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?