Chicago GRE: An open letter to the Illinois State Police

First, there's finally new content at the Chicago Gun Rights Examiner. I've been busy with some teaching work and other things lately, and I just haven't been able to write much, but this morning I bit the bullet and said to myself, "If you don't steal David Codrea's idea today, when will you steal it?" Head on over there and read the Chicago GRE's open letter to Illinois State Police Director Jonathon Monken. I think it's a nice balance between carrot and stick, with an extra bundle of sticks then thrown on top:

. . . . . Finally, Director, I've enclosed an official "ISP-Approved Self-Defense Weapon" from IllinoisCarry with this letter. Don't be alarmed, it's perfectly safe. It's essentially a tactical, oversized tongue-depressor in a high-visibility color for intimidation value, with the web address of the ISP's "If you are confronted" page printed on the side for easy reference. It's perfect for inducing vomiting in self-defense, and since it's also a "rigid" object, it makes a great backup for a woman's primary defensive rat-tail comb or nail file. Many Illinois shooters have noticed that Illinois State Troopers, even the female ones, still carry firearms with which to defend themselves as they enforce the law, and most even keep their guns at home. Although I disagree that women should not use firearms for self-defense, especially in light of FBI statistics that show that women who use firearms to fight back against violent attackers are 2.5 times as likely to escape without injury as women who don't fight back, we at IllinoisCarry stand ready to supply as many of these alternative self-defense Tactical Tongue Depressors as the ISP needs to equip every trooper on the road. We'll do it for free and even pay a small fee as long as we can emboss our logo on the weapons. The only compensation we ask is to be allowed to videotape the meeting when you inform the ISP union representatives that the troopers will be going out armed with popsicle sticks and nail files per Illinois State Police policy.

More from Gun Rights Examiners

Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German

Meanwhile, the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, after a long absence for health reasons, is back with a vengeance. He's put out four new great articles in the last week, with the latest being "Gun rights are for everyone." If you haven't checked for new content from Kurt lately, it's time to go look and catch up.

Several Gun Rights Examiners will be at the Gun Rights Policy Conference in St. Louis this weekend, as will representatives of the ISRA, Guns Save Life, IllinoisCarry, and the Sangamon County Rifle Association. Will you be there? Let me know; I'm trying to meet as many people/writers/readers as I can.

Your gun buy-back amuses me.

WNEP 16 did a report on a gun buy-back (they haven't transitioned to the term "gun turn-in event" in Pennsylvania, apparently) called "Operation Safe Guns." I'm really beginning to think they name these things with a dartboard.

"Let's see . . . I got 'guns,' that's good . . . 'safe,' one more . . . ."
THWACK!
"Ooh! 'Operation!' That's a good one, Chief!"
"Thanks, Lou, I like your mustache. So what's our catchy new name?"
"Hmm . . . 'Guns Operation Safe' is nice."
"No, it's nonsense. How about 'Operation Gun Safe?'"
"We did that three years ago, and the gun nuts came out of the woodwork demanding free gun safes. Never again."
"OK, how about 'Operation Safe Guns' then?"
"Uh, Chief, are we doing anything about making the guns safer? I thought we were just collecting them and destroying the cheap ones Ralph doesn't want to take home?"
"You have a point . . . maybe we should throw the darts again and settle in. Might miss lunch,though."
"You know, Chief, 'Operation Safe Guns' is growing on me."

Then there are the big claims. They got 110 guns "off the street" including "two illegal guns." Wow. Here's a screen cap of WNEP's Jennifer Borrasso holding one of the "illegal guns" the program took in. Don't be afraid to look, it can't hurt you through the internet:

In the video, Borrasso explains that this is an illegal sawed-off shotgun. Notice how conveniently she places the barrel of the gun against her shoulders so we can estimate the length. If that barrel is less than 15or 16 inches long, I'd be very surprised. What we actually have here is a single-shot, break-open shotgun with a barrel that is technically too short according to federal law. Someone apparently cut it off shorter than 18 inches, but not by much. I'm surprised they gave it to a reporter to hold up on the evening news as their example of an illegal gun, because it would take an expert to tell it apart from a perfectly legal shotgun being used to hunt rabbits on railroad tracks somewhere in Pennsylvania right now (well, maybe during rabbit season.) Actually, Elmer Fudd carried something very similar.

