David Codrea initially recommended that NRA members recall Grover Norquist.  We had already briefly discussed that, and it should be clear where I stand.  Todd Rathner penned a rebuttal to David’s recommendation.

I strongly disagree with his suggestion that the NRA should focus on issues other than the Second Amendment.”

“The NRA is powerful and can defend our gun rights against all comers because it focuses like a laser on strengthening the Second Amendment,” Rathner explains. “We [NRA] are not the Republican Party. The NRA wants the support of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. We are not the pro-life movement. Or the pro-choice movement. We want Americans of all world views to defend the Second Amendment.”

This is a silly statement.  People of all world views won’t defend the second amendment.  The constitution came from a world view that was unique in its understanding of the ultimate source of rights, which the constitution merely recognized.  As for needing people of all kinds to defend anything, I don’t really think there is such a real need, and I certainly have no felt need for such a thing.

But Mr. Rathner doesn’t want us to think two steps ahead.  Or another way to say it would be that Rathner doesn’t want us to consider logical consequences, simple first order effects.  We have gone to great lengths to make everyone understand that open borders, in addition to the other national maladies that would be involved, means loss of recognized rights to own firearms.  It starts with the cultural milieu of Hispanics and Latinos.

“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”

One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished.  South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology.  Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build.  This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.

Thus, Hispanics and Latinos poll at some 75% favoring gun control.  Even if we acquiesce to Mr. Rathner’s claim on single issues, we still win because we’re right.  On this single issue, we cannot allow unfettered immigration.  David writes this about the issue in his latest response to Rathner.

Here’s the thing, Mr. Rathner, and you have to know this, which makes your “response” appear more disingenuous than “respectful”:  “Amnesty” with a “pathway to citizenship” represents nothing less than an existential threat to the Second Amendment. If Grover Norquist and his apologists continue giving NRA a pass to ignore it under a phony “single issue” excuse (which I just demonstrated is one of convenience, not consistency), you’re not going to have anything to “focus like a laser” on. And that’s in a matter of a decade or two.

Lastly, Mr. Norquist has shown a propensity to align himself with people who would do harm to this nation.  This may not be the single issue Mr. Rathner wants to focus on, but it’s good enough for me.  After all, I’m a professional employee, I serve my employer “at will.”  They can fire me any time for any reason.  So can we with Norquist.

Military News:

Since 2002, military police, like many specialties across the Army, had to adapt to serve the mission on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Investigations and community relations took a backseat to foot patrols and base security. The wide-range of abilities military police are capable of narrowed so they could face the challenges at hand.

Soldiers and Airmen from Joint Base Lewis-McChord had an opportunity to get back to basics during civil disturbance training on the installation Jan. 25 to Feb. 4 to face those shifting challenges.

“Our MPs could be called out on a variety of situations,” said Sgt. 1st Class Steven Ketchum, an instructor with the 14th Military Police Brigade, Fort Leonard Wood, Mo. “National Guard MPs got called out in Ferguson (Missouri) and during other civil disturbances. Units don’t train civil-stability operations as much as they could.”

The Missouri National Guard mobilized 2,200 Guardsmen to keep the peace during rioting in Ferguson in the fall of 2014. Likewise, 3,000 Guardsmen were mobilized to assist Baltimore police last spring.

[ … ]

For a long time, Soldiers were trained to see the battlefield in stark terms — friendlies and enemies. Recent civil disturbances have exposed the limitations of that philosophy.

While preparing for Ferguson, National Guard briefings referred to citizens on the ground as “enemy forces” and “adversaries.” The Missouri National Guard corrected course, but they struggled to overcome the perception of being hostile occupiers as opposed to peacekeepers.

“We are helping to keep everyone safe, whether they’re rioting or not,” Loxsom said.

MPs learned many lessons from deployments around the world. Staying strong in the face of adversity, operating in difficult environments, and remaining flexible to meet the mission are hard-won traits that have become part of their DNA.

As the Army’s focus adapts to a changing security environment, MPs are changing with it. They are finding their future by getting back to basics.

Be sure to hear the nuance in the article.  “Enemy forces.”  Not good.  Need better PR.  Call them “everyone,” and tell them you want what’s good for them.  Call us “peacekeepers.”  The “future” of Army MPs is getting back to the “basics,” by which they mean stability operations.  Not breaking up fights between drunken Soldiers, but stability on the streets of America.

