Michael Paymar is back.

His attempt to make the law-abiding gun owner pay for the Newtown Massacre squibbed in the last session; even his own party deserted his effort; even some sensible DFLers like Rep. Hilstrom threw Paymar and his metrocrat extremists under the bus.

But he and his buddies in the mainstream media are trying a different tack; around the time his bills bogged down amid party defections and an avalanche of public opposition, Paymar and the metrocrat extremists started a whispering campaign that the legislators were “intimidated” by the number of citizens who showed up at the hearings with firearms – legally, naturally (the law allows people to carry in the Capitol complex if they are legal carry permittees and they notify the head of Capitol security).

Of course, it is an objective fact that Paymar is vastly safer in a room full of carry permittees – who’ve passed background checks and completed training in the subject – than he’d be in a room full of, well, DFLers. Or any other private citizen. Because it’s an objective fact that carry permittees, nationwide and in Minnesota, are a couple of orders of magnitude less likely to commit any crime than the general public are.

But Paymar wants to continue the slander of his fellow citizen; he’s authoring a bill for the next session that’d clamp down on citizens carrying in the Capitol complex.

It’s not just a solution in search of a problem, of course; it’s a bitchy little slap at the law-abiding citizen.

I can’t wait until he’s in the minority again. 

Joe Doakes from Como Park emailed:

No wonder gun control advocates all sound as if they’re talking from the same playbook. They are.

Thank GOD they’re not getting their sample talking points and draft legislation from a special interest group like ALEC. Because that would be wrong.

Joe doakes

Five’ll get you ten this campaign is financed in large part by the Joyce Foundation, which, along with victim-disarmament groups like “Protect Minnesota”, funds the “objective journalists” at MinnPost.

UPDATE:  The original version of this post – complete with comical typos – shows the danger of trying to blog before one’s first cup of coffee.  In the bathroom.  On an iPhone.

On the one hand, correlation doesn’t equal causation.

So I’ll restrain my end-zone happy dance at the news that gun crime in Virginia has plummeted as gun sales boomed:

Firearms sales rose 16 percent to a record 490,119 guns purchased from licensed gun dealers in 2012, according to sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
During the same period, major crimes committed with firearms dropped 5 percent to 4,378.
“This appears to be additional evidence that more guns don’t necessarily lead to more crime,” said Thomas R. Baker, an assistant professor at Virginia Commonwealth University’s L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs who specializes in research methods and criminology theory.

See also: the rest of the freaking country.

Bit remember – correlation isn’t causation. Knowing that people who live near Mosquitos are prone to getting malaria doesn’t mean Mosquitos cause malaria. But that knowledge can help lead you to the cause. Mosquitos carry malaria.

Do more guns decrease crime? Not necessarily. But there’s enough patterns in enough places to give you an idea that there’s something to investigate that has to do with the availability of guns to the law-abiding.

Guns save the lives of real Americans.

Story first.  Then a quiz:

It was an extremely scary situation when a female bank teller and her husband were kidnapped from their home and forced to drive to the bank where the wife worked to help the thieves steal money from a safe after hours.
According to KHOU, the couple was at home, when two armed men, who knew the wife was a bank teller, forced their way in and held the couple at gunpoint.

The suspects forced the couple into their own car, made them drive to the bank, and had the wife remove money from the safe.

Afterwards, the robbers told the husband to drive away – in a completely different direction.  To the dreaded “Secondary Crime Scene”, where anyone with a brain knows your odds of survival are in the single digits. 

At some point during that drive, the husband was able to gain access to his personal firearm, which was in the vehicle. 

He opened fire on the suspects, hitting both of them. One of the suspects died of his injuries and the other is in serious condition.

The suspects are described as brothers, aged 20 and 21, who live in the community.

By the way, one of the self-defense questions I get most often is “is there a site that chronicles self-defense cases?”  Clayton Cramer retired his excellent “Armed Self-Defense” site a few years ago – but the site posting this piece, Guns Save Lives, is stepping in to fill the void. 

Now, the quiz.  It’s aimed at all you leftybloggers out there who, in the absence of any knowledge or intellectual curiosity on the subject, labeled the “stand your ground” as “Shoot First” laws. 

The gentleman in this storyshot first.

What do you think would have happend if he’d shot second?

Answers please.

Apparently so, since not only – as I pointed out two weeks ago – do minorities benefit disproportionately from “stand your ground” laws, but now we find that a very solid majority supports the laws overall.

The obvious conclusion – most people are smarter than the media.