This is an illegal gun the way a Mustang with the wrong engine parts is an illegal car in California, even if it passes the actual measurement of pollution output. It's a technical violation of an arbitrary regulation that no one but an expert would ever know is supposed to be "dangerous" or scary.

I can hear some of you saying I'm too negative. Why can't I think of the positive? OK, here's the positive: although "Operation Safe Guns" won't tell you this, I would bet $50 that the person who turned that gun in didn't know it was verboten by order of der mann. The average person would have no way of looking at that gun and knowing that it was worth ten years in a federal PMA prison. Therefore, we can all be glad that the unwitting federal felon turned this thing in at a "no questions asked" event and got $75 for his trouble. The gun was probably worth approximately that before the barrel was cut, but now it's radioactive; like a car sold at a police auction with two kilos of cocaine still hidden in the seats, it would have been a danger to everyone who purchased it.

The question I can't shake off is this: if that was the example they wanted to show the world of an "illegal gun" they "took off the streets," how innocent was the other one? It must have been less menacing than a well-aged single-shot break-open shotgun with a barrel a couple of inches too short.

Just Because We Lied Doesn't Mean We're Wrong (The Mexican CanardTM)

Days of our Trailers: What he said then and what he says now...

Paul Helmke says The Mexican CanardTM is now to be considered separate from the lie that 90% of Mexican crime guns come from the United States civilian market, which is now to be considered "a red herring."

Paul, we knew that lie was a red herring the first time you repeated it. The problem from your point of view is that we already know you and yours intended it to fool the rest of the country, not the other way around. The pro-gun side of things didn't introduce the idea of the 90% myth, you know--that was you. For you to call your own argument a red herring is kind of a big slip.

The Mexican Gun CanardTM

INDENT I found this graphic depiction of the anti-gun side's latest desperate gambit (which is beginning to take on the name "The Mexican CanardTM") in my local paper on Friday. I'm not going to waste a lot of time critiquing the cartoon; it's a good work in that it expresses its creator's opinion almost instantly in a visual way, and the editor has told me in the past that this cartoonist's job is to upset people so they'll pay attention. Judging by the comment section, he's doing that job, so I doubt he cares what I have to say.

INDENT I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the factual implausibility of the Mexican Canard today. Others have debunked this latest gun-control myth ably and with alacrity, and frankly I'm late to the party. What I'd rather do today is to point out a parallel that's been bugging me for a few days.

INDENT Am I the only one who remembers The Terrorist CanardTM? That was the proposition that Al Qaeda terrorists were coming to the United States to buy their weapons, since they could walk into any gun show, shout "Death to America!" for a 10% discount on admission and parking, and buy a truckload of "assault weapons" no questions asked. It was an honorary hypotenuse on the Triangle of DeathTM (anybody remember the Triangle of DeathTM?) The only problem was that it was obviously not true. Those "assault weapons" the Violence Policy Center was nattering about were semi-automatic lookalike versions, while terrorists who lived in places like Pakistan or Somalia had easy access to the real, fully-automatic versions at home. Moreover, the semi-automatic versions available in limited numbers at an American gun show were going for hundreds of dollars apiece, while the full-auto versions in third-world countries were going for more like tens. Essentially, the Terrorist CanardTM stated that terrorists were leaving places where they could buy large numbers of fully-automatic AK-47 rifles for a few dollars apiece, paying for airfare to fly to a country with much stricter and more capable law enforcement in the hopes of buying a few semi-automatic weapons for hundreds of dollars apiece. It made the opposite of sense.

INDENT This newest gambit is basically the same idea wrapped in a tortilla. It only sounds scary until you think it through; if you were a leader in a Mexican cartel with access to rifles, ammunition, grenades and RPG's from Mexican military arsenals, M16 rifles and ammunition from scavengers all over South America who have old American military exports to sell on the cheap, and a dozen other sources . . . would you be sending people to gun shows in Tucson and Albuqurque to find someone with a clean background check to buy a few semi-automatic rifles and then try to smuggle them south? When it fails, it'll end up the same way as The Terrorist CanardTM did--forgotten once it's no longer useful as a club to bea gun owners over the head.INDENT

Thanks for Stopping By . . . .

