For all ages, the fatal gun accident rate is at an all-time low, even as the per capita gun supply is at an all-time high. The annual risk level for a fatal gun accident is 0.22 per 100,000 population–about the risk level for taking two airplane trips a year, or for a whooping cough vaccination.
Monthly Archives: December 2008
What the frak?
The implications of the existence of this computer program are disturbing. There must be something else going on other than what the author is saying:
SHELBY- No suspects. No leads. Just a gun found at a crime scene.
While some law-enforcement agencies scratch their heads wondering how to start investigating the case, the Shelby Police Department uses their own investigative tool to solve the crime.
An Electronic Tracing System, or “E-trace,” is a free Internet-based system which allows authorities to create or look at the criminal history of a gun used in a crime.
“It gives me added information on a weapon,” said Lt. Tim Walker with the department’s vice and narcotics unit. “It gives me somewhere to start and gives the past actions of the weapon.”
Walker said E-trace has made a world of difference when investigating and solving crimes.
“It is comparable to a person’s criminal history,” he said.
Once the criminal history is created on the gun, it can always be traced in the system, Walker said.
“If a gun is being continually used in criminal activity, we can see who is using the same weapons over and over,” he said.
Walker said it also helps with “straw purchase” cases, when convicted felons who are unable to purchase guns rely on people who can.
Walker said if felons have someone to purchase the gun and a crime is then committed, they can track the person who is buying the guns.
“It starts to create a link between the person and the gun,” he said.
The program is provided through Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and is free to any police agency. Shelby officers say it is a part of their daily routine.
“When any weapon is submitted to evidence, it prompts us to trace the weapon,” he said.
In recent weeks, police used E-trace to help with with local cases. One gun taken into evidence showed just 60 days from time of purchase to the time of the crime, Walker said.
In the past, if police found a gun at a crime scene, they would lock it up and wait on fingerprints or any information pertaining to the gun.
Last year, the program expanded and is now used in every division of the department.
“It’s just one more trick in my bag,” he said.
For those unfamiliar with U.S. gun laws. It is illegal for the Federal Government to have a gun registry. Without a gun registry how can this program work? How can they “look at the criminal history of a gun”? It’s not like the criminal that used it updated the registry when they were done with it and sold it to the next criminal. What is the world is this about?
Ahhh… more research has revealed some disturbing information:
- Governor Announces Historic Partnership with ATF to Trace Illegal Firearms
E-trace is a nationwide database maintained by the ATF that lists a firearm’s first purchaser, date of purchase and the retailer from which it was purchased. The information is compiled from police records of gun purchases provided by local departments, but until today was only accessible by the ATF and the police department that provided it.
…
“Partnering with the ATF, the New Jersey State Police will now have direct access to national firearms purchasing data. This will streamline the tracing of illegal firearms back to the source, giving us a better shot at finding and arresting the person who pulled the trigger,” said Colonel Rick Fuentes.
- Seven Central American Countries to get eTrace
- Background Paper: Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Program on Tracing Illegal Small Arms (June 2, 2001)
Of particular interest is Access 2000, a computerized link between the NTC and firearms manufacturers and wholesalers. This nexus allows the NTB instant access to the computerized records maintained by cooperating FFLs in order to complete traces more efficiently. Currently, 12 FFLs are online. ATF is continuing this working partnership with the firearms industry in order to facilitate the tracing of crime guns by use of a standardized automated system. Instant access allows NTB employees to query the history of an individual serial number, thus speeding up the tracing process and reducing the trace-related cost to industry. Of course, 24-hour access allows NTB employees to query the history of firearms as necessary.
As of February 2000 there were five manufactures and distributors using Access 2000: RSR Wholesale; H&R, 1871; Smith & Wesson; Davidson Wholesale; and Taurus International Firearms.
What appears to have happened was that the ATF came up with an Internet based system for the distributors and manufactures to make their sales records available to the ATF to save the businesses in the supply chain time and money in complying with trace requests. This did not give the ATF access to individual purchase records. It merely gave the ATF more immediate access to the FFL who would still have to look up the 4473 to get the sales record for the ATF. It appears this original functionality was extended, perhaps in an illegal manner.