The times they are a changin’.

News From Texas:

Some predicted that the law would lead to a surge of 911 calls, but according to Cpl. Tracey Knight, spokeswoman for the Fort Worth Police Department, not much has occurred:

“We do not have anything interesting to report. Two calls so far, no issues. We have no concerns and we have had no problems.”

Sheriff Dee Anderson adds:

“I said before this became law that I thought it was going to be much ado about nothing, but I didn’t know it was going to be this much nothing.”

Carolyn Daniel, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, argues it’s “too soon to tell” what effect this law will have:

“Changes in legislation can take years to determine an impact.”

Fox News reports that a number of local businesses are now banning firearms on their premises, “as well as national chains, including Starbucks [and] Jack in The Box.” But other businesses, like Home Depot and Bass Pro Shops, have embraced open carry.

But if we look to another state in which open carry was signed into law, the evidence suggests the new Texas legislation will not be an issue.

Mississippi began allowing open carry on July 1, 2013. Fourteen months later, virtually no issues had arisen.

WAPT reported in September 2014:

“The Mississippi Highway Patrol and the Jackson and Byram police departments said there have been little or no incidents reported. Utica police had one incident, where a man forgot he had his weapon on, but he put it back in his truck, authorities said.”

WAPT also quoted Vicksburg Police Chief Walter Armstrong:

“We have seen several [people utilizing the open-carry law] over the last year. I would imagine somewhere between 10 and 12…

I have to admit, initially I was a bit nervous about the debate of the law and the passing of the law. But to my surprise, we have not had one single incident as it relates to open-carry.”

Some Mississippians had similar fears regarding open carry, specifically relating to open carry at bars or pubs.

Prior to the Mississippi law going into effect, Hinds County Constable Jerry Moore argued it would be “total chaos” if the law were to be implemented:

“You get enough fights at the clubs and things that we have to respond to now. Can you imagine running up into a club of 50 to 100 people and trying to get order?”

Law enforcement also has mixed feelings about the Texas law. A survey conducted by the Texas Police Chiefs Association yielded some interesting results.

I told you so.  I said this.

Oooo … boogey man gonna getcha!  Hold me Uncle Bob!  I askeerd!  “Walking disaster.”  “Trouble.”  “Volatile and deadly situations.” Oooo …

Again, as a citizen of a traditional open carry state, I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen here.  Nothing.  That’s right, nothing.  Life will continue in the lone star state unabated, and the doomsday predictions of law enforcement and the progressives will go down as a monument to their hatred of the common man.

And this.

Really, folks, this has become a silly, exaggerated, inflated, dramatic, overly-complicated, hysterical fit.  I can say that because my home state is a traditional open carry state, and I have open carried, and seen others doing the same.  It’s just not the problem you are making it out to be.  When it’s time for open carry to be legal, some men will decide to open carry, and life will go on.  Business will occur, and the only crimes that may spiral out of control would be SWAT call-outs from politically motivated callers who use the cops to drive their points.

Here’s a note to Texas police departments.  If you don’t want to be used, don’t oblige.  Don’t do it.  Just say no.  Stand up for yourself.  Be men.

Blood won’t run in the streets, I have said.  The sky won’t fall, chicken little can go back to sleep, and the world can know that open carry isn’t the problem the “Moms demand [fill in the blank]” and LEOs say it is.

Florida is next.  And then comes South Carolina, if communist State Senator Larry Martin gets out of the way.

The Fiscal Times:

“I always carry a weapon on me. If I’d been at the Bataclan or one of those bars, I would have opened fire. Perhaps I would have died, but at least I would have taken a shot. The worst thing is the powerlessness to respond to those who want to kill you,” he said.

Well now.  I don’t really know you Donald, and we don’t send each other Christmas cards.  I care what my readers do, and perhaps they care from time to time what I do.  But I don’t really care what you do.

But here’s what I do care about.  How much have you pressed those communists in New York to let your fellow citizens carry guns?  You know, those poor people who are left “powerless to respond” when gangsters and thugs rob, beat and kill them?  After all, you want to be the leader of the “free world,” so shouldn’t it matter whether you’ve spoken out in favor of the rights of those around you?

Oh, that’s right.  I guess you haven’t.  I recall that informative conversation you had with Field & Stream, where you said this.

