Here’s what the public thinks:

(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in the United States believe the current regulations regarding firearms are adequate, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 52 per cent of respondents believe the U.S. does not need stricter gun control laws.

…

Polling Data

Does the U.S. need stricter gun control laws?

Yes	39%
No	52%

Source: Rasmussen Reports
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,000 American adults, conducted on Feb. 14 and Feb. 15, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

Here’s what’s on the agenda for Congress (from Volume 3, Issue 1, January/February 2006 Firearms Coalition, Hard Corps Report):

1. Limit Revocation of Gun Rights to Violent Felons Only
2. Repeal Interstate Sales Ban, NICS makes it Obsolete
3. Require the Return of Recovered Firearms to their Rightful Owners
4. Repeal the Federal “Gun-Free School Zone Act” with its Many Potential Pitfalls for Innocent Gun Owners
5. Repeal the Useless 1986 Machine Gun Ban
6. Repeal GCA ’68 “Sporting Purposes Language
7. Removed Useless Restrictions on Silencers so these Useful Tools can be Employed to Make Shooting Safer
8. Reform NICS Instant Check to Guarantee Timely Sales

The Democrats are fractured over gun control.  The Canadian Gun registry is about to be scrapped.  New Orleans.  The list goes on.

Keep up the pressure.  Drive these bigots into political extinction.

The ineffectual, expensive, and dangerous gun registry in Canada is about to get dismantled:

OTTAWA (CP) – The Conservative government has created a committee of two cabinet ministers and a backbencher to figure out how best to kill the long-gun registry as soon as possible.

Registry critic Garry Breitkreuz, who is working with Justice Minister Vic Toews and Public Security Minister Stockwell Day, said he has been given wide leeway to deal swiftly with the registry.

Remember New Orleans and remember Canada.

Yesterday the court began jury selection for the Michael Williams murder trial.  At 15:38 today I received a call from Williams.  He told me the trial had just gone to the jury.  He said he had lots of stories to tell from the trial but I was busy at work and couldn’t take the time right then.  I told him I would call him back later this evening.  At 18:39, as I was about to leave work, he called me again.  The verdict was in–Voluntary Manslaughter.  This was in the case where the prosecutor insisted Williams was guilty of first degree murder.  Williams remains a free man while the judge decides on a sentence.  Williams is very happy about the result.  The family of the dead man, of course, is not at all happy and Williams had an armed escort to his car and out of the parking lot.

He is to email me more stories which I agreed to post.

Previous postings on the topic:

• Bias against self-defense
• A bias against self-defense part II
• A bias against self-defense part III

Don’t ever expect them to be truthful.  In order to get their numbers up they included suicides, justifiable and praiseworthy homicides and woundings–bigots dancing in the blood:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 /PRNewswire/ — Saturday’s shooting of a fellow hunter by Vice President Dick Cheney was just one more addition to the more than quarter million Americans who have been injured by firearms during President George W. Bush’s tenure. From 2001 through 2004, the most recent year available, 252,076 Americans were injured by firearms according to federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data. From 2001 through 2003, the most recent year available, nearly 30,000 Americans a year were killed by firearms according to information from the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

…

Josh Sugarmann, Violence Policy Center executive director, states, “The Cheney shooting punctures the pro-gun argument that ‘knowing guns’ and ‘having respect for guns’ are enough to overcome the inherent hazards of firearms. Vice President Cheney’s victim is now just one more sad statistic in America’s annual gun toll.”

You knew it was coming.  Here’s the first I’ve seen:

“Now I understand why Dick Cheney keeps asking me to go hunting with him,” Jim Brady said in a statement. “I had a friend once who accidentally shot pellets into his dog — and I thought he was an idiot.”

“I’ve thought Cheney was scary for a long time,” Sarah Brady said. “Now I know I was right to be nervous.”

They do personal attacks so well.  They have lots of practice at it so it’s not surprising.  I can only think of two reasons for this; 1) They don’t like the results when they stick to facts, or 2) They can’t handle high school math.