The enhanced functionality which I question the legality of is that it appears some states have records of individual firearm sales which they are sharing, in an online way, with the ATF.
I will be sending out emails to lawyers familiar with gun laws I know to get clarification of the law on this point. I’ll let you know what I find out.
Quote of the day–Jerry M. Burger
The conclusion is not: ‘Gosh isn’t this a horrible commentary on human nature,’ or ‘these people were so sadistic. It shows the opposite — that there are situational forces that have a much greater impact on our behavior than most people recognize.
Jerry M. Burger
December 20, 2008
Shocking revelation: Santa Clara University professor mirrors famous torture study
[This is a reproduction of the infamous Milgram Experiments. I must conclude that this is either a facet of human psychology or at least a facet of multiple cultures. These results have tremendous impact on everything from the Holocaust, Jonestown, and civil rights to gun confiscation. Do not count on people to “do the right thing” if they are given the option of using the excuse “I was just following orders”.–Joe]
Boomershoot 2009 position 64 available soon
Position 64 will become available today, Saturday December 20, at about 12:00 noon Pacific Standard Time.
Sign up here.
It is on the Berm which means shooting benches are discouraged.
I’ll be on the road traveling from the Seattle area to Moscow at the time so it will depend on cell phone coverage the exact moment I open up the position. Just keep refreshing the web page to get the first available opportunity for the spot.
Update: Due to an error in my blogging software this post did not appear at 9:35 AM like I thought it did. The position was made available at 12:00 noon as planned and it was filled 21 minutes later.
Quote of the day–M. Carol Bambery
Self-defense classes, particularly those involving training women to use handguns, often help to provide women the sense of self-worth necessary for them to feel equals in civil society. See Martha McCaughey, Real Knockouts: The Physical Feminism of Women’s Self-Defense (N.Y. Univ. Press 1997). Women who take such classes no longer see themselves as powerless potential victims, but as individuals who may demand that their rights be respected. There is some evidence that men recognize this transformation and alter their conduct toward those women. As one study noted, “[t]he knowledge that one can defend oneself – and that the self is valuable enough to merit defending – changes everything.” Jocelyn A. Hollander, “I Can Take Care of Myself”: The Impact of Self-Defense Training on Women’s Lives, 10 Violence Against Women 205, at 226-227 (2004). Therefore, even if women are never placed in a position to defend themselves with a firearm or their own bodies, there are less material but no less compelling justifications for allowing them that ability. E.g., Mary Zeiss Stange, From Domestic Terrorism to Armed Revolution: Women’s Right to Self-Defense as an Essential Human Right, 2 J. L. Econ. & Pol’y 385-391 (2006).
M. Carol Bambery
Brief of amicae curiae 126 women state legislators and academics in support of respondent in D.C. versus Heller.
Nice article on guns and gays
Primarily this is about the Atlanta chapter of the Pink Pistols. But would I find particularily interesting is that the writer included the point of view of a group that is opposed to the Pink Pistols. This group says:
“…we say no to the use of weapons — we are anti-violence,” she said. “If someone from the Pink Pistols feels they have to arm themselves to be safe … we can’t agree. Most often, we find, their weapons are used against them.”
Maybe it’s just my bias but my reading of it is the statements of this anti-violence group are so weak it actually makes the Pink Pistol’s position stronger.
Weinstein defines “reasonable”
A few days ago I posted about a blogger that anticipated great changes in this countries gun laws with the incoming Obama administration.
He noticed the traffic from my blog to his and “clarified” his position on my blog saying he respected the Second Amendment only wanted “reasonable” changes in our gun laws.
Today he tells us what he thinks are reasonable changes:
- Ban assault weapons from private possession
- Ban .50 caliber (armor piercing) weapons from private possession
- Allow local communities to determine what is appropriate for their circumstances. If cities such as Philadelphia and Washington D.C. feel that stricter gun control laws are needed than state or federal law provides, they should be allowed to govern their particular situation. The view (and conditions) from Idaho can be significantly different from major urban centers such as Chicago, LA, and NYC.
- Improve oversight of corrupt gun dealers
- Limit the number of guns an individual can purchase in a month. This will reduce the number of guns purchased with the intent to sell them illegally on the street, also known as straw purchases.
