Illinois' Bonehead Legislation Attempt

Illinois Rep. Kenneth Dunkin (D- Chicago) introduced a bill to require that LEGAL firearm owners in the state carry a $1 million dollar insurance policy covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the firearm.

A funny thing about this proposed requirement, there isn't an insurance company in the country that will issue such a policy. Now what kind of moron makes the decision to introduce a bill that 1) impossible to comply with and 2) only impacts those that try to stay within the law? The answer is apparently the boneheads in Illinois, land of Lincoln and some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

To any of my readers from the state of Illinois: How long are you going to keep tolerating this from your public servants?

Minnesota tries new gun control law

I see that Minnesota legislators are now looking at a bill to close the mythical gun show loophole that is supposedly responsible for all of the gun related crimes in the U.S. . According to a story by The Star Tribune, "The bill would close the so-called "gun show/Internet loophole." It would prohibit private sales of pistols or assault weapons unless the buyer or seller was a federally licensed dealer, or used a licensed dealer to transfer the weapon. That includes sales at garage and estate sales and over the Internet, which are currently exempt from background checks."

We have a winner for today's bonehead legislation contest. Let's take a look at the comment above piece by piece.

The mythical "gun show loophole" has some new brothers, the Internet, garage sale and estate sale loopholes. First, my personal experience at most gun shows I attend is that the "guns show loophole" is a myth. Yes there are a few private sales of some weapons at guns shows but the vast majority of the tables I have approached are run by those who are FFL dealers and DO require that you abide by existing laws by filling out the paperwork and going through the mandatory background check. The private sales at guns shows eliminate the need of me inviting God knows who over to my house if I want to sell a gun. I can take the gun to the show, others that may be interested in it can view it and make an offer, and a deal can be made.

The Internet loophole is something completely new and unusual. Under existing laws, a transfer of a gun across state lines already requires the services of an FFL for a legal transfer. Even within the Republic of Texas, I cannot legally ship a gun to another person. So where is the loophole? Is there some mystical site on the Internet that will allow me to purchase a firearm without abiding by the local laws? If so, please point it out to me as I am sure the boys at BATF don't have an idea it may be out there.

Now one of the key points of the bill according to the article is that it will outlaw the private transfer of the dreaded and evil "Assault Weapons". I am anxious to see what the definition of an assault weapon turns out to be in this bill.

Now a quiz for my readers...

Which one of the firearms pictured below is an "Assault Weapon"?





Answer: Neither, it is a trick question. They are both Ruger 10-22 rifles. One of the most common of the .22 plinkers that millions of people have used to learn the proper use of firearms.

The second picture is merely the same gun with a different set of stocks, guards and other accessories. Both are still .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles with no difference in functionality, only how the weapon looks. The bottom picture even dispalys the standard 10 round magazine sold with the gun.

Some Words of wisdom

An old grandpa once said, "Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' knee caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin'."

He goes on to say the following:

I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy. I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves. Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin'.

Tennessee Gets It

The "it" here is that the lawmakers of Tennessee have filed 18 bills to loosen existing restrictions on firearms. An additional 4 bills have been introduced to restrict access to the database that houses information on CHL holders.

Hats off to Tennessee!

Say it ain't so...

I was handed a news story tonight at a motorcycle club meeting mentioning the little town of Tenaha, Texas. Tenaha is a small town with a population just over 1000 people less than 20 miles from the Texas-Louisiana border.

According to the article, it appears that the law enforcement officers of both the town and Shelby County have been accosting motorists that pass through the area. The law enforcement officials have been coercing motorist to turn over money and property in return for free passage through the area.

These so-called officials are performing what amounts to highway piracy on a regular basis. They have confiscated numerous automobiles, jewelry, cash and other property from 140 motorists between 2006 and 2008. All of this without filing criminal charges against less than half of the motorists. The motorists were threatened with arrest and/or jail time unless they waived their rights to the property.

I am appalled at this lack of respect for the Fifth Amendment rights of these motorists. The Fifth Amendment clearly states that a person shall not be, "...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

One of the "law enforcement uses" for the confiscated property included a beer and margarita party for officers.

Please explain to me how this is justified in any way, shape or form?

The Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee is looking into this matter but only after ten of the motorists filed a suit against both the town of Tenaha and Shelby County.

I'll be following this story and the associated lawsuit to see how the state reacts to this fiasco and will keep you posted.

To quote an oft used phrase from the movies, "Looks like you are in a heap of trouble, boy."

A March on the Texas State Capitol

A good portion of this blog deals with Second Amendment rights but all of my rights are important to me. As any reader of this blog is aware, I am proudly outspoken when it comes to our elected officials and will gladly point out each of their infractions against my rights.