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

A 22-year-old Black man was shot by White police officers. “Community activists” in Minneapolis point out similarities to Trayvon.

Black, White, gun. Yep, sounds the same. News reports say Minneapolis police shot him with Heckler and Koch MP5’s, full-auto 9mm submachine guns. Same thing you’d see a German cop carrying. Here’s a sample photo from another law enforcement agency:

More details here.

Police dog, submachine gun, car chase . . . yep, just exactly like Trayvon. No further analysis needed. Clear case of Black child killed by gun violence. So how do we prevent this tragedy from happening again?

Universal background checks. Mayors Against Illegal Guns were in town Wednesday to read off the names of people killed by gun violence. The sister of the school principal who died in Newtown spoke. A relative of someone who died at Accent Signage spoke. Sensible, reasonable, background checks for all firearms transfers, that’s all it would have taken to prevent every single one of those deaths.

It does strike me as odd that the Minneapolis Police Department doesn’t do background checks on its own officers every time they check a fully-automatic assault weapon out of the firearms locker to go shoot some Black children but no doubt that’s due to Bush tax cuts or the Koch Brothers war on women. We could pay for all background checks by taxing the rich. And we should. For the 22-year-old Children.

Joe Doakes

To the hard left, facts are whatever they say they are.

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Governor Dayton says George Zimmerman “went way beyond” what was necessary in the Trayvon situation and thus, Stand Your Ground laws are bad. Aside from Stand Your Ground having nothing to do with that case, specifically Governor, what did George Zimmerman do that was “way beyond?”

Was it when he joined the Neighborhood Watch, was that “way beyond” what was necessary? People shouldn’t join Neighborhood Watch?

When he called 911 upon seeing a person acting suspiciously? People shouldn’t call 911?

Getting out of his car to better direct law enforcement to where the suspect was hiding, was that “way beyond?” People shouldn’t help police?

Returning to his car when the dispatcher told him “we don’t need you to do that,” was that “way beyond?” People shouldn’t obey police?

Failing to run away when Trayvon confronted him, asking Trayvon what he was up to – was that “way beyond?”

Everybody – even Trayvon’s girlfriend on the phone – agrees Trayvon threw the first punch that broke Zimmerman’s nose. Was that Zimmerman’s mistake – allowing his nose to be broken, was that going “way beyond?”

Everybody – including the prosecution, at the end – conceded Trayvon was sitting on Zimmerman’s chest, holding him down so he couldn’t get away and banging his head on the cement sidewalk. Was that when Zimmerman went “way beyond,” leaving all that blood lying around?

All six jurors agreed that Zimmerman truly believed Trayvon was going to kill him. Was forming that belief, going “way beyond?”

Shooting Trayvon to save his own life – was that going “way beyond?” At that instant, what should Zimmerman have done, instead?

I’m willing to give up my pistol permit and throw my pistol in the lake – if the Governor can explain to me what Zimmerman SHOULD have done differently to achieve the same outcome. So far, not hearing any good explanations.

That’s the problem with trying to talk Second Amendment issues with liberals; so many of them pretend to be lawyers on the issue, and yet know nothing about the subject.

Even the lawyers. 

Even the prosecutors.

Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” – aka the “Tragedy Exploitation Tour” – will be stopping in Minneapolis (where else?) next week:

Heinrich–

On Wednesday at 10:00 AM, the No More Names bus tour will be stopping in Minneapolis to read out the names of those killed by gun violence and to demand action from our leaders.

Will you join us?

Here are the details:

What: Minneapolis No More Names Rally

When: Wednesday, July 31st, 10:00 AM

Where: US Federal Courthouse Plaza
300 South 4th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415

The bus departed from Newtown, CT six months after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, commemorating those killed with guns — and determined to turn the tide on six months of inaction from Congress.

In each state where the tour stops, it’s up to supporters like you to speak up for laws that protect our communities from future tragedies.

So please join us at the rally on Wednesday:

Thanks for all you do,

Mayors Against Illegal Guns

P.S. — We are planning to read the names of those killed by gun violence in 25 states across the country. But the bus will only keep running with your support. Please pitch in $33 or more today:

I can’t make it Wednesday – duty calls.

But I think an ideal counterdemonstration would be this; for every name read off that was killed by someone who’d never obey any gun law, no matter what it was – someone with a demonstrable criminal record, for example – someone shout out “killed by a criminal”.

