a weapon other than a gun.  Others in the area made use of his SAW an unacceptable option (many noncombatants could have been injured), and he used what he called a “football tackle” on the insurgent to stop and disarm him (the context of this specific conversation was the lunacy of women in combat).

That fighter in Iraq wasn’t a 95 year old man who had earned the respect of younger men.  That was an insurgent in Fallujah.  And yet this LEO in Chicago felt it necessary to shoot a potentially lethal weapon at the old man rather than use his brains or brawn to disarm him and defuse the situation.  This is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in LEO-land.

But even worse, note the bolded sections of the article.  “The courtroom was packed with officers supporting Taylor.”  These other officers are saying that it’s okay to shoot at 95 year old men who are confused and frightened.  Nothing is more important than going home safely at the end of their shift.  Cops can’t even use the same rules of engagement / rules for the use of force that Soldiers and Marines used in Iraq, and any hint that they might be held accountable is anathema to the thin blue line.

We all like to complain about the so-called “criminal justice system,” with DA offices just down the hallway from judges, ex parte conversations, prosecutorial discretion used for ill intent, pet peeves and politics, and on and on the list goes.  This is an example of how the system can be used for good.

We only have one Paypal address active (the one for the Arms Expo this summer), but people are donating to that link and just marking it for bail money.

http://www.arms-expo.com/?page_id=113

Or, you can send money to donations@arms-expo.com with Paypal, etc.

If you have any problems, let me know. kit@arms-expo.com

Thank you for this. I really appreciate it. And they do too.

And you certainly know folks that will be involved.  See also David at WoG on this same subject.

CNBC:

The federal judge considering a proposed class-action settlement involving millions of allegedly defective Remington rifles is raising new questions about the accord, warning a plaintiff’s attorney in court that the agreement as it currently stands risks more people being injured by the guns.

Remington and the plaintiffs in two nationwide class-action cases have proposed replacing the triggers on nearly eight million guns, including the wildly popular Model 700 Series, which critics allege are prone to firing without the trigger being pulled.

Some two dozen deaths and hundreds of injuries have been linked to accidental firings of the guns. The 2010 documentary Remington Under Fire: A CNBC Investigation explored allegations that for more than 60 years, the company covered up the alleged defect.

Remington has steadfastly denied the allegations and still maintains the guns are safe.

“There’s nothing wrong with the Remington 700 rifle,” said Remington outside counsel John Sherk at a preliminary hearing in a federal court in Kansas City to consider the proposed settlement. But he said “Remington is committed to this settlement” in order for the company to move past litigation that has gone on for decades.

This is what happens with students go to law school and become convinced that it’s okay to tell lies.  There is indeed something very wrong with the Remington 700.  As I’ve said before, don’t believe what I’m saying.  Go study the evidence for yourself, including the testing performed at Remington.

The reason this is a big deal goes beyond mere responsibility for your work products as good and honest workers.  This goes to the honesty of engineering, the fidelity of weapons design and the ability to entrust your life and the lives of loved ones to a manufacturer.  Remington is showing itself to be a very bad example to the gun community.  Forget the issue of legal settlements.  What happened to being good professional engineers who take ownership of their designs?

David Codrea:

… those associations in and of themselves don’t relate how Carter would be able to use the position of Secretary of Defense to impact gun owners.

Here’s one area that it might: In following up on reports of military installations destroying expended ammunition brass rather than making it available to the commercial reload market, this column uncovered a copy of a June 23, 2011 memorandum from Carter on “Department of Defense (DoD) Implementing Guidance for the Commercial Sale of Expended Small Arms Cartridge Cases (ESACC).”

The memorandum includes an “Implementing Guidance” attachment stating “DoD will dispose of ESACC as quickly and effectively as practical, and in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and DoD guidance.” Of relevance, it also states “The DoD will not expend resources to determine whether ESACC are serviceable for non-military purposes.”