Hi, Howard University students and/or staff! Nice to see you here. Did you really stop in, read this blog, and have nothing to say about the Rev. "Snuffy" Pfleger? Or Rep. Annazette Collins? Or the ludicrous ridiculosity (if that's not a word, it should be) of sending a gaggle of college kids halfway across the country to spend their spring break lobbying for a law they won't have to live under and likely don't understand?
I notice you out-clicked to my profile picture, and I know what you're thinking, so I'm just going to end it right here: yes, that is Jayne Cobb's hat. My wife taught herself to knit so she could make it for me for Christmas a couple of years ago. She thought of it as a gag gift, but I wear it daily during the winter. Pretty cunning, ain't it?

Now, this next little friend from Washington, D.C. might not be on board with the Howard Alternative Spring Break agenda. I'm just guessing here, but this person came here from Turonistan and clicked out to Days of Our Trailers (Best Blog Name EVAR.) Entirely possible that this particular person may have been enjoying a chuckle at Snuffy's expense.

Fiskings: The Snuffy Edition

From comments by "Anonymous" on "Snuffy Is Coming To Town":

Thanks for your kind words, I've never heard an analysis so unintelligent and ignorant as yours.

Now, I'm going to try not to be too hard on Nonny, because if I read the logs right, s/he is from Washington D.C. and found me by searching for "Annazette Collins gun control." I'm guessing that means Nonny is from Howard University, and might be taking the Alternative Spring Break students' failure to pass gun control in Illinois a little personally. Might be a little upset at Annazette Collins, too. I've mentioned her before; she takes a lot of heat from anti-gun politicians because she voted against HB48 last year and seems to be opposed this year. That would be be bad enough, but Rep. Collins is black, and as long as we're being honest, I'll just go ahead and say it: Democrats like Harry Osterman and activists like Michael "Snuffy" Pfleger think black Democrats owe them. They think a black Democrat from Chicago has to vote for gun control. They don't really think they should have to lobby a black legislator from Chicago, because she should be on their side as a matter of racial purity. They're racists. That's right, I said it. OK, now let's think about the rest of your comments for a moment, Nonny.

The kids from Howard Univeristy actually came to not only mentor kids in local high school, but aid in the fight for tougher gun laws as well. As far as funding, black people have money too, and if I stand correct, I believe these kids were able to raise money from private contributions to help fund the trip.

Yes, I covered that elsewhere. There was a radiothon on WHUR, and I assume other sources chipped in, too. On the other hand, it's safest to assume that anything political that Pfleger does has Joyce Foundation fingerprints on it. Try to remember that the dilettantes from the coast are not my main concern here. They're already back in D.C. dealing with the gritty reality of trying to dumb down their essays enough to make sure their professors understand them. Some of them might notice whether HB48 passes this session, but others probably won't even take it that far. This was their spring break. Pfleger is a larger concern. He's pretty ineffective and fond of shooting himself in the foot, but he's located in Chicago and I'm not, so he has much better access to many more voters than I do. Pfleger didn't hold a radiothon to pay for his buses (or for the yellow school buses that carried Chicago school children to Springfield on a school day to serve as political props . . . . but that's The Chicago Way. You might not know it well D.C., but you will.)

And if you don't feel stupid now, how about Howard University sending bus loads of students to New Orleans, Detroit, Maryland, DC, and VA to tackle similar issues.

I don't feel stupid yet, but the day is young. You, on the other hand, are lying about this particular point. The buses to New Orleans carried kids who worked in NOLA legal offices and worked on repairing flooded areas. The buses to Detroit carried kids who were slated to "work in literacy programs." The buses to the D.C. area were said to be students who planned to "tackle homelessness." Although I doubt they got it completely tackled in one week, the main point is that there was nothing "similar" about these issues. The buses to Chicago carried kids who spent their time doing political lobbying on behalf of an unconstitutional state law. I may be missing the similarity between helping kids learn to read and participating in Snuffy Pfleger's political theater. The bad news, for you, is that the kids who came to Chicago failed to get HB48 passed. There was apparently a plan to pass it with Pfleger's bunch in the gallery cheering, but the votes just weren't there. The good news is that HB48 never had a chance to have any effect on gun violence in Chicago because Chicago gangsters don't obey laws like HB 48 in the first place, so it's no big loss for anyone except the gun control lobby. If the kids who went to New Orleans or Detroit had failed to get anything done, I suspect the impact would have been greater than that.