If I could make it, I might hold up a sign that reads:

WELCOME, CARAVAN TO EXPLOIT THE DEATHS OF KIDS WHO LOOK LIKE NPR EXECUTIVES’ KIDS. 

WHERE’S THE OUTRAGE OVER ALL THE BLACK KIDS KILLED IN CHICAGO?

I might need some help holding that one.

George Zimmerman – still in hiding from the mobs slavering for his head on a pike – steps out to rescue a family of four trapped in an overturned vehicle:

Zimmerman was one of two men who came to the aid of a family of four — two parents and two children — trapped inside a blue Ford Explorer SUV that had rolled over after traveling off the highway in Sanford, Fla. at approximately 5:45 p.m. Thursday, the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement.

The crash occurred at the intersection of I-4 and route Route 46, police said. The crash site is less than a mile from where Zimmerman shot Martin.

By the time police arrived, two people – including Zimmerman – had already helped the family get out of the overturned car, the sheriff’s office said. No one was reported to be injured.

Do you think Angela Corey would have risked breaking a nail to do that?

Suck it, haters.

Dunn Brothers coffee is a regional coffee shop chain (with some franchise inroads outside Minnesota) that sells really, really good coffee. In fact, as this post appears, I’m very likely drinking a Dunn Brothers medium roast.

But its corporate office had a really, really bad idea.

Dunns’ corporate headquarters is reportedly hosting Mayor Bloomberg’s “Plutocrats Interdicting Guns” (PIG)” “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” (MAIG) when they pass through the Twin Cities on their “Stick It To The Law-Abiding Plebeians” [1] tour.

Now, I don’t believe in boycotts – partly because they don’t work, but also because Dunn’s is a franchise operation that includes many independent businesspeople whose politics may be very, very different from the corporate line.

So I sent them this letter instead:

——–

Dunnbros,

I’ve been buying coffee at Dunn Brothers since you were a single store on Grand Avenue. Sometimes, when working near a Dunn’s, I’ve been known to go twice a day.

So I’m a little – ok, a lot – disappointed to see that Dunn Brothers corporate office is hosting Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” tour.

Name notwithstanding, the group has nothing to do with illegal firearms; all of the group’s policy initiatives relate to attacking the law-abiding citizens’ human right to self-defense.

In the last 20 years, as gun laws have grown more liberal, violent crime has dropped sharply. The main exceptions are several of the cities whose mayors are in MAIG. MAIG has not a factual leg to stand on.

As a rigorously law-abiding guy, from a group that is two orders of magnitude less likely to commit a violent crime than the general public, I’m disappointed with your corporate office’s support of this group.

I urge Dunn Brothers’ corporate HQ to reconsider hosting MAIG.

Mitch Berg
Saint Paul

Sent from my iPhone

In the his frankly bizarre speech in re the Martin/Zimmermaas case last week, President Obama asked:

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these “stand your ground” laws, I’d just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened?

Of course, the hypothetical question is a stupid one. Obama’s not a stupid man, of course; he knows thatbeing followedisn’t, in and of itself, not enough to convince a reasonable person that one legitimately and immediately fears death or great bodily harm.

The three key words are…:

• Reasonable: would a jury buy the idea that being followed constituted a threat that was…
• Legitimately lethal, not eventually, but…
• Immediately?

“Feeling” threatened – notwithstanding the bleatings of liberal bloggers and politicians – is not reasonably a legitimate, immediate threat of death or great bodily harm. Had ZImmerman, say, jumped out of his truck, tackled Martin, and started beating his head against the sidewalk? That’s another story – as the jury affirmed last week.

But as a literal answer to an immediate, current social question? It’s a good question.

And the answer is “Yes, black people can and do “stand their ground” when under attack, and do so successfully”. Indeed, twice as often per capita (in Florida) as white people:

But approximately one third of Florida “Stand Your Ground” claims in fatal cases have been made by black defendants, and they have used the defense successfully 55 percent of the time, at the same rate as the population at large and at a higher rate than white defendants, according to a Daily Caller analysis of a database maintained by the Tampa Bay Times. Additionally, the majority of victims in Florida “Stand Your Ground” cases have been white.

African Americans used “Stand Your Ground” defenses at nearly twice the rate of their presence in the Florida population, which was listed at 16.6 percent in 2012.

One hundred thirty three people in the state of Florida have used a “Stand Your Ground” defense. Of these claims, 73 were considered “justified” (55 percent), while 39 resulted in criminal convictions and 21 cases are still pending.