- Mandate that sales at gun shows include criminal background checks. This is a major loophole in current law.
Yes. His ignorance is showing. Please play nice as you introduce him to the realities of guns and gun law. His comments are open. Here is my first lesson:
- The definition of “assault weapon” is so ill defined and nearly always is based merely on cosmetic features, not function, that any such ban boils down to bans on guns that someone thought looked “evil” or “ugly”. Beyond that the percent of crimes committed with guns that met the definition of “assault weapon” as defined by the 1994 Federal ban was so small that the weapons “feet” and “hands” are used to commit more murders each year than the banned firearms. Even if the criminal intent on using such a gun in a crime failed to find a substitute weapon and did not commit the crime that would have been enabled had they had such a weapon the drop in the crime rate would have been less than 1%. Hence any claim for an “assault weapon” ban as being reasonable must be with a goal other than crime reduction. So I ask, Mr. Weinstein, what is your goal with such a proposed ban? What is it that makes such a proposal “reasonable”?
- To the best of my knowledge only one .50 BMG gun has been used in the commission of a crime in the last 30 years. Hence any claim for a .50 caliber ban as being reasonable must be with a goal other than crime reduction. So I ask, Mr. Weinstein, what is your goal with such a proposed ban? What is it that makes such a proposal “reasonable”?
- You appear to acknowledge the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to keep and bear arms. I presume you also support the 13th Amendment. It then would appear the two amendments should be treated in a similar manner in their application. Hence I must conclude that you would also advocate the states and cities determine what is appropriate for their circumstances in regards application of the 13th Amendment. If I am in error on this point please correct my misunderstanding. Once we are clear on this point then I can better respond to your “reasonable” suggestion.
- I wasn’t aware there was a list of corrupt gun dealers that were lacking in oversight. If some gun dealers are known to be corrupt then they must already be in violation of some law or rule. It would seem to me that prosecution, pulling their license, or fines for violations would be more appropriate rather than “oversight”. But no matter, I am skeptical there is some large problem with gun dealers in this country. What evidence do you have that would tend to indicate I am wrong?
- Straw purchases are already illegal. How would this help? This type of law has been passed in numerous jurisdictions. Can you demonstrate any reduction in the crime rate from these restrictions?
- Sales at gun shows are no different than sales at gun dealers. Background checks are always required when you purchase from license dealers. There is no loophole. The Brady Campaign has been telling this lie for years to the point most people believe it. It is not true.
- In my first post I suggested you study and answer Just One Question before proposing more restrictions on a specific enumerated right. You do not appear to have done this. Please do so. I think the answer will dramatically affect your response.
Another Boomershoot position available soon
I’ll be making another Boomershoot 2009 position available sometime this weekend. Probably about noon on Saturday. I’ll post the details when it’s actually available.
In closely related news I got an email from someone today who, in part, said:
i have my countdown clock on my desk and it is 124 days and 13 hours till i leave for the boomershoot…
I probably should feel the weight on my shoulders with so many people making this a big event. But except for a few days of the year I have fun doing this.
Quote of the day–Phil @ Random Nuclear Strikes
I swear that they must have an IQ limit to enter public office these days or something.
Phil @ Random Nuclear Strikes
December 19, 2008
I’d say “He’s giving it to them”
[I think of it as politics being the free market at work. If someone has any brains and/or integrity they avoid politics. The effect is the same however.–Joe]
Quote of the day–Xenia Huffman-Scott
Video from Seattle firearm ban hearing
- Complete video (nearly 115 minutes, Kristen Comer of Washington Ceasefire is on at 19:15, I come on screen at 99:20)
- King5 news
- Komo News (text version here)
- Nathan Johnson testimony
Listen to the Washington Ceasefire representative. A partial transcript of her testimony:
We vigorously support this cities efforts to reduce gun violence through this common sense regulation. We think that firearms don’t have a place in our parks or city events. We think that our parks and city events will be safer without firearms. And we think those of us who feel safer that way have a right to our own personal feelings of safety just like someone who has a right to have a firearm has a right to own their firearm. And we feel like this is a good rule that has been adopted by jurisdictions across the state that is designed to balance both our interest in public safety and our interest in the right to bear arms. And we believe this sort of policy will help keep our parks and city events safe places for us to be.
