I met Stephanie Sailor at the Gun Rights Policy Conference in Washington D.C. in 2000. We were both speakers at the event. I was incredibly impressed with what she had done for gun rights in Chicago. But being shy and intimidated by beautiful women I never would have approached her even if I had thought of something important to say to her.
But it turned out she approached me about being a member of the Microsoft Gun Club (now called “Gun Club at Microsoft”). We talked and Boomershoot soon came up. She, being a marketing person, realized more than I did the potential it had for positive media coverage and the implications for gun rights. She was a big reason for the success of Boomershoot (see page 86 of the March 2013 issue of Western Shooting Journal).
After I met Stephanie she ran for U.S. Congress a couple times on the Libertarian ticket, attended a few Boomershoots, and then somewhat mysteriously disappeared from public view. We occasionally had contact via email and phone but she was extremely concerned about remaining hidden. She briefly came out of hiding with an alias and made an appearance at Boomershoot 2012 before going into hiding again. I maintained contact with her for a few months but things were difficult between us and there hasn’t been any contact since then.
Until today. She send me a brief email and a link to her blog and the one post on it. She is using her real name again.
She says, “Today I’m in a place of no longer living in fear. This article is cathartic.” That’s really good to hear. I knew things were very difficult for her but I didn’t really understand where the problems were coming from, how to help her, or if she even could be helped. What I see is very good news for her well-being and I hope she continues to improve. Both for her sake and for us. She was a tremendous ally in our fight for gun rights and I hope she is someday able to reenter the fight.
Barron recorded Brian Keith’s speech at the Boomershoot 2016 dinner. Unfortunately his video camera also collected a lot of glare from my bald head. Still, the speech is worth listening to if you look away or wear sunglasses:
“The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will be holding public meetings next week to discuss target shooting in state forests. It is imperative that shooters attend these meetings and weigh in. If non-shooters and anti-gun advocates are the loudest voices next week, these meetings will become the first step in prohibiting shooting on state lands.
We urge you to attend the following meetings beginning at 6:30 p.m.:
Tuesday, May 31, located at the Water Resources Education Center, 4600 SE Columbia Way, Vancouver, to discuss Yacolt Burn State Forest;
Wednesday, June 1, located at the Burlington-Edison High School cafeteria, 301 N. Burlington Blvd., Burlington, to discuss Harry Osborne State Forest;
Thursday, June 2, located at The Evergreen State College Longhouse Education and Cultural Center, 2800 Dogtooth Lane NW, Olympia, to discuss Capitol State Forest.
Keeping public lands open for hunting and target shooting is an NRA priority and the involvement and activism of individual NRA members is critical. There is a lot of public land at stake that could be closed to target shooting.
The ability to target shoot on public lands in an informal setting is being threatened by the increased use of these lands by non-shooters. Ensure that your public lands are not closed to shooting!”
We have it good in Eastern WA State and in Idaho, and of course that makes some people very angry and they want to do something about it. Take away your places to shoot and it’s the next-best thing to taking your guns.
Yet another example of what the anti-gun people have to do to gain traction:
Watching the video, you hear Katie ask, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorist from walking into, say, a licensed gun dealer and purchasing a gun?” The camera then shows the group members TOTALLY SILENT FOR EIGHT SECONDS. The camera zooms in on one member, who looks down.
The clear implication is that none of the group had an answer for that question and was being evasive and avoiding eye contact.
The truth is, and as you will hear in the audio, below, that the group responded to Katie immediately, with answers to her question! Yet the video shows no one responding. Clearly, when Katie didn’t get the answer(s) she wanted, she changed the group’s answers by replacing them with other video of the group sitting around quietly between questions.
As Texas joins the rest of the nation in varying degrees of freedom to bear arms in public, I advise caution while the kinks are worked out, authorities get used to the new standards and procedures, social norms develop, shop keepers acclimatize, the public gets used to the new normal of open carry, some bad apples test the limits of endurance and civility (not recommended), and a few of you become test cases to clarify the gray areas. Even here in Arizona where I am, with free (paperless) open carry legal since statehood in 1912, there’s a little more to it than just putting on your boots.