Forty four African Americans in the state of Florida have claimed a “Stand Your Ground” defense. Of these claims, 24 were considered “justified” (55 percent), while 11 resulted in convictions and nine cases are still pending.

Now, for a racist law, it seems to be pretty darned color-blind.

Maybe the Administration should stick with trying to find all the guns they gave to the narcotraficantes.

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Compare the headline in the paper where the incident actually happened with the headline in the local paper.

In this one, the guy shot himself by accident:

In this one, the gun “went off” and shot him:

The subtle difference is the PiPress article makes it sound as if the firearm can spontaneously discharge at any time; the implication is it’s too dangerous to have one around so we should ban them all, for the children.

What media bias?

Joe Doakes

There may be no subject on which the media is both less balanced and less competent than firearms.

For exampe, the media meme that George Zimmerman “had a round in his chamber, his hammer cocked and his safety off” when the confrontation with Trayvon Martin started.  He was carrying a Kel-Tec 9mm.  It’s a double-action only pistol, a type I hypothetically might have a lot of experience with.  You can’t cock the hammer, and there is no safety.  And of course he had a round in the chamber; that’s where they belong – provided you don’t have a cocked hammer.

A man intervenes when a teenage boy was acting illegally in his neighborhood.  The boy charges the man.  The man shoots in self-defense.  The man is acquitted.

Oh, yeah – the man, Roderick Scott, is black, the teenager, Christopher Cervini, was white. 

That’d be why you’ve never heard of the case:

Not guilty: The verdict in the manslaughter trial of Roderick Scott. After more than 19 hours of deliberations over two days, a jury acquitted the Greece man in the shooting death of Christopher Cervini, 17, last April.

“I just want to say thank you to the people who believed in me, who stood by me,” Scott said following the verdict. “I still have my regrets for the Cervini family; it’s still an unfortunate situation for them. I am happy that at least this chapter is over.”

And both sides in this case in suburban Rochester, NY should be thankful that their gawdawful tragedy didn’t become a stage prop for anyone’s re-election bid.

If you’re a conservative who’s spent the past decade or two assailing theStar Tribune’srigorous editorial pro-DFL, pro-“progressive”, pro-leftist bias, there’s some good news.  

Sorta.

But we’ll get back to that later.   

Jay Larson of Saint Bonifacius t is apparently upset about the Zimmerman verdict, and has apparently seen enough episodes of Law and Order that he feels himself quite the Monday Morning county attorney, in an op-ed that the Strib opted to run in preference to goodness knows how many intelligent pieces they could have run:

In response to the July 15 editorial “Due process plays out in Zimmerman case”: Really?

It is a given that the state of Florida was dragged into the Zimmerman case kicking and screaming because of public pressure from the black community.

Now, I’m sure to Mr. Larson that means something different than it does to people who actually care about justice.

For most of us, the fact that the State of Florida – which is never shy about prosecuting people they believe to have committed crimes, and carrying out sentences with frothy abandon (from a large, full prison system to a legendarily-busy electric chair) didn’t opt to press charges was pretty clear evidence that there was no there there; that the homicide, tragic as it is, was justified on its face under the laws on the books in the sovereign state of Florida. 

To Jay Larson – who apparently believes Sam Waterson was a real lawyer – it means the “justice” system does, and should, respond to whomever cheers or jeers the loudest.   

Due process? What due process? I was appalled at the lack of zeal with which the prosecution tried this case. It allowed the key witness, a young uneducated black girl, to testify without being properly prepared — a girl for whom English was her third language and who was quite evidently intimidated.

“English was her third language?”

Does that sound racist to anyone but me?

And to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to trial with the witnesses you have, not the witnesses you want.  While Mr. Larson would apparently have preferred the prosectors hire Halle Berry to play the role of Ms. Jeantel, it would seem to be an irreducible fact that the “uneducated” Ms. Jeantel was the best the prosecution could find on one years’ notice. 

Next, the prosecution brought the lead detective, who was supposedly there to bolster the prosecution’s case. He testified that he was certain that George Zimmerman was telling the truth. Why did he say that as a prosecution witness?

Offhand, I’d say “that he felt committing perjury would be a bad career move?”

I’ll give Mr. Larson of Saint Freaking Bonnie this much; he apparently watches a broad range of TV.  In addition to the diet of Law and Order that apparently qualifies him to back-seat-drive the prosecutors’ office, he also apparently watches enough CSI or NCIS to fancy himself quite the investigator:  

There were so many inconsistencies in George Zimmerman’s story of the events that night it was absurd to think that he was telling the truth. For instance, Zimmerman said that Trayvon Martin punched him 25 times and slammed his head against the sidewalk an additional 25 times.

