The Lima Police Swat Team had a rather frightening web page showing a ninja shooting at you. They’ve taken it down but Google Cache is forever. See cache here. Also, fodder notes their anti-gun activism.

Update and bump: Seems there may be another reason they removed the ninja popping a cap from the main page:

Jennifer Brindisi, a spokesman for the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, said federal agents are working with the agency to determine how Tarika Wilson, 26, was shot to death and her 14-month-old son, Sincere Wilson, wounded during the Friday night raid at their East Third Street home. She said the FBI likely will examine the case for possible civil-rights violations as well.

Update 2: Note the ninja image is still on their server (here) but removed from the page. I’ve saved it for reference:

Though in comments, Standard Mischief points out that using the image, like the SWAT page did, may violate copyrights.

Update 3: putting image below the fold because, man, is it annoying:
Read the rest of this entry »

Kevin notes that the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act passed the house. And no one wants to talk about it. The bill:

Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

So, how long before someone like me, who is known for perpetuating his radical views, shows up on a list? But I have nothing to worry about:

Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Well, that’s a relief.

I’ve mentioned this act before. Past coverage of potential terrorists here, here, here, here, here and here.

On a bill introduced in VA to allow lawful CCW holders to carry on campus, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership breaks out the hysteria:

But Gilbert’s bill is a bad idea and would cost lives, according to Brian J. Siebel, senior attorney with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

College students often drink heavily and sometimes use illegal drugs and engage in other risky behavior, Siebel said. A number of college students also attempt suicide.

“If you introduce guns into that setting, you’re going to wind up with more dead college students,” he said. Nor will requiring permits to carry on campus keep alcohol and guns separated.

“People who are binge drinkers can still get CCW licenses in the state of Virginia,” he said.

Well, I guess they shouldn’t have automobiles either. Note, this legislation doesn’t actually, you know, arm anyone. It allows holders of CCW permits to carry on campuses. And this is your PSH of the week:

“Had Mr. Gilbert’s law gone through [in 2006] and [the Virginia Tech shooter] had gone out and applied for a concealed carry license in order to bring guns legally onto campus, the state of Virginia would have given him a license,” Siebel said.

Cho could have gotten a permit? Well, no, actually.

Update: Ahab has more.

David Kopel reports that the bogus lawsuit against gun manufacturers in DC has been dismissed.

Remember yesterday when I told you that the press was likely taking dictation from The Violence Policy Center? Well, turns out the study that both the press and the Violence Policy Center relied on to assert that gun ownership was down was done by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center (NORC). Guess who has funded NORC? Why, our old pals at the Joyce Foundation, who have a long history of funding anti-gun shills.

Update: And the reporter, Bernd Debusmann, has an interesting, err, philosophy.

Update 2: Kim calls BS:

U.S. population in 1980: 226.5 million. (Census)

So if that number of 54% gun owners in 1977 is correct, that would mean… there were over 100 million gun owners in the U.S. back then?

I wish. We’re only getting up to that number now.

Update 3: What I did yesterday, Kevin did back in May

I received an email from the NSSF in response to Citi’s non-denial denial about their policy of prohibiting credit card transactions involving firearms among dealers:

January 10, 2008

Dear XXXXX

This is to confirm the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s receipt of your e-mail response on behalf of First Data Corporation and Citi Merchant Services on Wednesday, January 9, 2008, concerning First Data and Citi Merchant’s unilateral decision to stop processing credit card transactions involving the lawful sale of firearms by law-abiding, federally-licensed, firearms distributors/retailers. Regrettably, your e-mail serves to confirm the anti-gun corporate policy of First Data and Citi Merchant Services and that the article in our publication “Bullet Points,” and subsequent posting to our Website, was based on a correct and accurate understanding of that policy as articulated in the December 26, 2007, letter to Mr. Charlie Crawford at CDNN Sports Inc.

We had hoped to hear from First Data Corporation and Citi Merchant Services that this was not your corporate policy and that the letter was merely the ill-considered actions of a single employee.

Your anti-gun corporate policy is based on ignorance of the law applicable to the sale of firearms. It is perfectly legal, in fact commonplace, for a federal firearms licensee in one state to sell a firearm to a non-licensee (consumer) from another state. What you fail to appreciate is that the firearm is not shipped in interstate commerce directly to the consumer. Rather, as required by federal law, the firearm is shipped by the selling licensee to another federal firearms licensee in the state of residence of the consumer who is purchasing the firearm. The consumer acquires the firearm from that licensed dealer in a face-to-face transaction after completion of a Firearms Transaction Record, commonly referred to as an ATF Form 4473, and a federally-mandated background check to ensure that the purchaser is legally permitted to buy the firearm.

Furthermore, the policy of First Data and Citi Merchant Services interferes with the receiving and shipping of inventory from and to federally licensed firearms retailers, distributors and manufacturers. This inventory supplies not only law-abiding Americans, but military and law enforcement agencies as well.