Emphasis on “feel” in her verbal testimony. No facts–it’s all about feelings. If she felt safer if dark skinned people had a dusk curfew would that make it a “common sense regulation”? Would that be “designed to balance both our interest in public safety and our interest in minority rights”?
Kristen Comer, as well as Mayor Nickels, need to answer Just One Question as well as read the Washington State Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Apparently they think feelings are more important than facts and specifically enumerated inalienable and guaranteed rights.
Retrieved from the bit-bucket
I just discovered some posts I made in previous months were not made public (stupid blog software…). Which explains why I didn’t get any comments or links to one that I thought was really important…
- Spying on the enemy (this is the important one)
- Brainstorming Boomershoot 2010
- Quote of the day–Diane Feinstein
- Spinning
- Quote of the day–Milton Friedman
Quote of the day–Bruce Schneier
Why be rational, when you can stoke fear instead?
Bruce Schneier
December 16, 2008
Buying Fake Nintendo Consoles Helps Terrorists
[This applies to so many things.–Joe]
Timewarp Tuesday
Borrowing a concept from daughter Xenia I present Timewarp Tuesday:
My parents, myself, and my two younger brothers.
The Separation of Education and State
That has a nice ring to it, don’t you think? I say five people in black robes should declare it a part of the U.S. Constitution. In his piece entitled, “Ignorance Reigns Supreme” Walter E. Williams gives us the reasons why separation of education and state should be an important goal, though he never actually comes to that conclusion. That’s my own inference, and I hold it up as a self-evident truth.
With limited thinking abilities and knowledge of our heritage, we Americans set ourselves up as easy prey for charlatans, hustlers and quacks. If we don’t know the constitutional limits placed on Congress and the White House, politicians can do just about anything they wish to control our lives, from deciding what kind of light bulbs we can use to whether the government can take over our health care system or bailout failing businesses. We just think Congress can do anything upon which they can get a majority vote.
Yup. That would seem to explain pretty much everything happening in government today.
I’ve often (OK, virtually always) had to go back to the very, very basics of the meaning of liberty, so as to have any hope of a meaningful conversation on the subject. Hardly anyone knows what it means. Most people think it means you can do whatever you want, and, “Oh, but we couldn’t have that now, could we?”
Basically, the default (i.e. massively ignorant) argument can be summarized in one sentence; “Because you can’t fraudulently yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre (or because the Earth’s climate has been in a state of constant change for billions of years, or because someone didn’t pay their mortgage on time, et al) the government has the authority to run every aspect of your life. QED.”
That’s what wholesale ignorance, nurtured at the state level, has done to us. That is why we need a constitutional separation of education and state– so as to prevent the establishment of a state education system; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of education, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It should have been written right there in Amendment the First, as equally important to freedom of religion, of the press, and of free assembly, and for exactly the same reasons.
Breaking news–Incident at Microsoft building 118
I walked across the street to the cafeteria in building 117 and noticed there was a fire alarm going off in building 118 and lots of people were standing around. Microsoft security was parked outside and I thought it might be a fire drill. It was a little odd because usually they do those in the morning.
When I came back with food in hand there were three firetrucks and a “Battalion Chief” SUV parked outside. Then I saw the water shooting out from the front door. A sprinkler?
Something unusually is definitely going on but there isn’t any smoke and I didn’t see hoses going inside the building so it probably isn’t too serious.
Notice the water shooting out from above the door?
More Seattle gun ban news
From the Second Amendment Foundation yesterday:
For Immediate Release: 12/15/2008
BELLEVUE, WA – Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is asserting that he has the authority to skirt Washington State’s long-standing firearms preemption statute, but in a 2006 letter to House Speaker Frank Chopp, he admitted that state law prevents him from taking any such action.
The letter is being made public at tonight’s special hearing at City Hall by Alan M. Gottlieb, founder of the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation.
In his letter to Speaker Chopp, dated May 4, 2006, Mayor Nickels acknowledged that “State law preempts any and all local regulations related to firearms. Our hands are tied at the local level and we are unable to adopt any local laws to protect our residents from gun crime.”