If someone has been hit in the face 25 times, that person is going to exhibit a lot of bruising and swelling around the lips and eyes. Zimmerman had none. If his head had been slammed against the sidewalk 25 times, where is the concussion, where is the blood, where is the swelling?

Well, he doesn’t look quite curb-ready in these crime-time photos:

I’m neither a doctor nor Jay Larson, but this looks painful.

And I suspect when you’re getting your head slammed against a cement sidewalk ones count might not be utterly accurate.  Adrenaline makes detailed actions like “keeping running totals of how many times you’ve been punched and slammed to the pavement” difficult; also.  And I know this not just because the slamming illogic and assumption of Mr. Larson’s piece is making it difficult to think – it is, but it’s not from adrenaline, trust me – but because it’s one of those things they teach you in carry permit training, if nowhere else.   

How could Zimmerman have been constantly screaming if his mouth was covered by Trayvon’s hand and blood was running down his throat from his broken nose?

Question.  Perhaps because his mouth wasn’t constantly covered, perhaps?

 Where was the blood that should have been on Martin’s hands?

If he was slamming the head on the ground rather than punching it – as, by the way, the prosecution said he did?  There’d be no blood. 

How exactly did Zimmerman pull out his gun from his interior holster if he was laying on it? (Additionally, it would have been covered by Martin’s legs if Zimmerman was truly on the bottom as he claimed.)

Good point.  Clearly Zimmerman had his gun drawn as he walked onto the scene, pointing it where he was looking like a wanna-be cop, and waited until he’d been pummeled into near-submission before shooting. 

Alternately; the holster was accessible enough – which isn’t that hard to believe if Mr. Martin had normal legs, or was sitting facing Martin rather than away from himn, pinning the gun to Zimmerman’s stomach with his butt.

As to this next bit (in which I’ll add emphasis)…:

There was no due process in that courtroom. The only process exhibited there was the Jim Crow process of the old South. Granted, this wasn’t the lynching of a black man after a quicky trial. Rather it was the unlynching of a white man who murdered a black child.

I’m wondering if Mr. Larson is even a capable enough writer to know that he’s tacitly admitting that the malicious prosecution and mob-rule attack on Zimmerman was a “lynching”. 

Oh, yeah – the “good news” I talked about at the top?  Here it is:

For years, I’ve believed that the Strib editorial board would cherry-pick the letters and op-eds they’d print.  Now, that’s their right – but I’ve believed (not without justification) that they did it to slant the perception of their reading public by printing letters and op-eds from well-spoken, thoughtful (if usually wrong) liberals, along with a distortedly-pejorative sample of conservatives that sounded like cranks, crackpots and stereotypes.

And the “good” news would seem to be that the Strib, by printing the likes of Mr. Larson, is now giving the left at least a little of the same short, dismal shrift. 

It’s fairer, I suppose.  But is it really progress?

Whatever you thought about the Martin/Zimmerman case, the big loser was the American media. They – and their leftyblog camp followers – did, almost to a fault, an unforgiveably bad job of covering the case – from NBC’s editing Zimmerman’s 911 call to try to make him sound racist to their seeming unwillingness to get even the most basic facts straigth. (Classic example: how many of you read media accounts that said Zimmerman has “a round in the chamber, his hammer cocked and his safety off?” For starters, virtually every person who carries a firearm for self-defense, including every cop you see on the street, has a “round in the chamber”. Beyond that, Zimmerman’s pistol was a KelTec 9mm, a type I’m intimately familiar with; it’s what’s called a “double action only” pistol; there is no safety, and you can’t “cock” the hammer except by squeezing the trigger.

I know. Technicalities. But it’s not just the gun-geek stuff that the media bobbles.

In the wake of the Zimmerman verdict over the weekend, an insufficiently bright liberal on Twitter issued a tweet that included a link to this deeply ignorant hit piece from CBS last year.

It’s just as wrong this year as it was last; I’ll emphasize the :

(CBSMiami.com) – As some state lawmakers are calling for a re-thinking of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which allows people to defend themselves from danger without the need to first try to get away, an analysis of state data shows deaths due to self defense are up over 200 percent since the law took effect.

“Up over 200 percent”. 

That sounds like a big number.  Especially as against the fact that murder in general, nationwide, is down nearly half in the past 20 years. 

Seems like a…disconnect?

We’ll come back to that.

