If, as I have heard, pointing out hypocrisy is one of the most potent political weapons then this gun grabber just exposed himself big time. Via Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

BELLEVUE, WA – Mobile, Alabama Mayor Sam Jones has some explaining to do in the wake of a highly-publicized incident this week during which he held a burglary suspect at gunpoint, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

Jones, a Democrat, is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an organization that has campaigned for stricter gun control laws that affect average private citizens.

But Jones is no average private citizen. According to published reports, Jones was returning home from an errand, driving his private vehicle. “His bodyguard, who drives the mayor’s city vehicle, was not on duty,” the Press-Register newspaper reported. And now there are questions about whether the mayor has an Alabama carry permit.

“Here is a municipal mayor who has a bodyguard, and believes it is okay for him to carry a gun, but he belongs to an organization that consistently works to keep everyone else from carrying,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “If the mayor is legally licensed, why does he belong to a group that has fought to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their self-defense right?

“If Mayor Jones doesn’t have a permit,” he continued, “then he is a poster child for the double standards that elites like Mayor Michael Bloomberg believe separates them from the citizens they serve. Either way, Mayor Jones owes it to his constituents to show them his carry permit, and to oppose any further attempts by Mayors Against Illegal Guns to prevent private citizens from exercising their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.

“It is no surprise that average American citizens are fed up with government officials at all levels,” Gottlieb observed. “We’re glad that Mayor Jones had the means and the willingness to protect his property, but we are stunned and disappointed that he belongs to an organization whose very essence is to make it virtually impossible for average citizens to do likewise.”

I have to wonder if Bloomberg will kick him out of the organization or if he will find nothing wrong with one of the anointed defending life and property with their own firearm.

Although from my viewpoint I don’t see a lot of progress being made in Australia the gun control people are screaming bloody murder:

David Shoebridge says NSW has gone backwards on gun control.

As near as I can tell the problem for these people is that people are following the law and buying guns:

Figures obtained by The Sunday Telegraph show there are 188,885 people on the NSW Police Firearms Register, just short of the estimated 200,000 licence holders pre- the Port Arthur massacre, which triggered changes to gun laws.

NSW Greens described the increase as “alarming” and gun control groups warned that more and more firearms would end up on the black market.

“The trend is all one-way in NSW; that is, more guns and more gun owners and that is a dangerous trend,” NSW Greens MP David Shoebridge said.

“There’s a real concern where we are developing a gun culture here in NSW. A good part of the problem comes from the influence of the Shooters Party and the Gun Council here in NSW. We need this government to stand up to the gun lobby to restrict access, particularly to handguns, and ensure the current restrictions remain in place.”

It’s interesting and revealing that this politician wants to reduce the number of gun owners rather than just restrict the type of guns and that owners be licensed and their guns registered. It was the hope that the restrictions would decrease the number of gun owners. The ultimate goal of the anti-gun people must be, always has been, and always will be a complete ban.

I just finished reading David Kopel’s paper How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution. I found it fascinating. It was like an exciting short story but with lots of footnotes.

There is a lot of great material in it and my QOTD for tomorrow will come from it.

What follow are some of the highlights.

In 1777 when British victory seemed likely Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan entitled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” It included the following:

The Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, & the Arms of all the People should be taken away, . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . . .

Imagine how different things would be today had the British won. Kopel convincingly presents the case (Patrick Henry’s speech of March 23, 1775 is just a hint) that the American citizens knew this was coming and was a significant, if not major, motivation for rebellion.

I especially like this (page 32):

The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the import of any firearm which is not deemed “sporting” by federal regulators. That import ban seems difficult to justify based on the historical record of 1774-76, or on District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, both of which hold that, while sporting uses such as hunting are part of the Second Amendment, the “core” and “central component” of the Second Amendment is self-defense.

And this (page 32):

Laws which aim to disarm the public at large are precisely what turned a political argument into the American Revolution. Sometimes, legislative history will frankly reveal that the purpose of an anti-gun law was to discourage gun ownership in general, or that the law was based on hostility to gun ownership. This is the case for New York City’s pistol licensing fees. Everywhere in New York State, the fee for the issuance or renewal of a handgun permit is $10 (plus a separate $95 fee for a fingerprint check for first-time applications). But in New York City, the fee is over $340, payable every three years. The explicitly stated purpose of allowing the New York City government to charge extra fees was to discourage handgun ownership in the City.

In Alameda County, California, the five-person County Board of Supervisors banned gun shows on county property at the behest of a Supervisor who complained that her previous efforts to ban gun shows had “gotten the run around from spineless people hiding behind the constitution.” She explained that the County should not “provide a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism.” Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit upheld the ban because the other supervisors who voted for the ordinance might have had legitimate motives.

He concludes with:

Gun ownership simpliciter ought never to be a pretext for government violence. The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did not agree. Americans of the 21st century should not squander the heritage of constitutional liberty bequeathed by the Patriots.