“This is what Attorney General Rob McKenna’s office told Mayor Nickels in October,” Gottlieb noted. “Despite all of his bluster over the past six months, it is evident now that Mayor Nickels has known all along he cannot ban legally-carried firearms, by executive order, by ordinance or by wishing upon a star. He knew this in 2006 and he was reminded of it two months ago by McKenna’s office.
“Mayor Nickels has tried to capitalize on a single unfortunate incident at the Seattle Center,” he continued, “in order to push his long-standing anti-rights agenda. More than 20 years ago, the state legislature wisely enacted our common-sense preemption law that is now preventing the mayor from acting like a monarch, answerable to nobody. Essentially, he wants to use executive authority as though it were a royal decree, to not only defy state statute, but also to violate our state constitutional right-to-bear-arms provision.
“The May 2006 letter to Speaker Chopp clearly proves that the mayor knows he cannot legally do this,” Gottlieb said. “If Mayor Nickels goes forward with this ban, he will leave the Second Amendment Foundation no alternative than to take immediate legal action to stop him.”
And today:
For Immediate Release: 12/16/2008
BELLEVUE, WA – When a cross-section of firearms owners gathered at Seattle City Hall Monday night to oppose Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels’ gun ban scheme, the mayor was nowhere in sight to defend his plan, and the Second Amendment Foundation wonders why.
“If ever an audience reflected the kind of diversity that elitists like Greg Nickels normally rave about, Monday night’s turnout of gun owners certainly measured up,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “There were gays, straights, men and women, including one self-described feminist Democrat party activist. I was proud of the broad spectrum represented by the firearms community.
“Under any other circumstances,” he continued, “Mayor Nickels and other Seattle establishment insiders would be drawn to such a group like moths to a flame. But these were law-abiding gun owners, outraged over the mayor’s arrogant plan to ignore state statute and advice from the state attorney general. In short, it was an audience of citizens that Nickels and his ilk claim to represent, saying that he doesn’t. The mayor wanted no part of such a public embarrassment.
“Mayor Nickels started this controversy by proposing the gun ban,” Gottlieb observed, “yet he lacked the intestinal fortitude to defend his scheme before the very people who would suffer. Elitists like Nickels are always quick to sneer about ‘cowardly gun owners,’ but when he had the chance to face them, he vanished.
“Many department heads were there to take the heat,” Gottlieb added, “except for Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske. It is not clear whether he skipped the meeting because he doesn’t care for armed citizens, or because he was still out looking for his stolen pistol, which is more of a threat to public safety than anybody who testified at Monday night’s hearing.
“This proposed gun ban is nonsense,” he concluded. “It will not prevent a single crime. It will only leave citizens more vulnerable. As usual, Mayor Nickels chooses symbolism over safety, and he is clearly afraid to face the people whose rights he plans to abrogate.”
And all I got was this button
Son James picked me up at work a little after 1700 and we drove down the street to Ry‘s office to get that critical third person so we could drive in the car pool lane on highway 520 into Seattle.
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels has proposed a rule that would ban firearms from nearly all city property. This is despite the State Attorney General telling him that he clearly does not have the authority to do so. Last night there was a public hearing to give Mayor Nickels feedback on his proposal. There were nearly 200 people in attendance. At most 20 or 30 of them were in favor of the proposal. I and numerous others found it extremely telling that Mayor Nickels was not in attendance.
Ry took pictures and has his own comments on the meeting. See also the Seattle PI (best) and the Seattle Times articles.
As soon as we walked in we were offered a button that identified us as opposed to the rule–as if our Boomershoot coats and my Para USA shirt weren’t enough:
Supplied by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms this was good thinking on their part. I really appreciate their professional contribution.
I saw many familiar faces, Alan Gottlieb and Joe Waldron (who testified) from CCRKBA, Gay Cynic (who also testified), Boyd Kneeland (Boyd does an amazing amount of volunteer work on this topic), and Michael Thyng (frequent Boomershoot attendee).