It’s way too late for me to comment intelligently on the following newspaper clippings.  Michael Williams sister sent them last week.  I’ve read them all but was unable to comment on them due to my exceedingly busy weekend (more details later but it involving guns, explosives, and two murder trials unrelated to Williams trial).  If you are interested in this case go ahead and read them.  I’ll comment later after I have had some sleep.

• 02/28/2005 Morning News
• 03/04/2005 Morning News
• 03/12/2005 Morning News
• 05/01/2005 Morning News
• 05/10/2005 Morning News
• 05/18/2005 Morning News
• 06/02/2005 Morning News
• 09/03/2005 Morning News
• 10/22/2005 Morning News
• 11/22/2005 Morning News
• 01/20/2006 Morning News
• 02/09/2006 Morning News
• 02/09/2006 Post Register
• 02/09/2006 Idaho State Journal

Michael Charles Williams

I received two calls from Michael Charles Williams today.  I was driving to work the first time and couldn’t take notes but here is what I remember.  Where I could I found news stories that relate to what he told me:

• Adams (the guy Williams shot three times) had a long rap sheet.  His associates have criminal records too.
• Adams was partway into Williams truck through the window by the time the last shot was fired.
• Today the prosecuting attorney tried to get the blood alcohol content of Adams (0.327–legally drunk in Idaho is 0.08) ruled inadmissible in court.  He failed.
• The ex-wife testimony was ruled inadmissible. The prosecutor was virtually begging for it to be admissible and said he would “go all the way to the Supreme court” to achieve that.
• There are no other witnesses that claim Williams “was looking for someone to kill.”
• Detectives didn’t try to get fingerprints or other evidence off of the truck.
• The first detective and Williams knew each other in high school 15 years prior and had a bad history between them.
• The first detective had a good relationship with Adams family.
• Williams had some handgun training in the military but no formal training on civilian self defense.
• The gun was a “brand new” Springfield 1911 style compact in .45 ACP with “self-defense ammo”.
• The prosecutor has a conceal weapons license.
• The prosecutor once shot at, in error, a plainclothes police officer.
• At my suggestion the defense attorney plans to call SAF.
• Williams thanked me profusely for “helping” (not sure I have actually done much).
• Williams said he sent a link to my previous blog posting to friends, family, and his private investigator.  My log files have confirmation of such traffic.
• His sister is digging up more newspaper stories for me to put on the web and comment on.

Reports from the media are almost always filled with errors.  The reporters, at best, are expert writers and are seldom experts on the topic.  They have limited time and rely on others for the “facts” which filter through biases and various error prone communication channels before they ever reach the public. And in the case of what happened behind a bar shortly after closing time on a Friday night (actually early Saturday morning) even the people who participated are probably not going to be worthy of being called knowledgeable.  The changes in the story of what happened that night reflect the difficulty in knowing exactly what happened.

What is known for certain is that 32 year old Michael Charles Williams, in possession of an Idaho concealed weapons license, fired three shots from a “large caliber” semi-auto pistol into the chest of 25 year old Christopher Rick Adams who died at the hospital a short time later.

My references, all from the same paper, are:

• February 27, 2005 Man shot and killed near Blackfoot bar
• February 28, 2005 Waitress: ‘This sort of stuff just doesn’t happen’: Blackfoot shooting shocks lounge workers
• March 01, 2005 Verbal dispute sparked killing: Victim hit by three gunshots to chest
• March 11, 2005 Hearing put off for accused murderer: Williams charged with shooting man
• April 08, 2005 Judge sets Williams’ trial date: Man faces second-degree murder charges
• May 11, 2005 Accused murderer pleads not guilty
• May 18, 2005 Judge reduces bail in Blackfoot murder case
• June 02, 2005 Man posts bail in murder case
• August 30, 2005 Blackfoot man free unless murder charges are refiled
• September 2, 2005 Man faces highest charge of murder

Read the April 8th story for the most detailed version of what is believed to have happened.

In addition to getting an email from Williams sister asking for help what makes this interesting to me are some of the biases in the story as it appears in the paper.  Some of those biases are probably unintentional.  Others, almost for certain, were intentional.  All of them are against Williams yet who, according to my understanding of the law, is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The February 28th story says:

A press conference on the murder is scheduled for 10 a.m. today at the Blackfoot Police Department, 501 N. Maple St.

