Oakland Cop Shooting

The recent killing of four police officers in Oakland seems to have brought the gun grabbers out of the woodwork. I reading through the "news" papers from the area, there is a call to further restrict 2A rights in Kalifornia due to this tragedy.

One thing that I notice missing from the ruckus is any mention of culpability for Lovelle Mixon, the shooter or for the Kalifonia parole board that put him back on the streets and threatened the well being of all citizens.

A bit of background for those who do not follow the news from the left coast; Lovelle Mixon was a convicted felon. He served 5 years of a 6 year sentence for assault with a firearm. Mixon gained parole in October of 2007 only to be considered possible suspect in a homicide in Alameda County in February 2008. This status caused Mixon to spend another 9 months in prison before being released again on November 1, 2008 because no charges were filed in the murder case.

Between his last release and February 18, 2009, Mixon apparently performed as a parolee should and reported on a regular basis. Come the middle of February, Mixon had disappeared from the control of his parole officer and was considered a parolee-at-large and a warrant is issued for his arrest.

Attempts were made to locate Mixon and return him to prison before the March 21st events that led to the killing of three officers.

Let's examine where this system broke down; First, Mixon was apparently a repeat offender at the time he was returned to prison during a murder investigation. He was subsequently released again from prison only to disappear from radar three months later. As a convicted felon, he was already prohibited from even touching a firearm under current laws.

As a parolee, Mixon became the responsibility of the state Board of Parole who is responsible for making sure he behaves himself. This process failed as he managed to disappear from their control within three months of his release.

It is apparent that Mixon should not have been on the streets to begin with. The Parole Board should not have released him after he was arrested under suspicion of murder. He should have served the remainder of his time of the original sentence. Both times that Mixon was released on parole, he was in trouble within three months, the first time as a suspect in a murder, the second as a parole violator. Apparently, the parole system in Kalifornia does not work and should be revisited.

Finally, let us not forget that current laws prohibited Mixon from having any guns in his possession. Laws that he chose to ignore and in the process managed to take the life of four officers. Additional laws would not have kept Mixon on the straight and narrow. He was a criminal and, as such, had a history of disobeying the laws currently in existence. Disarming law abiding citizens would not have prevented this tragedy in any form. Mixon would have procured a gun by whatever means were available to him.

It has been awhile....

I have been a bit neglectful of keeping this blog up to date. Real life has interfered with this process and I apologize.

Although I haven't been writing to vent, I do keep abreast of the news regarding gun laws and other assaults on my personal freedoms. There have been a number of items int he news recently about further assaults on my 2A rights so I will make a few comments:

Kirsten Gillibrand is a sellout!

What first appeared to be a shining light within the NY state political scene has turned into another case of bowing to pressure rather than standing up for what one believes in.

After being appoint to replace Hillary Clinton as the senator from NY, it came to light that Gillibrand was a proponent of gun control rights and actually owned guns. Unfortunately, she has since bowed to pressure to change how she stores the gun in her household by keeping them unloaded, with trigger locks and with the ammo stored separately. All of this to appease some critics and help to gain a few more votes when it comes to election time.

I personally, keep a couple of loaded guns handy in my house and within easy reach to ensure that I can defend me and mine in the event someone enters the house illegally. Locking up my means of protection and hindering my ability to readily access a weapon should the need arises goes against the very core of my belief.

Although I was unable to find a direct quote, it also appears that Gillibrand has made a statement that 2A was about hunters rights. How naive can one person be?

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."