We signed in at the door as either in favor or opposed to the proposed rule and indicated whether we wanted to speak. I indicated I wanted to speak and was one of the last speakers. We were each given 90 seconds which was strictly enforced. They called our names and alternated between pro and anti-gun speakers. They ran out of anti-gun speakers long before pro-gun activists. To see the entire meeting watch for the video here later today or tomorrow (Update: video is here).
Based on previous testimony and further thought I modified my testimony some what I had planned. I ran out of time and dropped the last paragraph from the following which I composed while at the meeting using One Note on my Windows Mobile Pocket PC. It didn’t matter much because several others had already called out Nickels behavior as violating WA State law which qualified him for a misdemeanor conviction.
As usual when public speaking I left at least 20 I.Q. points in my chair when I stood up to speak and I’m sure my voice raised at least one octave. Picture from Ry.
My name is Joe Huffman and I am from Kirkland.
I represent myself and my 22 year old daughter. We both have concealed pistol licenses and carry a pistol wherever we can legally do so.
I find it very telling the people providing the number of dollars spent and people injured do not tell us how many of those people were legally shot by the police or a private citizen defending innocent life. By this omission they imply guns are only used for evil.
I’m shocked that a city that prides itself on tolerance would engage in such Jim Crow like tactics to discriminate against gun owners. I’m certain the mayor and his staff cannot answer just one question which should have been their first step before going down this path. That question is, “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”
With such clear guidance from the State Attorney General the mayor has a tremendous amount of gall to push forward with such an attack on an essential civic right. If his plan were to ban the presence of Christian crosses, the star of David, or burqa from city facilities there would be a public outcry that would be heard worldwide and calls would be made for his resignation if not his arrest. And the same outcry should be made for this encroachment upon a specific enumerated right guaranteed by both the Washington State Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights.
I’m not a lawyer but it appears to me that such egregious behavior warrants investigation by Federal Prosecutors into the possibility of prosecution under 18 USC 242, the statute covering the deprivation of rights under the color of law.
I was very pleased there were numerous non-stereotypical gun owners testified in opposition. I think there were three self identified gay men. Several women testified including one that identified herself as a gun carrying tree-hugger, another that identified herself as a rape victim, and another that said she had spent the last several months working on the Obama campaign. Their point in identifying as such was that Nickels was pissing off people that would normally support him.
As the meeting closed the moderator informed us we can continue to leave comments until January 21st.
After the meeting several people I did not recognized came up to me and identified themselves as blog readers and thanked me for testifying. I was surprised, “What? People actually read what I have to say?” You guys know that only encourages me to further pollute the bit-stream with noise, right?
After we left the meeting Ry and I had a burger at Dairy Queen and did an after action review. Our conclusion was that since the Mayor did not attend the meeting our input was irrelevant to him. He was merely going through the formality of the process. The eight people from the city listening (see Ry’s post for more) were probably sent by him for appearances and to allow us to feel good about “doing something” in opposition to the Mayor’s attempted power grab. The only thing that will stop him is a lawsuit which I’m sure will be waiting for the City when they implement the rule.
Hence I concluded the primary result of the meeting was we got buttons.
Update: Video of the meeting is here.
Book bomb update
From email:
Dear Joe,
With the help of many wonderful people committed to Second Amendment rights, we are closing in on reaching our goal for the SECOND AMENDMENT BOOK BOMB!
As an update, our book THE FOUNDERS’ SECOND AMENDMENT: Origins of the Rights to Bear Arms, by Independent Institute Research Fellow Stephen P. Halbrook, has skyrocketed to the following rankings at Amazon.com:
#1: Law
#1: Civil Rights and Liberties
#1: Constitutions
#1: Constitutional Law
#1: Revolutionary and Founding History
#12: History
#11: Professional and Technical
#26: Nonfiction (all)
The book has soared to an overall ranking of #140 at Amazon.com and #105 at Barnes&Noble.com. (With the enormous response, Amazon.com temporarily sold out of the book and is now being restocked.)
Begun on Bill of Rights Day (December 15), the SECOND AMENDMENT BOOK BOMB is urging people to pledge to purchase copies of the book ASAP and launch constitutional rights to the top of national book bestseller lists in order to communicate the importance of the Bill of Rights’ Second Amendment for the protection of liberty. So far, we have received 784 pledges!
