The Wandering Minstrel

So, it would seem that the fact suppression comes directly from the oval office. From Investor’s Business Daily (via The Patriot Post):

New documents reveal the Department of Justice lied to Congress and show how U.S. officials bought guns with tax dollars and then made sure no one stopped their transfer to Mexican drug cartels. The funneling of thousands of American guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels in the operation known as Fast and Furious was not a botched sting operation or the result of bureaucratic incompetence. It was not designed to interdict gun trafficking, but to facilitate it. We now know that it involved not just the use of straw buyers, but also agents of the federal government purchasing weapons with taxpayer money, ordering the licensed dealers to conduct the sales off the books, then calling off surveillance of the gun traffickers and refusing to interdict the transfer of the weapon or arrest the people involved. … A two-year-old C-SPAN video shows Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, who would resign nine months later after less than a year’s service, telling reporters at a Justice Department briefing of major policy initiatives to fight the Mexican drug cartels. ‘The president has directed us to take action to fight these cartels,’ Ogden began, ‘and Attorney General Holder and I are taking several new and aggressive steps as part of the administration’s comprehensive plan.’ Ogden said the administration’s plan, at the president’s direction, included the ATF’s ‘increasing its efforts by adding 37 new employees in three new offices, using $10 million in Recovery Act funds and redeploying 100 personnel to the Southwest border in the next 45 days to fortify its Project Gunrunner,’ of which Operation Fast and Furious would be a part. … Fast and Furious should spark our pursuit of the truth, even if the trail leads to the Oval Office.

Regarding the Obamination’s recent OP-ED, We must seek agreement on gun reforms, here’s a lexicon of terms he used and what he really means . . .

• We must seek agreement on gun reforms = We must disarm gun owners
• I believe in the Second Amendment = Americans should not have access to arms
• Gun owners in America are highly responsible = Bitterly clinging to religion and guns
• common sense = confiscation
• enforcing laws that are already on the books = interpret laws to be more restrictive to gun owners
• beginning of a new discussion = press toward eliminating gun ownership
• seek consensus = impose new restrictions

I call it the “Carolyn Clip” because of idiot lawmaker Carolyn McCarthy’s nonsense legislation HR 308 and the common error made by anyone who doesn’t know shit about firearms by calling a magazine a clip. I didn’t need one of these until that bitch told me I couldn’t have one.

Clickable image courtesy The Better Half - Glock 26 with 33 9mm round capacity magazine.

On January 18, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 308, the “Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act.” The bills would ban the manufacture and importation of new magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and make it illegal for the tens of millions of Americans who already own these magazines to sell or otherwise transfer them, even through inheritance. Gun owners use the magazines for self-defense and target shooting, and as key parts of collectible firearms, as well as for other lawful purposes.

In a letter to her colleagues, Rep. McCarthy claimed that “The only reason for the existence of these devices is to be able to shoot as many people as quickly as possible.” Yet her bill would allow the continued acquisition and possession of these magazines by law enforcement officers, who carry firearms to defend themselves and the public. It would even allow these magazines to be transferred to law enforcement officers upon retirement, even though a retired officer`s right to use firearms for self-defense is the same as any other private citizen`s right.

I bet McCarthy will become Hi Capacity Magazine Salesperson of the Year and still call ‘em “clips.”

In the wake of the recent tragic shootings down in Tucson, opportunist politicians have introduced or will introduce legislation aimed at harassing legitimate and law abiding gun owners instead of fixing any actual problems leading to the incident. Legislation attacks on magazine capacity and so-called assault weapons clearly would not have prevented the shooting.

And Peter King’s 100 foot no-gun bubble around politicians and officials would turn a lot of law abiding folks into instant criminals. King’s bubble is because politicians better than us?

I know it will fall on politicians deaf ears, but I am re-publishing part of an article wherein key words of the second amendment are highlighted. We posted this before the Heller decision by the Supreme Court:

I recently happened to look at the amicus prepared on behalf of Hutchison and the Members of Congress by Constitutional Expert and Attorney Stephen P. Halbrook. Halbrook’s amicus recalls that the Congress has a long history of protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was proposed to the States by the Congress in 1789. On several occasions, in different epochs of American history, the Congress enacted statutory texts which explicitly declared its understanding of the Second Amendment as guaranteeing fundamental, individual rights.