The picture above is me and about 3,000 of my closest friends marching on the Texas State Capitol on January 16th . Although the picture is a bit small, I am the guy under the big red mark on the photo.

The purpose of this gathering was to inform our legislators that we are aware of the bills they are attempting to pass that limit our rights as motorcyclists as well as citizens of this country. Plain and simple, we have had enough and are not going to take the continued erosion of our rights and liberties sitting down.

I am a patch holder in a local motorcycle club (name withheld to protect the innocent and guilty) and am active in the Texas Confederation of Clubs (TCoC). I am also one of our two club representatives and the DFW area secretary for the Texas Defenders program.

The Texas Defenders program was commissioned by TCoC State Chairman Bandido Gimmi Jimmy in the early fall of 2007 and has taken on a force of its own. This program was presented to the attendees of the National Coalition of Motorcyclists (NCOM) this year and is spreading like wildfire across the country. The same program is also known as the US Defenders across the country as the various CoC's climb on board to protect their rights.

Another portion of the program is the Coalition of Independent Riders (COIR). The COIR works in conjunction with the CoC's to bring non-patch holding riders into the fold to make sure they are both aware of the legislation that may impact them and to make sure that their voices are heard by our legislators.

The march this year on the state capitol was a very moving experience for me. It was quite something to hear 3,000+ voices raised in unison on the capitol steps as we recited the Pledge of Allegiance before going inside to visit with our legislators.

If you are a patch holder, check with your local CoC and see if there is a similar program in place in your area. If you are an independent rider, join the COIR and make sure your voice joins ours in protecting your rights.

If you need help in setting up a similar program in your area or do not know who to contact, let me know and I will get the information for you.

To read a bit more about the Texas Defenders program, check out the Texas CoC page.

Ride Free!

Definitions of terms used in this blog.

I have been asked a few times what some of the phrases I use in this blog mean. This post is an attempt to explain these terms to newer readers. I will edit this entry and add more definitions as the need arises.

Unarmed Victim(s) - These are members of the populace who do not understand that the Second Amendment is not about hunting but about personal protection from criminals and tyranny. Unarmed victims typically live with the misunderstanding that all guns are evil pieces of machinery and can act on their own accord to cause harm. They have no desire to protect themselves and are happy to allow the government to dictate what is good for them.

An unarmed victim can also be a member of the populace unfortunate enough to live in a police state that does not recognize the Second Amendment rights of their citizens. Citizens in areas such as Chicago and all of California are, by legislation, unarmed victims.

Bonehead(ed) Legislation - This is one of the nicer terms I use to describe legislation, either proposed or in place, that does nothing to actually help the citizens and actually harms them by ignoring their rights and ability to protect themselves. Examples of boneheaded legislation are HR45, the original AWB and most "gun laws" currently on the books.

I first encountered the term "bonehead legislation" in the title of a book about outrageous laws called 'The Trenton Pickle Ordinance and Other Bonehead Legislation" by Dick Hyman. I enjoyed this book and for some reason the descriptor for the legislation has stuck with me over the years.

The Second Amendment or 2A - “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.” These are the most important 27 words in the U.S. Constitution. This phrase acknowledges our inalienable right to protect ourselves, our property and our family against the criminal element or, if necessary, our government.

Republic of Texas - To the uninitiated, this is also known as the Great State of Texas. On December 29, 1845, Texas agreed to be annexed by the U.S. and joined the Union as the 28th state. Texas is the only state that was a sovereign nation prior to joining the Union. While not a native Texan, the ideals and feelings I have for my home state for the last 15 years are as strong as any native-born son of the Republic.

Below are a few interesting tidbits from the Texas Constitution. It clearly states:

“Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States...” (note that it does not state “...subject to the President of the United States...” or “...subject to the Congress of the United States...” or “...subject to the rest of the United States...”)

And

"All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper.”

Unfortunately, Texas citizens like most in the U.S. have meekly allowed the government to slowly erode the rights that made this country so great.

Is Canada Finally Seeing the Light?

Although I rarely concern myself with the events that occur north of the U.S. border, a recent news item caught my eye that I feel compelled to comment on.

As most already know, Canada is one of the countries who has taken drastic steps to disarm the populace and make all of their citizens a member of the unarmed victims. Canada is home to some of the most restrictive gun registration laws in a costly but feeble attempt to protect the public.

About a decade ago, Canada created the Canadian Long Gun Registry that was to cost the taxpayers of the frozen north $2 million to maintain. A decade later, the costs of this boneheaded legislation has increased to $2 billion while doing little to protect the unarmed victims.