With your further help in urging others to join with us now, we can make Second Amendment history by pushing the book to #1.
I am adding below further details and here again is the SECOND AMENDMENT BOOK BOMB website.
http://www.secondamendmentbook.com/
Please advise me with any questions.
Thank you for your marvelous support of our Second Amendment rights!
Best regards,
David
—
David J. Theroux
Founder and President
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA 94621
(510) 632-1366 Phone
(510) 568-6040 Fax
DTheroux@independent.org
http://www.independent.org
***********************
The SECOND AMENDMENT BOOK BOMB Hits #1 in Law, #12 in History, #26 in Nonfiction at Amazon.com!
http://www.secondamendmentbook.com/
Beginning on America’s Bill of Rights Day (December 15), the SECOND AMENDMENT BOOK BOMB was launched to communicate the importance of the Bill of Rights’ Second Amendment for the protection of liberty. With your help, we are pushing constitutional rights to the top of national book bestseller lists, making a loud and clear statement that Second Amendment rights are unalienable!
A truly historic victory was won on June 26, 2008 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own and bear arms.
However, the Heller ruling was immediately attacked and efforts continue on the national level and across the country to undermine gun rights. (In this regard, President-elect Barack Obama’s choice of Eric Holder for U.S.
Attorney General is an ominous sign.) Therefore, to secure the Second Amendment now and for the future the American public must be made aware of the reasons why the Founders sought to protect this right.
And now we have the tool to do so — the fascinating, seminal, and inspiring, new book, THE FOUNDERS’ SECOND AMENDMENT: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, by Dr. Stephen P. Halbrook* — the perfect way both to educate ourselves and to reach friends and family who don’t yet understand Second Amendment rights. Our goal is to reach one million Americans with Dr.
Halbrook’s book during the Holiday Season and throughout the New Year ahead.
As a result, we are rapidly closing in on reaching our goal and with your further help, we can make Dr. Halbrook’s book #1 on the bestseller lists.
Already, THE FOUNDERS’ SECOND AMENDMENT has skyrocketed to the following rankings at Amazon.com:
#1: Law
#1: Civil Rights and Liberties
#1: Constitutions
#1: Constitutional Law
#1: Revolutionary and Founding History
#12: History
#11: Professional and Technical
#26: Nonfiction (all)
With 799 pledges, the book has climbed to an overall ranking of #138 at Amazon.com and #105 at Barnes&Noble.com.
Hence, please urge everyone you know to make their pledge ASAP here:
http://www.secondamendmentbook.com/
*Stephen P. Halbrook is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and author of THE FOUNDERS’ SECOND AMENDMENT: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms.
Having won three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, he filed an Amici Curiae Brief in District of Columbia v. Heller on behalf of 55 members of the Senate, the Senate President, and 250 members of the House of Representatives.
It was 803 pledges after I made mine.
Update: I just ordered the book via Amazon.
Quote of the day–Ry Jones
First, when you hit a home run, quit; even though you have 90 seconds, you don’t have to fill it all. Several speakers hit home runs, waited for the applause to die down, and finished with a pop fly. Don’t be that guy (or girl).
Secondly, be on topic; the topic tonight was “Seattle ban on firearms on Seattle-owned property”. I don’t care what you think the queers are doing to the soil, keep to the point.
Thirdly, if you have nothing to say, don’t say it. Who got the first big applause of the night? The guy who said “Everything I was going to say has been said, so I’ll not bore you”. Be that guy.
Fourthly, practice. You don’t have to memorize your speech; you should, though, read it aloud a few times. Use a clock and see if you’re in the ballpark for the time allotted.
Lastly, if you are a god damn idiot, stay at home… Several of the speakers went right out in front of God and everybody and confirmed that they were idiots. The three I’m thinking of (one pro, two con) I knew were god damn idiots as soon as I saw them step to the mic.
Ry Jones
December 15, 2008
On public speaking from our visit to the Seattle City Hall meeting where Mayor Nickels sought public comment on his illegal proposal to ban firearms from city property. Pictures here.
[I’ll have more on the meeting later.–Joe]