Ashton Carter is a progressive leader – not just shill – but leader.  Obama wouldn’t have appointed him if this were not the case.  You can lay bets on the notion that he will do everything in his power to ensure progressive policies are implemented.

Kurt Hofmann:

In other words, everyone who obediently registered their “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines, as per the new law, had provided the state with a map telling the gun confiscation raiding parties just where to go … let’s focus on one particular provision–registration of every gun. Actually, that’s annual registration, which is to be accompanied every time with a test of “firearms handling capacity” and knowledge of gun laws.

It never stops folks.  When they talk about “common sense” gun laws, what they really mean is that if you will let them get a foot in the door, they’ll force their way inside and take over.  It’s what control freaks do.  It’s what they believe.  They cannot not try to control every aspect of your life.  It’s like a dog returning to its vomit.  And it’s just as grotesque.

David Codrea:

“A Kermit [Texas] parent said his fourth-grade student was suspended Friday for allegedly making a terroristic threat,” the Odessa American reported Friday. After seeing “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies,” nine-year-old Aiden Steward allegedly brought a ring to school and told a classmate it was magic and could make him disappear.

The boy’s father, Jason Steward, said Kermit Elementary School Principal Roxanne Greer informed him “threats to another child’s safety would not be tolerated — whether magical or not.” For her part, Greer declined to comment …

Yea, I’ll bet she declined to comment.  This woman is an imbecile.  Do you really need another reason to get your children dissociated from the communist indoctrination program?

Iraqi father guns down seven ISIS members.

I was once a member of a Presbyterian church (and ostensibly, a conservative one at that).  I came to believe that next to the communist party in Russia, the session of elders in Presbyterian churches was the most corrupt, self serving, loathesome group of men on the planet, and the Presbyterian process the worst ever invented by sinful man.  Perhaps I was wrong.

First, Mike Vanderboegh penned an article explaining how NRA Board of Directors candidate John K. Brown is an ATF snitch.

As I noted here back in September, ATF snitch John Brown is running for the national board of the NRA. That he IS a snitch is indisputable (see here and here for starters).

Colonel Robert K. Brown of Soldier of Fortune magazine pointedly does not endorse this wholly-owned ATF minion, saying in large letters and italics, “SOF is NOT endorsing John Brown, who is no relation of mine.”

Brown does endorse the following folks:

“SOF endorses the following current BOD members for reelection: Scott Bach, Ronnie Barrett, David Coy, Joseph DeBergalis, Antonio Hernandez, David Keene, Wayne Anthony Ross, Don Saba, William Satterfield, Ronald Schmeits, Robert Unkovic and Robert Viden.SOF is also endorsing Sean Mahoney and Timothy Knight, who are running by petition. “

There are many questions raised by the John Brown candidacy, not the least of which is WHO on the current board backed him enough to get his name on the ballot? What is Wayne LaPierre’s role in this? Chris Cox’s? The more important question is why is a militarized federal police agency — entrusted with enforcing our firearm laws — trying to penetrate the highest levels of a group as powerful as the NRA?

I have just now gotten around to reading my February edition of American Rifleman.  In it is an insert from the nominating committee and a ballot, the nominating committe headed by none other than Tom King.  I’ve had my run-ins with Tom King, saying that he was “as emblematic of everything that’s wrong with the NRA as I’ve ever seen.  It’s the perfect example of how not to think about our rights.”

It’s not okay with me that Tom King is head of the NRA nominating committe.  It’s even more not okay with me that the nominating committe would have the audacity to nominate someone like Grover Norquist (number 19 on Tom’s list).  John Guandolo, with Understanding the Threat (whom I have heard speak with with whom I have exchanged mail and spoken), sends this along.

On September 11, 2001, Grover Norquist met in his office with a group of terrorists – “jihadis” if you prefer – to determine how to mend relations between Muslim leaders and American government officials, while the smoke was still rising after the attacks in which 3,000 of our citizens where murdered.