June Rivera-Mantilla’s original correspondence contained so many errors that one could only deduce that it was an uniformed mistake that would consequently be corrected. Instead, we learned yesterday that First Data Corporation and Citi Merchant Services stands behind the policy, which affects not only firearms retailers, manufacturers and distributors, but also law enforcement agencies at the federal, state and local levels of government and law-abiding citizens.

NSSF will not remove its Web posting nor will we rescind or alter our story. However, if we receive written confirmation from you that, after having researched the law, First Data and Citi Merchant Services have changed their corporate policy, we will consider publishing that fact in a follow-up story.

Sincerely,

Jake McGuigan
Director of Government Relations

Ted Novin
Director of Public Affairs

What is not a machine gun this week may be next week, if the ATF happens to feel like it. Once again, the ATF is going after people for not breaking the law. Not the first time they’ve been caught deceiving in an effort to get a conviction.

Not sure what it is.

Tavor.

Sigarms P229.

What a waste! Art made from firearms.

May be some changes to the CCW law there. Joe has the scoop.

Good to know about DDs:

the FFL is for someone who is IN THE BUSINESS of manufacturing ammo(for a DD or whatever). If you are simply loading your own 40mm chalk rounds or 75mm shells(non explosive of course) you don’t need any kind of license.

What’s a DD? Glad you asked.

Oops. Joe concurs.

In Cali, they want to put in thermostats that can be controlled remotely by the government. You can’t make this stuff up.

Via commenter Largenfirm here, Citi responds:

Thank you for your message. The posting at www.nssf.org regarding Citi Merchant Services and First Data Corp. is inaccurate. Further, while we generally do not comment on individual merchant customers, we would like to briefly address the 12/26 letter posted on the web site. Regretfully, that letter did a less than satisfactory job of expressing applicable policies. Those policies are more properly detailed below.

Citi Merchant Services and First Data do process firearms transactions. Our policy restrictions address only the sale of firearms in a non face-to-face environment. Non face-to-face transactions occur when a cardholder is not present in front of a merchant and includes mail order and online purchases. It is our policy not to service merchants that make non face-to-face sales in a number of industries, including firearms.

It is not the policy of Citi Merchant Services or First Data to refuse to process transactions from duly licensed merchants that sell firearms in face-to-face transactions at the point of sale.

Please direct any questions to Questions@firstdata.com.

The posting also incorrectly states that Robert Tenenbaum is the supervisor when, in fact, he is not.

I’m still not particularly satisfied with that.

Suppressed shotguns.

Toy Gun Ban Proposed:

Not England, California, or any other foreign country.

Try Memphis.

Bernd Debusmann writing at Reuters notes that gun culture in the US is fading. And by notes I mean re-prints Violence Policy Center propaganda. In fact, here’s a link to their study. And by study, I mean a reprint of data from other sources. But it beats their usual method of calling Google searches studies.

Anyhoo, on the article:

Is America, land of shooting massacres in schools and public places, slowly falling out of love with guns?

The answer is yes, and it runs counter to popular perceptions of the United States as a country where most citizens are armed to the teeth and believe it is every American’s inalienable right to buy an AK 47-style assault rifle with the minimum of bureaucratic paperwork.

Yes, let’s open the piece up with some good ol’ misleading PSH. A guaranteed winner when peddling propaganda.

But in fact, gun ownership in the United States has been declining steadily over more than three decades, relegating gun owners to minority status.

And what are these facts? We’ll get to those in a bit.

At the same time, support for stricter gun controls has been growing steadily and those in favor make up a majority.

More facts? Zogby disagrees. Their poll is from August, not 2006 like the Violence Policy Center’s. And even in 2006, Gallup disagreed. And the trend is going in exactly the opposite direction that you say it’s going.

Here’s some of the aforementioned facts:

The number of households with guns dropped from a high of 54 percent in 1977 to 34.5 percent in 2006, according to NORC, and the percentage of Americans who reported personally owning a gun has shrunk to just under 22 percent.

Well, people who own guns tend to not be the kind that answer surveys. At least, those that I know. As TP noted:

On firearms, the GSS states that the numbers of owners are decreasing when training courses are filled to capacity across the nation, are constantly being expanded, and sales are booming,. while the Gallup poll has a difference of nearly 20 million more owners in comparison and a similar number of respondents.

The trend seems to be that after a couple of decades of decline (the 1980s and 1990s) that gun sales are now going up. Notably, there were spikes in gun sales subsequent to 9-11 and Katrina. And there were reports by gun dealers of increases after the VT massacre. And just after the expiration of the assault weapon ban, gun sales surged. And, of course, there are regular reports about how gun sales are increasing:

Gun sales up 36%
Guns sales up 14%
Handgun sales up
And S&W is always reporting record sales of handguns.