I do have a gun, and I have a concealed-carry permit, actually, which is a very hard thing to get in New York … And, you know, I’m in New York City, so I have a concealed-carry permit, and I meant to tell you—I just wanted to point that out because it’s so hard to get, and it’s one of the hardest things you can get.

Okay.  It was all about you.  Never mind.  I’m back to where I started.  I don’t really care what you do.

David Codrea:

“While many people might disagree with statements made by those involved in the Malheur takeover, Americans have a fundamental right to freedom of speech,” the ACLU of Oregon declared in a position statement on charges against Santilli. “We can all agree that we should not hold members of the media or protesters in jail without bail simply because they have shocking or abhorrent views. These are principles that we must stand by, even when we disagree with the message of the speaker.”

David adds, “Love him or hate him, if the government gets away with its prosecution of Pete Santilli, freedom of expression and freedom of the press will be effectively quashed.

And I’ve noticed that holding people without bail appears to be a favorite tactic these days of prosecutors who find the accused particularly objectionable.  They seldom get away with it unless judge feels the same way.  Oftentimes they do.  So whether you find justice seems to be related to whether they like you and whether they perceive you to be a threat to their social pecking order.

David Codrea:

Vote yes on the recall of Grover Norquist from the NRA board.

I didn’t know there was one, and I certainly will.  I’ve weighed in before on this worm.

Former ISIS sex slaves take up arms against ISIS.  My question: where are the men?

Muslim migrant abuse of Christians.  As I’ve said, this problem isn’t really that difficult to solve.  Remember Herschel’s Dictum.

Fox News:

An employee at a Michigan General Motors Technical Center said he was fired after he pulled a gun to stop a knife attack at the plant on Wednesday, but his bosses eventually reversed their decision and let him return to work.

Didarul Sarder, a 32-year-old valet service supervisor, “now has his job back,” Warren Mayor Jim Fouts said in a Facebook post.

Sarder said he had a valid concealed pistol license and was carrying his gun when he saw a 52-year-old woman being stabbed by another woman just outside the main entrance of the central office building, FOX2 reported.

“The lady kept saying ‘I’m dying, someone help,’ and it was just natural reaction,” Sarder said. “I just see this lady getting stabbed. I only had, like, half a second to think and I un-holstered my firearm and pointed it at her to drop the knife.”

Sarder said he told the suspect to freeze until police arrived to arrest her. The woman who was stabbed, Stephanie Kerr, is in critical condition after being stabbed in the neck, back and abdomen, officials said.

Fouts told FOX2 the attack began when the 32-year-old suspect entered the plant asking to speak with Kerr. The two met in the lobby but eventually went outside. That’s when the suspect pulled a knife. The suspect hasn’t been identified because she hasn’t been charged or arraigned yet.

“I hope she makes it,” Sarder said. “Maybe those few seconds before the police arrived could be the difference between life and death.”

But after the incident was resolved, Sarder said a GM employee fired him for having the weapon on the premises.

“He said, ‘You shouldn’t have had a firearm here,’” Sarder said. “’After this is done he needs to be escorted off the property. He’s not welcome back here.’”

Sarder added: “I was really bummed out. I got a little emotional.”

Sarder said he had worked on the grounds for a company contracted by GM since December. He said he was never informed of a no-gun policy. Sarder’s wife, Jakia Sarder, told The Detroit Free Press that Sarder had worked for the company for almost 10 years.

“Right after it happened someone in authority asked him off the premises because he violated company rules with a gun,” Fouts wrote. “That was absolutely the wrong response to this hero. However that decision was over-ruled by higher ups and he now has his job back.”

But I’m willing to bet their policy still hasn’t changed and he still isn’t allowed to carry a gun.  The company would rather the poor woman have perished than allow an employee to stop a crime with a weapon.  Meh … yawn … what’s a life when there’s a corporate policy to consider?

Springfield News-Leader:

Answer Man! I was sitting in Mr. Smith’s Fast Lube on Sunshine Street, waiting while I was getting my oil changed. A man entered with a holstered handgun on his hip. He was getting his oil changed, too, and sat next to me. He seemed nervous and I was concerned about the gun. Is this legal in Springfield? — Joey Pulleyking, of Springfield

The short answer, Joey, is that in Missouri the man had the legal right to openly carry a firearm into the business.