It’s not murder until someone is convicted.  The paper should have said something along the lines of “…conference on the death…”.  If the circumstances had been much more clear I would let them get away with it.  But in this case there is at least some reasonable doubt as to what actually happened.

The following, from the March 1st story, doesn’t adversely affect Williams in this case but it does affect you and me.  It’s an implication of what someone, probably the reporter, thinks the law is or should be.  The police captain, Kurt Asmus, almost for certain knew the question presumed things that were not true but figured it didn’t really matter and answered the question in such a way the reporter could continue believing their view of reality was correct:

The weapon was legally registered to Williams, Asmus said.

There are no registration requirements for semi-auto pistols in Idaho.  My guess is the police captain said something like, “The pistol was legally owned.” in response to a question about the gun being registered.  This allowed the naive public to believe firearms are registered and desensitizes the public to the hazards of firearms registration.  When it comes up that firearm aren’t registered after for years believing they were it will be easier to get such a law passed.

In the May 18th story the prosecutor, arguably doing his job, shows a bias and the newspaper lets it stand:

He said Williams has shown no remorse for his crime and has admitted he could have avoided the shooting.

“Mr. Williams was perfectly willing to kill Mr. Adams,” Andrew said.

Williams has only been charged with a crime.  It has not been proved there was actually a crime committed.  No remorse could mean he believes he behaved morally and legally correct.  Admitting he could have avoided the shooting doesn’t mean that would have been the proper course of action.  You could avoid shooting someone and let a dozen innocent people be killed.  And willingness to kill someone is not evidence of a crime or even evil intent.  For example I’ll bet we could have found 100’s of thousands of people willing to flip the switch that turned Ted Bundy into burnt toast.  I suspect the prosecutor exaggerated on the willingness angle.  Carrying a firearm for self defense shows willingness to use deadly force under extreme circumstances.  We don’t really know if the prosecutor has evidence Williams was “perfectly willing” to kill.

In the August 30th story we have this from the prosecutor:

Andrew said witnesses would now testify that Williams told them he would kill someone if the right scenario presented itself.

If you reword that just slightly you get the essence of what nearly every firearm self-defense instructor teaches.  That is you are legally justified in using deadly force if innocent life is immediate danger of death or permanent injury.  And guess who one of the witnesses is?

…one of the prosecution’s new witnesses is Williams’ ex-wife and the couple is currently involved in a child custody action.

I’ll bet the child custody battle will go a lot smoother for the ex-wife with Williams doing time for murder.  I’m sure she will be totally unbiased in her testimony.

From the September 2nd story we find the line from Deputy prosecutor Scott Andrew that got Williams sister all wound up in her email to me:

Williams is accused of shooting Adams outside the Blackfoot bar after Adams allegedly walked towards his car during an argument.

“He waited for him to get closer, just like when you’re hunting … He hunted Mr. Adams,” Andrew said.

Interesting hunt when the prey knows about the hunter, has been warned about a possible weapon, and still advances on the hunter.  This is really over the top–even for a prosecutor.

I don’t know which way this is going to go or should go.  I don’t have a strong opinion on it because I know the facts as represented in the newspaper story are tenuous at best.  The jury will have much better, if still limited, view of the facts and usually will do a pretty good job of coming to the correct conclusion.  But there are some lessons to be learned here.  Nothing new, but this guy either didn’t know or forgot them.  As we teach in the NRA Personal Protection class:

1. After a shooting let your lawyer do all the talking.
2. Don’t talk about killing people to defend yourself.  What you can say is that if innocent life is in immediate danger of death or permanent injury you would be willing to use deadly force to stop the attack.

I suggested to his sister that the defense attorney call CCRKBA and/or SAF.  Depending on the type of case the prosecutor tries to make, like saying the concealed weapons license was evidence Williams was looking for someone to kill, they may be able to help in some way.

No matter how the trial goes there is plenty of tragedy to go around.  I just hope our legal system can come up with a reasonable approximation to justice–whatever that is in this case.