That alone should have put Mr. Norquist outside of the circle of trust among discerning and patriotic American leaders in the conservative movement, but it did not.

Mr. Norquist creating the Islamic Free Market Institute with money from Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi should be a red flag to rational thinking people in “conservative” circles, and should ostracize Mr. Norquist from any participation among patriots in matters of import – nope.

Grover Norquist – the founder of Americans for Tax Reform – continues to move within conservative circles with ease. and has support from some prominent Republicans.  Not only are many leaders in the American conservative movement failing to raise serious questions about Norquist’s defense of easily identifiable terrorists, they defend him and call those who lay facts on the table “bigots” or other similarly absurd names.

Now, he is again up for election as one of the members of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association (NRA).  Will the NRA allow a man who promotes and defends terrorists to be re-elected to their Board?

In February 2014, a group of prominent Americans prepared a report entitled “The Islamists and their Enablers Assault on the Right – The Case Against Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan.”  The report contains facts surrounding Mr. Norquist’s history with and support for terrorists.  Among those who signed the report were:  the Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, 81st Attorney General of the United States; and the Honorable R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence.

The facts detailed in this report include:  Grover Norquist provided access to the White House for a number of terrorists during the Bush administration; Norquist is the registered agent for the Islamic Free Market Institute in Washington, D.C. which received money directly from terrorist/jihadi organizations including convicted Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi and the SAFA Trust;  Alamoudi’s deputy at the American Muslim Council (AMC), Khalid Saffuri, was made the Director of the Islamic Institute with Norquist’s approval; Norquist promotes, works closely with, and defends a Muslim Brother/Jihadi named Suhail Khan, whose father, Mahboob Khan, was one of the most prominent Muslim Brotherhood leaders in the world prior to his death; and Suhail Khan served under two successive Secretaries of Transportation with a security clearance, and continues to be promoted and given access to positions of trust inside conservative circles by Grover Norquist.

I’m sorry to lift so much out of John’s article, but I know he won’t mind.  Go read his entire piece.  It’s just that important.  The NRA has on its ballot for board of directors a terrorist enabler.

So let’s say that you are Mr. Steve Hornady or Mr. Ronnie Barrett on the same ballot and you are offended by being placed in the same category as these two men (or Tom King).  Let’s say you don’t like sweeping judgments or a broad brush. Let’s say you’re offended by all of this.

Very well.  It was written to offend, so I have been successful.  I’m delighted you are offended, and that I was the one to do it.  If you don’t like the company you keep, if you want the NRA to straighten up, then get yourself some clorox, some rags, and a wire bristle brush.  Go to work and clean out your damn nasty-ass house.  Then we won’t have to have words like this.  We can be friends.

David Codrea:

Noting he is prohibited from commenting on grand jury proceedings, perhaps the DA’s mindset can be gleaned from a statement that is on public record. Berberian had previously maintained the shooting was inappropriate and illegal due to what he called “community standards.” In Marin County, those standards place a political “stigma” on gun ownership, and Berberian’s personal hostility to gun ownership, where he goes so far as to invite citizens to “surrender” their firearms to a “buyback” program, is seen by some as an “unhealthy obsession.”

Community standards?  Perhaps we need a community standard that takes corrupt DAs out behind the jail to find a lamp post and some rope.

David is following up that awful commercial made by the anti-gun nuts. “The producer of an anti-gun “public service announcement” video appears to have violated California law regarding either real or imitation firearms on school premises, a Freedom of Information Act response by the North Oakland Community Charter School implies by default. Documents provided to Gun Rights Examiner in response to a Public Records Act request partially corroborate the school executive director’s earlier claim that “NOCCS does not allow, condone, or support bringing weapons of any kind (real or replicas) to school.”

David is pointing people to a debate appended to one of his articles, where Bruce Krafft argues as follows:

And after some argument, he says “You believe that immigration will be a net drain despite the fact that some 50% of new businesses are started by 1st generation immigrants.”