The answer is nuanced. Since there’s such great interest in guns in the Ozarks, I’m going to explore your question further, Joey. For example, I interviewed two Springfield men who openly carry. I’ll get to them later.

Over at Mr. Smith’s, I learned the owner is not a Mr. Smith. The owner goes by the name of Earl, although he is not an Earl, either.

His name is Scott Mather. When I walk into his business, he recognizes me: “Hey, Answer Man, need an oil change? Mr. Smith’s Fast Lube loves your car as much as you do.”

I tell him my car appreciates the love, but no thanks on the oil change.

Instead, I ask how he feels about customers bringing firearms into his business. In Missouri, you don’t need a permit or firearms training to openly carry (but you do if you conceal the weapon).

First, he says, rarely does he see anyone openly carry in one of his shops.

“If people want to do that, they can do that,” he says.

That’s why he does not post a “No Guns” or “No Firearms” sign at his businesses.

According to state law, business owners who don’t want guns on their property must post a sign at least 11 inches by 14 inches in a conspicuous place. The letters on the sign must be at least one inch in height. (Business owners cannot prohibit people from leaving their guns in their car in the parking lot.)

A business owner who prohibits firearms — and then spots a customer with one — must then ask the person to leave and return without the weapon. If the person refuses to exit, the owner can call police, and the person with the gun can be charged with trespassing, a misdemeanor.

[ … ]

Jim Arnott, Greene County sheriff, first wants to make something clear.

“I don’t want it to come out that I am against open carry,” he says.

He’s not. But … “I am a big advocate of concealed carry.

“If they open carry to defend themselves or to intervene in a situation — the first person that the bad guy is going to take care of is the guy with his gun on his hip.”

Arnott says most people he knows conceal carry to maintain the element of surprise.

“The coach of a football team is not going to give up his plays to the other team,” he says.

If you open carry, Arnott says, there’s also a chance people will see your firearm and quickly call police.

So with this in mind, I have a number of things puzzling me.  Let me get right to it.

First, I hear that all the time, i.e., this meme that the first person an active shooter will seek out is the person who is open carrying.  I monitor news reports all the time, as you can imagine of a gun blogger.  I have never seen a news report of an active shooter, robber, criminal, or other ne’er-do-well entering a building and seeking out people with open carry weapons.  You spoke with such authority on the matter, I assume you have some evidence of your claim.  Can you share that evidence with us?

Second, if you believe that, I assume that you have a department policy that your officers conceal carry and wear plains clothes, except for the badge on their belts so people can identify them?  I mean, so active shooters won’t seek them out and so they can hide their game plays?

Third, you say you aren’t against open carry, but in fact you seemed to spend a good deal of effort to dissuade folks in your area from openly carrying.  Why did you do that if you’re not opposed to open carry?

Fourth, is it a good thing if I ensure that I’m the last person an active shooter seeks out?  I have given it some thought in the light of John 15:13, and I have concluded that it would be fairly unseemly, cowardly and dishonorable of me to sit back and say, “Crap, I hope he takes out that woman or kid over there instead of me!  I wanted to watch that show on TV tonight!”  I’m not sure I could live with myself if I decided to slink away and retreat in the face of danger to women and children around me.  In fact, I’m not sure I mind the fact that I’m the first one he confronts, since I’m likely the only one in the vicinity who has planned for this and thought about it a great deal.  I try to keep my head on a swivel, as I’ve discussed many times before.

Do you agree, or would you advocate being the last one to die?

Via Uncle, this from Dearborn:

Khalil Abu-Rayyan, 21, was being watched by the feds since May 2015.

He was even having online conversations with an undercover FBI agent.

“I tried to shoot up a church one day,” Abu-Rayyan posted. “It’s one of the biggest ones in Detroit. I had it planned out. I bought a bunch of bullets. I practiced reloading and unloading.”

[ … ]

The complaint filed in federal court doesn’t specify which Detroit church he was allegedly planning to attack, only that it was close and could seat 6,000 members.

The complaint quotes Abu-Rayyan saying:

“It’s easy, and a lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus it would make the news. Everybody would’ve heard. Honestly I regret not doing it. If I can’t do jihad in the Middle East, I would do my jihad over here.”

I’m not surprised that this almost occurred in Dearborn, but it could have occurred anywhere.  Folks, I’ve covered it until I’m exhausted covering it.  Search my religion category for the details of pastors who hate their flocks and would rather see them perish than allow they to carry in worship.  Forget that the jihadist doesn’t understand what a church is (the church is the people, the building they meet in is just that – a building, not a church).