The shooting death of Trayvon Martin by an armed, self-appointed Central Florida crime watch volunteer who claimed he shot in self defense has sparked a national debate about Florida’s law, technically known as the Castle doctrine.

No.  No, it is not “technically known” as “Castle Doctrine”, which relates to removing the “duty to retreat”while you’re in your home.  Which was the law in Minnesota until the mid-2000s, by the way, but no longer. 

Until 2005, it was generally considered self defense if someone tried to get into your home or invade your property, so long as you could show deadly force was the last resort. In 2005, the “Stand your Ground” law removed the need to retreat before using force, even in public.

And there you go.  One of the reasons people on the left are so ignorant about Second Amendment issues is that the people they get their information from are, in fact, crushingly ignorant on the subject. 

“Castle” referred to  in your home.  “Stand your Ground” was elsewhere. 

According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010.

So what? 

If all of those shootings – 12 or 35 – were people shooting because they were in legitimate fear of death or great bodily harm, and where lethal force was appropriate, and the intended victim wasn’t a willing participant, then that means there are 35 rapists, stalkers, robbers and thugs off the street.

Each death is a tragedy, sure.  But so would be the deaths of those shooting in self-defense – and in every case, as a matter of law , that was the alternative with all 35 of those shootings; death, mutilation, kidnapping, rape. 

Don’t they matter?

Minnesota needs a Stand your Ground law.

He wanted to thank Judge Debra Nelson – the judge presiding over the Zimmerman show trial – for finally knocking him off the perch as the worst show trial “Judge” in history. 

Bonus question:  To where do you suspect “Judge” Nelson will get an ambassadorship if she manages to craft jury instructions that will ensure a conviction on something?

This animation is an oldie but a goodie. It shows the spread of “shall-issue” laws since the 1980s.

To make it perfect, there should be a “thermometer” showing annual violent crime rates per 100,000.

It’d drop by nearly half in the time covered by the animation, by the way.

The Illinois Legislature overrode Governor Pat “The Fascist Orc” Quinn’s veto of the bipartisan carry law, bringing the state at long last into compliance with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

“This is a historic, significant day for law-abiding gun owners,” said Rep. Brandon Phelps, a southern Illinois Democrat who, in 10 years in the House, has continued work on concealed carry begun by his uncle, ex-Rep. David Phelps, who began serving in the mid-1980s. “They finally get to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

The Senate voted 41-17 in favor of the override after a House tally of 77-31, margins that met the three-fifths threshold needed to set aside the amendatory veto. Quinn had used his veto authority to suggest changes, including prohibiting guns in restaurants that serve alcohol and limiting gun-toting citizens to one firearm at a time.

I have little doubt that the City of Chicago will continue to try to fight against the law-abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms; inconveniencing criminals is bad politics in Barack Obama’s hometown. 

But this is a great day for freedom.

I got this letter from “Protect Minnesota” recently.  “Protect Minnesota” was what Rep. Heather Martens (DFLiar – HD66A) had to rename “Citizens for a “Safer” Supine Minnesota” when it turned out her constant lying had damaged whatever credibility the old brand had.

For those who’ve missed earlier installments of my coverage of Ms. Martens, here’s what you need to know; every single substantive thing she had said about gun issues, ever, throughout her career, has been a lie.  Every.  Last.  Word. 

Here’s her letter:

Dear Heinrich ,

It’s been several weeks since the Minnesota legislature went home. Despite passing one bill to fund improvements in Federal gun background check data, the legislature left gaping loopholes in the law that still allow people who shouldn’t have guns to get them easily.

Well, no.  A bipartisan majority of the legislature realized that Martens’ various bills – copied and pasted as they were from New York and California – wouldn’t change criminals’ ability to find guns; they’d just register the guns of the law-abiding, for further targeting by law-enforcement when and if the political winds swing that way. 

We’d never tolerate that sort of treatment of the First Amendment.  Why the Second?

Martens:

We can’t afford to wait for another mass shooting, so we are not letting up in the push for change. We need your help to have one-to-one conversations with voters about what is at stake, and how they can push common sense state and Federal laws. Can you join a phone bank tomorrow? Click here to help phone on Wednesday, July 10, at TakeAction in St. Paul. (Pizza and air conditioning provided!)

Not that there was any doubt that “Protect MN” was part of the ultra-left hive, but the fact that TakeAction – which, like “Protect MN” is an astroturf group funded by unions and liberal plutocrats – just happened to lend “Protect” a phone bank should tell you something.