Bill C-301, a Private Members' Bill introduced by Saskatchewan MP Garry Breitkreuz would eliminate this worthless piece of legislation and require that the Canadian auditor general to perform a public safety test on all gun control measures every five years.

MP Barry Devolin, states about the bill "I believe Canadians would rather see their tax dollars keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and gangs, instead of harassing law-abiding citizens."

Wow, the Canadians are finally realizing that this type of legislation is a too costly to maintain while providing little protection to the the unarmed victims. Criminals do not follow laws, hence one of the reasons they are considered criminals.

Maybe we need to take a lesson from our neighbors to the north. The Canadian's have already outlawed most handguns and consequently the expensive registry is for long guns only. How would this impact those of us in the U.S.? Take a look at HR 45 that is an attempt to implement a similar registry.

Of course HR 45 is only designed to deal with handguns and those evil semi-automatic weapons with a detachable magazine. But at what cost financially? Our government is not known to be frugal when it comes to spending tax dollars. In fact, just the opposite is true. Our legislators spend money like drunken sailors on a two day liberty. With the current state of the U.S. economy and the projected budget deficits in the coming years can we even come close to affording more useless legislation like HR 45?

God Bless Texas!

If you look at my profile on the left side of the page, you will note that I am a proud resident of the Republic of Texas. I am not a native born Texan but I did get here as fast as possible.

In my research, I noticed that victims of guns crimes typically take two different paths. Either they become rabidly anti-gun and look to the government for protection by passing new laws or they take matters into their own hands and decide they will not be unarmed should the situation arise again.

Personally, I am one of the latter. As a young adult fresh from the military, I was working as a property manager for a small realty company. On January 4, 1982 our office was robbed at gunpoint. The two gunmen escaped with about $6,000 in cash, some jewelry and my wallet with two weeks pay inside. The gunmen spent about 15 minutes terrorizing the five of us that were still in the office. My boss was so scared that he actually wet his pants during the ordeal. Fortunately, nobody was injured. Unfortunately, these thieves were never caught and brought to justice for this crime. I have to wonder how many others were terrorized by these two miscreants?

The next day, I went out gun shopping and purchased a Charter Arms British Bulldog in .38 Special. This was my first handgun and was purchased for one purpose, to ensure that I would not be an unarmed victim again. My boss had the same idea and purchased a small semi-auto in .32 for his wife and a .380 for himself. Never again would either of us be an unarmed victim.

My purpose to this little trip down memory lane is to mention a lady who I greatly admire for her actions after finding herself as an unarmed victim. Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, was in a Luby's restaurant in San Antonio on October 16, 1991. On that day, George Jo Hennard crashed his truck through the window and opened fire on the approximately 80 people inside. He managed to kill 23 people and wounded another 20 before committing suicide. Among those killed were both of Hupp's parents. Hennard managed to reload multiple times and still had ammunition remaining when he shot himself.

Dr. Hupp had left her pistol in her vehicle in the parking lot because of the restrictive laws in Texas at the time regarding carrying a weapon. During the slaughter, Hupp regretted following the law and making herself an unarmed victim. As she stated in testimony before Congress, "I realized that I made the stupidest decision of my life, I took my gun out of my purse and left it in my car. Because, as you well know, in the state of Texas it's sometimes a felony offense to carry a gun in your purse...I'm mad at my legislators for legislating me out of the right to protect myself and my family. I would rather be sitting in jail with a felony offense on my head and have my parents alive".

In the aftermath of the deaths of her parents, Hupp didn't look to the government for protection. Instead, she became vocal proponent of the right to carry. Her actions were key in the passing of the Texas law allowing concealed carry.

During testimony in front of Congress regarding the original assault weapons ban, Dr. Hupp made it clear as to the purpose of the Second Amendment. Some quotes from her testimony:

"As far as these so-called assault weapons, you say that they don't have any defense use. You tell that to the guy that I saw on a video tape of the L.A. riots standing up on his rooftop protecting his property and his life from an entire mob with one of these so-called assault weapons. Tell me he didn't have a legitimate self-defense use."

"Just one final statement. I've been sitting here getting more and more fed up with all of this talk about these pieces of machinery having no legitimate sporting purpose, no legitimate hunting purpose. People, that is not the point of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. I know I'm not going to make very many friends saying this, but it's about our rights, all of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there"

Remember, the "guys up there" were the members of Congress that ultimately passed that original AWB in spite of her testimony. One has to wonder, maybe she scared the shit out them.

My hat is off to Dr. Hupp for her reaction to the killing of her parents that day and her stand in front of Congress. She realized well before the SCOTUS ruled in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) that the police have no obligation to protect us. It is our right as well as our responsibility to protect ourselves.