So, if gun ownership is on the decline, who the hell is buying all these guns? And why are gun sales increasing? Recently, some of the increase in reported sales dollars can be tied to the increase in material costs for guns and ammunition. As I’ve said before:

What we (and by we, remember that to the VPC I am the gun lobby too) have been saying is that there was a decline for decades in gun ownership but recently (specifically after 9/11, Katrina and liberal CCW laws) gun ownership has increased quite a bit. Specifically, handgun sales have increased. And this increase was the first increase in probably decades. And there’s also the fact that gun makers are still making guns. Where do those go? See past posts on gun sales here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The trend, IMO, is a simple one: people are buying handguns and EBRs for defense. Hunting is on the decline but people are valuing self-defense. Industry reports seem to support that conclusion.

Sebastian notes:

Quite often when you read op-eds in the main stream media, they were actually placed by groups that advocate on behalf of that organization. It’s a dirty little secret in the world of issue advocacy. I would not be shocked to discover that this op-ed was written by Violence Policy Center themselves, or some other issue oriented group.

Chris and Melody Byrne are in a bit of a pickle and need to raise money for legal fees. Long and short, is that there is a custody battle over children and the legal fees are associated with that. I was told the story at GBR2. And, essentially, this case is setting case law for international custody disputes. The opposing team being Canadian argued that because they had guns, the home was unsafe. The judge, who apparently was into guns, laughed that off.

Anyway, go help if you feel so inclined. There’s a Donate button on the right.

AC got a FAL reciever. I’m curious how this goes as I’ve wanted to build a FAL for a while. That is, unless, the FN folks get their civilian FN SCAR-H on the market soon.

Greg got a Mossberg 802.

Ryan notes some criticism of the act by GOA (which given their record on 2640, I might ordinarily be dismissive of – but not this time):

The bill contains a number of relatively minor pro-gun provisions which we have championed for many years.

However, the bill also contains, for the first time, “civil penalties” for federal firearms licensees (FFL’s).

The bill’s supporters tout the introduction of “civil penalties” as a good thing –- arguing that this allows regulators to take action against errant FFL‘s short of license revocation.

The problem is that -– in virtually all of the most aggressive regulatory agencies in the federal government -– “civil penalties” are the central engine whereby the agency has expanded its jurisdiction.

I tend to concur. Seems this may open up the gates, unless reasonable limits are set, for the cost to continue business being greater than shutting it down. What say you?

A lesson in how to win: Dustin takes a woman and her kids shooting!

A lesson in how the other side loses: Feminists.

What he said.

Go free speech!

Quick, 3,745 of you stop clicking here or I might be a lobbyist someday:

“Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself.

“The bill would require reporting of ‘paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying,’ but defines ‘paid’ merely as communications to 500 or more members of the public, with no other qualifiers.”

That’s about the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

If you buy an FN FiveSeveN, they’ll give you 200 rounds of free ammo. Ahab has the skinny.

What, like they didn’t expect that?

So, the Tennessee Democrat Party has a blog called the Donkey’s Mouth, no doubt to counter the Republican Bill Hobbs, who works for the Tennessee GOP.

You know what that means? Shill fight!

Legally Armed is advertising here. They have a TN handgun permit travel guide.

Regarding all this talk of packing in bars, I stand corrected:

39-17-1321. Possession of handgun while under influence — Penalty. —

(a) Notwithstanding whether a person has a permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351, it is an offense for a person to possess a handgun while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance.

(b) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

[Acts 1994, ch. 943, § 10; 1997, ch. 476, § 4.]

Meanwhile, a rifle is OK?

Via Ned.

Appeals court rules San Francisco gun ban null and void.

No details yet. Will let you know.

Update: story hits the news:

A state appeals court refused today to revive a ban on handgun possession in San Francisco, saying the measure that city voters approved in November 2005 conflicts with state law.

The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco agreed with a June 2006 ruling by Superior Court Judge James Warren, who said local governments in California have no authority to prohibit handguns. Warren said a California law that authorizes police agencies to issue concealed-weapon permits implicitly forbids a city or county to ban handgun possession by law-abiding adults.

The San Francisco measure, Proposition H, would have outlawed possession of handguns by all city residents except law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes. It also would have forbidden the manufacture, sale and distribution of any type of firearms and ammunition in San Francisco.

Good.

Update 2: NRA presser here:

The California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

“Today’s decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco,” declared Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist.

Ya know, before these sorts of stories would make me shake my head in disgust. Now that I have kids, they make me physically ill for about 15 seconds.

Via R. Neal who says: It’s bastards like this who make it hard to keep opposing the death penatly (sic).

In an update to this, VolunteerTV has a poll on the subject on the left hand side. Currently, the good guys are winning.

The also have a video segment on the issue featuring my favorite Merchant of Death giving some free ad space to Vltor.

In comments here. He refers to Bellisiles. Heh.