Do your best to avoid being a test case. The anti-rights advocates out there and some authorities will be looking for the very worst examples to make into test cases, to hurt our rights, make gun owners look bad in public, and set precedents that limit exercise of the Second Amendment. They’ll be seeking to “prove” the BITS myth — blood in the streets — like they tried in vain when CHL passed. Don’t argue in public while armed.
Especially in the early days of open carry, watch out for each other and be on best behavior. We don’t live in the same wild west any longer. Belligerence or anything less than calm civilized behavior while you’re reasonably well dressed and carrying openly is an invitation for scrutiny and attention you would do best to avoid. I’m being nice about that (from a state that now enjoys full Constitutional Carry). Go slowly as you test the waters.
Open carry has advantages, especially the “inoculation effect” on the uninitiated, when they see reasonable people going about business politely armed.
Alan Korwin January 28, 2016 Texas Open Carry Overview [I think this is some good advice. Especially about being a test case. If we let our opposition chose the cases to take to court we stand a much greater chance of losing ground. We, closely supervised by experienced gun rights lawyers, must be the ones to carefully craft the cases to challenge the repressive gun laws in this country.—Joe]
Typically, as with any debate over gun rights, rational viewpoints are hard to find. Sen. Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, said the new standards could lead to “every cabdriver, every pizza delivery driver, and anyone else living or working in a high-crime neighborhood to qualify for a firearms permit.”
That sounds a little extreme, but is that any more hysterical than the gun-rights activists sounding alarms about government conspiracies and widespread gun confiscation every time government wants to ban an assault rifle or expand background checks?
In general terms, however, Weinberg’s warning should be heeded. The gun-rights crowd is trying to exploit the death of Carol Bowne, a Berlin Township woman allegedly stabbed to death by an ex-boyfriend while she was awaiting a permit to carry a gun for protection. Would Bowne’s life have been saved by an easier permitting process? We’ll never know. But as tragic as her death was, we can’t allow politicians to use the anger and grief over that death to advance an unnecessary and dangerous relaxation in the state’s gun controls.
The thought of people living or working in a high-crime area being allowed to defend themselves is considered “extreme” and “hysterical”? Wow!
They say, “We can’t allow politicians to use the anger and grief over that death…” Interesting. We should remember that the next time some activist wants to use anger and grief over the tragic death of someone murdered by a criminal with a gun. But of course that’s not how it works with these people. They have zero problem with their own hypocrisy.
Of course it may not be hypocrisy. It could be the sky is a different color in their universe.—Joe]
Washington State reports that in 2013 (most recent year with data), firearms were involved in 10 deaths by accident, 476 by suicide, and 114 by homicide (total of 600). Motor vehicle accidents, including pedestrians, motorcycles, etc. accounted for 412 deaths.
So in order for the first sentence to be true Kelly had to include suicides. And what “gun safety law” does he think will reduce suicides? He knows better than to claim such a thing exists and doesn’t make such a claim. He implies his proposed law does this in order to further his cause. This is a deliberate deception.
The 30 percent number is a blatant lie. If you assume “kids” includes ages 0 to 17 there were three unintentional deaths, five suicides, and four homicides for a total of 12 firearms related deaths. If you include up to ages 19 (not really “kids”) you can add another 22 for a total of 34. Which, of course, still doesn’t add up to 30 percent of the number of deaths.
He claims they are set on “doing this in a way that does not infringe on the rights of gun owners.” But as Benghazi points out the proposed law is all about confiscating firearms. And Brian Judy (NRA) and Alan Gottlieb (SAF) both point out the proposed confiscation is without due process. So we have here still another lie.