Note: The quotes from Dr. Hupp's testimony before Congress are used with her permission. Although testimony before Congress is public record I felt obligated to contact her and seek her permission before posting this in the blog. Thank you Dr. Hupp for your permission to use your very compelling testimony and for your efforts in protecting and raising an awareness of the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

Here is one of the clearest videos of her testimony before Congress with some additional commentary by Penn & Teller:

Another Sell Out to the Unarmed Victims?

Oh how wrong I was.

I was impressed that New York may finally be turning the corner and recognizing the Second Amendment for what it is, the right of the people to defend themselves. When Kirsten Gillibrand first took Hillary Clinton's New York senate seat, I was thrilled. Now I am merely appalled.

Senator Gillibrand has now made a rather idiotic statement in order to garner political favor among the unarmed victims in her state. Her statement, "There's a very big difference between making sure hunters can hunt in upstate New York, because it's part of our heritage and our history and the Second Amendment to our Constitution, and fighting against gun violence," is ludicrous at best.

Senator Gillibrand seems to equate the Second Amendment with hunting and not with personal safety and ones ability to protect themselves against the criminal element.

Is she a sell out or just misinformed?

Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership video

Below is an excellent video produced by JPFO. It's something every American should view.




Source: http://jpfo.org

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Let's take a little trip back just over 230 years ago. The place, a group of angry colonies in the New World.

At this time in history, the colonies were being strangled by the rule from England. Taxes were climbing and the needs of the people were not being addressed.

What was the spark that kindled the smoldering resentment in a full-blown revolution against the government? What was it that compelled our founding fathers to fire "the shot heard 'round the world"? The answer is simple, the British marched from Boston to seize the guns and ammunition held in Concord. Our forefathers did not want to sit idly by while the British government took steps to ensure they did not have the means to defend themselves against the tyranny of the government.

Our forefathers learned their lessons well and made sure the people had both the ability to defend their homes, families and property as well as the ability to take the country back from the new government they were creating should the need arise.

As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it; "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Our founding fathers took a stand with their lives to create what was a great country. They stood shoulder to shoulder and thumbed their noses at one of the strongest countries in the world at that time. Their actions and words were branded as treasonous and had the revolution failed they would have surely paid with their lives. Is this how we repay their sacrifices? Now I ask you: Are you a patriot or a tyrant?

Gun Control Issues

The Second Amendment clearly states, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This statement as a right of the people (not a militia or other quasi-military group) has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller case. One would think that this might set the anti-gun crowd (hereafter referred to as the unarmed victims) back a step or two in their zeal to infringe upon this right. Unfortunately, the gun grabbing continues. With Obama in office, our second amendment rights are more in jeopardy now than ever before.

A couple of the more recent bills to begin the progress through the mess that is our government are:

HR 257 - "Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2009". Introduced by Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas)

This bill is a prime example of the lack of knowledge of our lawmakers when it comes to firearms. The bill prohibits someone under the age of 21 of possessing a "semi-automatic assault rifle" or "large capacity magazine". Unfortunately, the bill lacks a definition of either of these prohibited items.

Now while this may seem like a great idea to the unarmed victims, the bill does not take into account that many of the members of our military are under 21 and regularly entrusted with the evil "semi-automatic assault rifles" in defense of our country.

HR 45 - "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009". Introduced by Bobby L. Rush (D-Illinois)

This bill is an attempt to institute a nationwide registry for certain guns. Included in the list are the evil "semi-automatic rifles" as well as all pistols. This bill is a knee jerk reaction to the shooting death of Blair Holt, 16 at the hands of Michael Pace, 16. Pace was given the gun by a third juvenile Kevin Jones, 15 who also served as a lookout for Pace.

While the death of Holt is indeed a tragedy, does it necessitate the need for a national registry of certain firearms? I think not. This crime happened in Chicago, land of some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. A law-abiding citizen must jump though numerous hoops just to be able to own a handgun let alone carry one in public as Pace did. Just off the top of my head, there are at least four local laws already in place in Chicago to prevent just such a tragedy from occurring by restricting the right of a citizen to protect themselves. Pace and Jones ignored these laws as well as the ones against murder, assault with a deadly weapon, discharging a weapon within city limits, possession of a handgun by a minor and possession of a handgun on a CTA bus.

Why didn't those laws protect the life of Blair Holt? Are the laws that are on the books already ineffective or unenforceable? I will leave it to the reader to decide.

Licensing every handgun and certain semi-automatic rifles will not put an end to the violence. All this will serve to do is create another government bureaucracy to your money and track your actions as a private citizen.