With more than 75 percent of Minnesotans supporting universal background checks for gun sales,

…according to a push poll whose results have been reported with flagrant disregard for the context of the original survey question; tomayto tomahto, I know…

we had great success engaging voters all over the state, generating thousands of phone calls and emails to legislators.

Martens has been showing an interesting pattern since her bills got tubed by solid bipartisan majorities (which included a bipartisan majority of all House members signing on to co-author a bill that was a direct repudiation of Martens’ bills (channeled via the likes of Michael Paymar and Alice “The Phantom” Hausman); she’s been reduced to trying to turn defeats into victories, at least in the minds of her utterly uninformed followers.

“Thousands” of calls?  By all accounts, calls ran 50:1 against Martens’ bills.  Even the MinnPost’s Doug Grow, who gets at least part of his paycheck from the same place Martens does (the anti-gun Joyce Foundation contributes at least five figures to both “Protect” MN and the MinnPost, which I suspect is in major part behind the MinnPost’s atrociously ignorant and ludicrously slanted coverage of Second Amendment issues this past year), said it was more like a thousand, as if that was a major accomplishment.

In 2013, we didn’t have time to build the power it takes to reverse the long-term effects of gun-rights extremist propaganda. But we have the public on our side, and we can make the change we need, as long as we keep at it!
Click here to join us and our friends at Mayors Against Illegal Guns for the first in a series of summer phone banks!

And there you go.  Two astroturf groups sponsored by liberal plutocrats and government unions (fluffed by a “news” outlet sponsored by those same plutocrats and their plutocrat-supported foundation) are joining with a group of liberal politicians in another astroturf group funded by another liberal plutocrat to try to keep all us unruly peasants in line.

I’ve said it for twenty years, now; the extreme left has always led with the class-warfare rhetoric – and yet on this, the most populist issue of them all, it’s the left who are the patricians, and the gun rights movement in all its bipartisan and non-partisan millions who are the uppity peasants demanding real freedom. 

I might just have to sign up for that phone bank.

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (Orc) is trying his best to try to stymie the inevitable – also the will of the people of Illinois – by dawdling over his veto of Illinois’ bipartisan carry permit bill.

But the bill passed with greater than a 60% majority, and Quinn’s bitchy little veto is likely to get squashed like the legislative cockroach it is.

For days, Quinn has been pushing for alterations to a bill that would end Illinois’ status as the last state in the nation to ban the concealed carry of weapons in public, which the state must do by Tuesday to meet a federal appeals court’s deadline.

And here’s further proof – to paraphrase Fred Thompson in The Hunt For Red October – that Democrats don’t take a dump without trying to gull the low-information voter (with emphasis added):

Quinn recently has been highlighting Chicago’s violence, saying recent shootings show the need for tougher gun laws.

Chicago has the the “toughest” gun laws in the US today, if by “tough” you mean “against the law-abiding citizen”. 

This is so obvious, even Jane Kay and Doug Grow might understand it. 

“There will be a showdown in Springfield,” Quinn told the crowd gathered in Chicago for a bill signing on anti-gang legislation. Afterward he told reporters that lawmakers should examine his changes carefully.

“I don’t think they should override common sense. I don’t think they should compromise with public safety,” he said.

Because ten dead over one weekend “despite” a complete civilian gun ban isn’t “compromise” enough. 

P.S.:  By the way, don’t you dare say there’s media bias.  From the original AP story, with emphasis added by me:

While Quinn’s changes which include a one-gun limit and a ban on guns in establishments that serve alcohol have been embraced by Chicago’s anti-violence advocates, they’ve received a cold reception from lawmakers.

Pejorative much?

As if gun owners are “pro-violence advocates”?

A shooter friend of mine posted this on Facebook:

LOGICAL GUN CONTROL
In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .

In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.

In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States .

In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States .

In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan.

In 1984 James Huberty a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

In 1986 Patrick Sherril a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

In 1990 James Pough a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office

In 1991 George Hennard a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria

In 1995 James Daniel Simpson a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory

In 1999 Larry Asbrook a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush President of the United States

In 2003 Douglas Williams a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32  people in Virginia Tech.

In 2009 a registered Democrat named Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed 13 and injured 32 at Ft. Hood, Texas

In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis

In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people in a school.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.
Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

SOLUTION: It should simply be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

I don’t entirely endorse the data – I’m  not sure we can ascribe politics to dementees like Ho, Loughner or Holmes.  Or alleged jihadis like Hassan, for that matter; by that logic, the 9/11 hijackers were Democrats, too. 