The Second Amendment text is as follows:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That’s good - the Founders boiled it down to specific, unambiguous language. In it, there are five key nouns - ‘militia,’ ‘state,’ ‘right,’ ‘people‘ and ‘arms.’ There are two key verbs - ‘keep‘ and ‘bear.’ Keep these keywords in mind as you continue to read.

The phrase “the right of the people” also appears in the First Amendment – “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Fourth Amendment guarantees: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .”

Opponents of Second Amendment rights want you to think that this identical wording means something different in the First and Fourth Amendments. You can’t have it one way with freedom of dissent and freedom from search and seizure, and a completely different meaning when it comes to the ‘right of the people‘ to keep and bear arms.

The constitutional text distinguishes between “the people,” “the militia,” and the “States.” The Second Amendment refers to “a well regulated militia,” but the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed to “the people.”

That’s quite clear: militia does not equal people. The ability of the militia to provide security on behalf of the state depends on the right of the people to own and bear arms. The ability of individuals to provide for their own security, likewise, depends on this right.

The Second Amendment refers to the right to “keep” arms (such as at home) as well as to “bear” arms (meaning to carry them). Protected arms include commonly-kept firearms that one can keep and carry for lawful purposes, such as ordinary rifles, handguns, and shotguns, and not crew-served or heavy weapons.

Despite laws to the contrary, every law-abiding citizen who has reached majority should have the right to own and carry his/her gun at all times.

And now, the meaning of “state” . . .

The Amendment declares a well regulated militia to be necessary to the security of a “free State,” which means a free country, and is not restricted to a State government.

Halbrook, in the Congressional Amicus for Heller, decomposes the language of the Second Amendment into its component parts to reveal the true meaning of the Founders. If you read the Complete Brief (PDF) prepared by Halbrook, you can discover some of the history about how the Second Amendment evolved into its present form.

Republicans running for Governor in the California primary, pits one definite anti-gunner against another potentially wishy-washy candidate. Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, is primarily responsible for kicking firearms stuff off eBay and making PayPal anti 2A as well. Steve Poizner, despite recent sudden right turns is not likely to make RKBA in California a priority. Poizner, to his credit, denounced the draconian California ammo regulation monstrosity, AB962, in an appearance on a talk-radio show.

Rummaging through pro-gun forums, I found the consensus to be roughly as I stated above. Some forums actually talk about Democratic front-runner, former California Governor and current State Attorney General, Jerry Brown as being better for guns than either of the Republican candidates. Brown, you may recall, filed an amicus brief in favor of the pro-gun position in the Chicago Gun Case, currently before the SCOTUS. Brown’s motivations for doing so are not clear, but basically he should be under suspicion since most, if not all of his politics are far-left.

While Whitman’s anti second amendment status is well-known, Poizner may just be a chameleon, only displaying pro-gun colors to get votes. And, we just can’t trust Brown on ANYTHING.

California Gunners — you’re SCREWED AGAIN! (I say ‘you’ instead of ‘we’ because I hope to be a resident of Arizona by the next California gubernatorial inauguration.)

I agree with fellow California gun blogger (and friend) DirtCrashr. We just have to sigh heavily and head to another state to get our gun fixes.

This picture is worth more than a measly thousand words. Astounding correlation between gun laws and violent crime rate. From the CALGUNS forum via Uncle.

The Green line indicates # of violent crimes per 2,000,000 people (higher number = higher crime rate). The Blue line indicates Brady Bunch state rating (higher number = more gun control). Clickable Image.

California violence is only exceeded by that in Washington, D.C.

The Better Half took this photo of a saguaro cactus making an obscene gesture.

I would like to think that it symbolizes the feeling of those of us who fight for the right to keep and bear arms toward those who would disarm us.

The Better half thinks the saguaro’s karma is directed toward the government - or, terrorism - or Hollywood liberals - or, most likely, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Kullyfoania Legislature.

Or we’re Californicated as Sebastian puts it. Despite a flood of opposition to AB 962, the Governator just terminated us from buying ANY ammo in Kalifornistan.

Sebastian also speculated that ammo imports by private citizens just might increase from neighboring states. I have personal knowledge that the speculation shall come to pass. I understand also that Cabela’s will refuse to sell ammo to anyone in California (like law enforcement, maybe?) - other ammo vendors/manufacturers need to jump on that bandwagon.

Now, where did I put that list of ammo vendors in Arizona?

Update: A response to the Governator (something other than the tempting response of “FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE!“)