Let’s be clear here.  I can answer David’s first question with clarity and intentionally include not just some sort of vague, murky “natural” right (I am not a follower of John Locke and his ilk).  I believe that the God of the Bible has granted every man the right to defend his family the way he sees fit.  Now to Mr. Krafft’s problem.

He is a simpleton.  All of that has abolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether the U.S. recognizes aliens, gives them sustenance, recognizes rights, or anything else.  Just as I can point to God having granted the right to self defense and amelioration of tyranny to all men everywhere, I can also point to a sovereign state’s resposibility to secure its borders, protect its heritage, and secure its freedom from tyranny.

Allowing voters in who would undermine that runs directly contrary to a state’s God given duties.  What another state recognizes (or not) for its citizens isn’t our concern.  That is between God and those evil rulers.  Just as we cannot be the police of the world, we also cannot ensure every man’s rights are observed by allowing our borders to be violated.  Setting one concept over against another (in a Morton’s Fork) is fodder for college freshmen.  We aren’t college freshmen, we think more clearly than that.  As for the notion that “immigrants start this,” or “immigrants did that,” or “we are all immigrants of some sort,” I am completely unmoved.  This is a play on emotions because Mr. Krafft knows he has lost the argument.  I don’t vote or advocate based on emotions.  Go emote with someone who cares, Mr. Krafft.  David titles his post at WoG “A Libertarian Paradox.”  Philosopher Gordon H. Clark once said of paradoxes, they are a “charlie horse in the head.”  So this too.  There is no logical problem here, just a lack of clear thought.

In an exchange I knew nothing about until today (I have been out of pocket for a while), Mike Vanderboegh is contemplating potential arrest at the WA state house as part of “I will not comply” protests.  David weighs in with Mike asking him to reconsider, and for a rundown of his own reason you will have to read David’s letter to Mike.

I have nothing at all to add to either Mike’s reasons or David’s counterarguments.  This is entirely a personal decision, neither dictated nor forbidden by Biblical precepts.  Perhaps there is wisdom to be gleaned, but that’s not the same thing as rules, sin, righteousness and the like.  I have not been a part of things like this because I have a job, and that job quite literally required me over the past several weeks to work about 20 straight days without time off.  Moreover, my job requires that I stay free from felony arrests, and even lesser charges could be problematic.

That said, I do get that there must be a line in the sand.  Every man must make those decisions for himself.  I cannot suffer the notion that the federal government has a list of every firearm owned and who owns them.  What I would do about that is none of your business until I tell you and make it your business.  The one thing on which I disagree with David is this: “And no, I don’t see a way to back out of this without losing face.”

Oh, I don’t know about that.  Haters will always hate.  Anonymous commenters annoy me, and like David I require that men go on record, at least with me if not others.  But posting an anonymous comment ridiculing Mike’s decision, one way or another, impresses me as sound and fury signifying nothing.  It’s like the little yap-yap dogs who run up to my 82 pound red and rust Dobbi, Heidi, making all sorts of unappealing noises, until she looks their way, and then they turn tail and run.  I think Heidi must be amused.  I know I am.

That’s what I recommend for Mike.  Amusement is appropriate in some circumstances.  But if you want to go to WA, do it.  If you don’t, then don’t.  Here is how you tell folks your decision.  You simply tell them.  That’s the end of it.  I don’t embarrass easily (engineers usually suffer from over-confidence and an almost pathological inability to care about the views of others – so I acknowledge there’s a problem with us, but I’m confident that problem doesn’t apply to me).  So maybe I’m a bad one to offer counsel.  But I just don’t see the issue with “saving face.”  It doesn’t have even the slightest traction with me.

WeaponsMan has a demurral for the M-14 / M1A lovers.  Well, I suspect that this will draw out as many violent remarks as haters of the 5.56 mm round and M-16/M-4/AR-15 platform.