This jihadist understands this much.  When you attend a worship service, in most liturgies, even ones which are atypical, you are a sitting duck, you and your whole family.

You are sitting down, with people in front of you, people behind you, and people to the side of you.  Means of egress, evasion and escape are limited to non-existent.  The attention of most people is focused on the front, on one man or a choir, or in the singing of Psalms, Hymns and spiritual songs, rather than on potential security threats.  This isn’t an argument for not going to worship.  This is an argument for going armed, with your head on a swivel.

And no, a few security people armed with BaoFeng UV-5R comms gear and acting ever so earnest cannot stop a shooter.  You need to carry in worship.  Please, please hear me when I say this.  You need to carry in worship.  If other people don’t, that heightens your responsibility.  If other people are preoccupied, you need to be extra diligent.  Please carry guns in worship.  And if this is disallowed, make your pastor understand, or do it anyway, or change churches.  It’s that important.

The Des Moines Register:

Apparently, some members of the Iowa Legislature have far too much time on their hands.

Despite all of the pressing issues facing lawmakers, including school funding and water quality, some of them are pursuing legislation that would make it legal for Iowans to carry loaded firearms while driving or riding on all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles.

Currently, Iowa law prohibits firearms on ATVs and snowmobiles unless the weapons are unloaded and enclosed in a carrying case.

The law exists not only to protect people from bullets accidentally fired as these vehicles bounce over rough terrain, but to discourage hunting from moving vehicles. Under a separate Iowa law, one can use a snowmobile or ATV to go hunting in Iowa, but it is illegal for hunters to use the vehicles to chase game, or to assist in taking the animals.

Amazingly, some Republican lawmakers think — or claim to think — that this restriction infringes on people’s constitutional right to defend themselves. Last week, a House subcommittee chaired by Rep. Brian Best, a Republican lawmaker from Glidden, approved a bill that would eliminate the law.

“I see this as a personal-protection measure, and (want) to make sure that Iowans can freely exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Best said.

It isn’t good enough to prohibit hunting from a moving vehicle.  They want to prohibit the carrying of weapons with which one would hunt from a moving vehicle.  Brought straight to you from the minds of The Minority Report.

The second reason – ah, this one is sweet.  To “protect people from bullets accidentally fired as these vehicles bounce over rough terrain.”  So tell us, engineers and gunsmiths in the Iowa State legislature, how would this happen?  Give a blow by blow account of the sequence of events, including actions taken by the mechanical parts of various guns, that might explain how going over bumps would discharge a round?  We all await your response with eager anticipation.

David Codrea:

Whether the ruling will be upheld or overturned on appeal is anybody’s guess. Still, this goes far in validating those of us who were arguing years ago not to listen to useless mainstream Republican squishes — who were adamant that the intermediate benchmark was the highest goal we could hope to attain.

What this win-for-now does not do – and what gun owners had best get up to speed on and not ignore – is redirect the emphasis on the “in common use at the time” excuse for infringements. That was a phrase used by Justice Scalia in the Heller case, and has been a major concept the antis have been pinning their hopes, and their legal strategies on. And in many cases, “our side” is playing right into their hands by focusing exclusively on sporting purposes, and on self-defense against crimes by private actors.

The self defense focus is correct when applied across the board – self defense against individuals and against nation-states.  I’ve said I think the Supreme Court will sustain an “assault weapons” ban.  The seeds are in the awful Heller decision.  Only the Fudds focus on hunting, and as I’ve said before, a sporting purpose is anything that gives me pleasure, including sitting and holding it.  Finally. it occurs to me that the whole issue of intermediate scrutiny versus strict scrutiny and such divisions to stack the deck is the mark of a judicial system that doesn’t seek justice.

Muslims and sex slavery.  Cheer up, women.  According to the Muslim scholars (I know, that is a contradiction in terms), they can only take you as a concubine if they take you in battle.  Just taking you as another wife without calling you a wife is forbidden.  This will help you rest easier tonight that the religion of peace has your best interests at heart.

Remember.  Migrants come because of love.

Using firearms against migrants.  Oh, it’s going to have to get a lot better unanimity that one out of four.

Mark Levin eviscerates Chris Christie.  Listen to the first clip to hear his most recent position on guns.