Deception and blatant lies. It’s the best they have to offer. It is an integral part of the anti-gun culture.—Joe]
Our gun laws completely miss the mark when you realise the chance of any one of Australia’s 800,000 licensed gun owners committing murder are so minuscule that you are more likely to die from a bee sting.
BACKGROUND CHECKS or ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN hasnt worked so far , you can tell by everyday shootings and increasing gun deaths ,theres only one way to deal with it ,BAN THEM ALL there aint no time for HALF-MEASURES ,RADICAL LAWS AND CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE
The drama unfolded at about 2:50 a.m. when the 44-year-old husband, his wife and two daughters, age 19 and 11, were awakened by the noises of someone yelling and kicking at the front door of their home in the 100 block of NE 174th Street, according to Shoreline police.
The homeowner grabbed his 9-mm handgun as his oldest daughter called 911 and the family locked themselves in a back bedroom of the house, said Sgt. Jason Houck of the King County Sheriff’s Office.
The husband, hearing the breaking glass, left the bedroom with his gun. He went to the front of the home, where he saw the suspect standing just outside the front window and door, which were broken out by lawn furniture that the suspect had thrown through.
As the suspect began advancing toward the homeowner from just outside the smashed-out door and windows, the homeowner fired two rounds, hitting the suspect once in the upper right thigh, Houck said.
Police say the homeowner and his family were shaken up by the ordeal. No charges of any kind are expected to be filed against the homeowner.
While things turned out okay, unless there is more to the store, I would tend to say the husband should not have left the bedroom. He put himself at greater and unnecessary risk by advancing toward the bad guy. Let them come to you through the “funnel” of the door. This give the cops more time to arrive and deal with the situation as a team and possibly end the situation without shots being fired. Also, it might be said, his accuracy could use some improvement.
They did do some things really well. They moved, as a group, to a back bedroom. One person called 911 while another deployed the gun. Most importantly, they had a gun and it was accessible.
Think through possible scenarios ahead of time. If you do this you are more likely to have a plan that only needs minor changes should the real thing come down.
Please tell me how many of these violent criminals are members of the NRA…thanks.
Williem Stone answers a question requiring a number with a statement instead:
All of them, since having a gun means being in the NRA.
Later, with another five points available, Stone explains why looking at data is irrelevant in determining the level of violence in Australia:
Guns=violence. No guns, no violence. It’s simple.
Stone gets another zero for a total of 0/10 on the test.
That is the type of “thinking” our opponents engage in. Rational thought and data is irrelevant to their world view. When their world view does not intersect with real world data and rational thought you have fewer good options in dealing with them. But recognizing what options are available is useful because you now know to not waste time on other options.
Earlier this morning, Senate and Assembly Democrats “gutted and amended” 4 bills that were stalled and changed them into 4 brand new, ANTI-GUN measures.
“Gutting and amending” is the controversial practice of stripping out a measure’s contents and replacing it with entirely new language, for a new issue, well into the legislative process.
Here is a list of the new bills and what they will do:
AB 156: Formerly dealt with global warming, but now places restrictions on ammunition and will be authored by Asm. Kevin McCarty and Sen. Kevin deLeón.
AB 857: Formerly addressed greenhouse gasses, but now restricts curios, relics, and home-built firearms. It will be authored my Asm. Jim Cooper and Sen. Kevin de Leon.
AB 1135: Formerly centered around creating the Kings River East Groundwater Sustainability Agency, but is now a broad gun ban. This will now be authored by Assemblymembers Marc Levine and Phil Ting.
AB 1511: Formerly dealt with energy conservation, but now criminalizes loaning firearms. It is now authored by Asm. Miguel Santiago.
In doing this, they have totally skirted the legislative process. It is shameful that elitist politicians would invoke such secretive procedures in an effort to shove even more gun control down our throats.
I can overlook the ignorance of the average “person on the street” who is anti-gun. But I know the politician and anti-gun groups continuously engage in deception and trickery to get their way. I do not forgive them. They should be prosecuted.