And I’m extremely leery about junk psychology “studies” that ascribe defects or pathologies to other peoples’ politics – especially politics I disagree with – it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to notice that Democrats are very frequently much angrier than the rest of us; the farther left they are, the more out there they seem. 

So may be the conclusion is “keep guns out of the hands of rabid statists”. 

I can live with that.

Speaking of gun rights – GOCRA sends an advisory:

There is a new astroturf group calling themselves “American Rifle + Pistol Association.” (Here’s the URL — I recommend against giving them PageRank by posting it, though: http://amriflepistol.com/ )

And I won’t post it as a link, for precisely that reason.

They are Obama-cheering, gun-control-supporting, MSNBC-watching, Moms-Demand-Action-loving, MAIG-parroting gun banners.

Don’t be fooled. DO spread the word.

Every few years, the left tries to float one potemkin “gun group” or another.  I can remember at least three over the years – and the ARPA is no exception. 

Here are the screenshots that show [Peter Vogt] the Connecticut converted to Texan Chairman of American Rifle & Pistol Association who is an Obama supporter who is pushing Bloomberg/MAIG’s gun control campaigns while helping to promote Moms Demand Action, a group trying to pressure companies to ban lawful concealed carry so gun owners can’t carry in public anymore and convince gun retailers to stop selling the most popular guns in the country.

They can’t beat us, so they’re going to try to co-opt us.

And they think this is the first time we’ve seen them try it.

There were ten dead and 55 wounded in gun-free Chicago over the weekend.

The carnage impelled one Chicagoan to wonder (with emphasis added by me):

“It’s crazy,” said Rashauda Tolbert, a niece of [one of the weekend’s victims]. “Kids can’t play outside. People can’t sit on their porches.

“The shooting has been going on for days,” said Tolbert, who she was on her way to her security job when she heard about what happened and rushed back to her family. “Why we gotta be prisoners in our homes?”

It’s simple, Ms. Tolbert.  Because you live in a city where the government fears the law-abiding citizen more than the gang-bangers that are destroying your neighborhood.

While Illinois governor Pat Quinn vetoed a firearm carry bill passed by a veto-proof, bipartisan majority of the Illinois (!) Legislature – for no better reason than to paymar the law-abiding gun owner – he did find the time to sign a bill that went way past “useless” and into “ritualistic depravity”:

The governor’s comments came after he signed a bill into law that would require local school districts to conduct safety drills to prepare for a possible shooting. The measure, which took effect immediately, will require schools to partner with local law enforcement agencies to develop and conduct a shooting drill at least once a school year. It’s up to each school whether students must be present for the exercise, and parents can choose to have their children sit out.

Of course, schools’ only response to a mass shooting is to “lock down” – i.e., provide shooters nice long rows of rooms full of orderly victims – and hope the police arrive.

The drill is useless at preventing mass deaths in these incidents – but it does train people, especially children, that without government intervention there is no hope.  Which is a key part of our public schools’ mission.

But I digress. 

And when the police arrive, they’ll do exactly law-enforcement has been trained to do with active mass shooter situations since the disaster at Columbine; try to get a shot at the perp as soon as possible.  Which is the only way to interrupt a mass-shooting; killing the shooter, or breaking their fantasy so they give up or kill themselves.

Which is something any civilian, or teacher, with a gun can do, and have done repeatedly.

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn vetoed the Illinois Legislature’s bipartisan firearm carry bill that would have brought the state into compliance with court orders and also the Second Amendment. 

Bear in mind that the bill passed Illinois’ legislature by a veto-proof majority.  Quinn’s only goal would seem to be to try to paymar the bill (to lard it up with bitchy little measures to punish the law-abiding gun owner and make anti-gun zealots feel better about themselves that will affect crime not in the least). 

The fight is just beginning, of course:

[Bill sponsor, Rep. Brandon] Phelps said he expects lawmakers to return to Springfield next week and override the governor’s changes. [Phelps expects Quinn to propose paymars that]include limiting the number of firearms a person could carry to one — the bill has no limit — and requiring that the weapon be completely concealed, not just partially hidden. Phelps said he also believes the governor will ban guns from all places that serve alcohol, not just businesses where booze makes up the majority of sales. The governor also could strip out a provision that would allow people to store a loaded gun in their car and leave it there should they be banned from bringing it into a building.

His next step?  Require law-abiding gun owners to wear aluminum foil pants.