Not sure where you were educated, but a certificate of completion of Wal-Mart might just suffice.

Suffice for what? Did you intend to write that sentence in English? If you were asking me a question about pedagogy or the middle school concept, my BA in Education from Monmouth College (Knuck Fox!) would be relevant. In this case, it isn't; I just like to brag. Howard is a good school, but if you're looking for someone who's intimidated by a fancy east-coast school, you're looking in the wrong place. You know, as I sit here and think about it, the saddest part occurs to me: if Wal-Mart decided that higher education was profitable and got into the business, they could probably have Howard, Princeton and Monmouth running for their lives in less than five years.

So instead of being an unintelligent critic of people trying to better YOUR community, perhaps you should get stupid ass up and help uplift your community and not wait until students from the east coast come to start talking.

Way ahead of you, my friend--just google "IGOLD." Still, now we're getting somewhere! I'm going to take this suggestion in the positive spirit in which it was offered, and I'm going to get started right now. Actually, I've already started. Let's see:

• Yesterday, I called Rep. Annazette Collins and commended her on her idea to teach gun safety in Illinois schools, including Chicago. That's a great idea that would probably have an actual, measurable impact on the number of deaths in Chicago. I also made sure she knew I was against HB48; that's important.
• Today, I will again call this list of Illinois legislators to tell them that HB48 is both pointless and unconstitutional. I will also mention that HB165 (an "assault weapons ban") is pointless, unconstitutional and that HB1966 (an "assault weapons ban" limited to six ZIP codes in Chicago with 90% black populations) is racist, pointless, and unconstitutional. Those "assault weapons bans" are going to get expensive for the state once US v. Heller is incorporated via the 14th Amendment, too, as the state will be paying the attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs.
• I will make separate calls to my Representative, plus the list linked above, and tell them that it's time to pass HB2257 and establish a shall-issue license to carry system in Illinois. Thanks, Anonymous!
  

By the way, you're off-message. The theme this year is that Chicago is not "my" community because I'm a white guy from downstate, so what could I know about it? The argument is that Chicago needs gun control because it's so different from downstate (and no pointing out the inherent racism of that argument, please; bad form will not be tolerated!) and the push is for bills like HB1966, which establishes that it is a felony to own several types of guns in six specific Chicago ZIP codes--ZIP codes that are listed in the 2000 census as "90-100% black." (and no pointing out the inherent racism of that law, please!) If the anti-gun lobby started calling Chicago "my" community then "my" voice would be relevant to their gun control debate, and that is precisely the sort of thing they're trying to avoid this year.

20 Years Later, "Assault Weapon" Video Looks Pretty Current

Turk Turon found a video on YouTube that's older than dirt.

I still have the original version of this thing on VHS. It dates from a time when VHS video tape was considered pretty high-tech stuff. It actually predates the passage of the original "Assault Weapons Ban" by several years. If you look closely during the BATF testimony at the end, you can see Senator Paul Simon of Illinois and his famous bow tie on the committee. It was nice having him there because they let the bow tie vote, too, which was good for Illinois if nothing else.

If you don't watch all the way to the end, you miss the BATF spokesman holding up an AK-47 and explaining to the Senators that it works just like a hunting rifle and banning it will require some really difficult definitions . . . . followed by an LAPD representative explaining that criminals converting G3's and AR180's into full-autos is a myth. Classic stuff! I'm glad this video made it onto YouTube.

"Abnormal Behavior," Huh? Scary!

The ironically-named "Freedom States Alliance" is trying a new tack--now they're accusing "the gun lobby" (that's you and me, folks, in case it wasn't clear) of working to "normalize abnormal behavior." They've got a handy quiz you can take to tell whether you're properly scandalized, appropriately frightened, or, presumably, another one of those abnormal weirdos.

Would you be willing to:

• Sip hot chocolate with your toddler at Starbucks while a fellow patron openly displays a gun at the table next to you?
• Attend a church service with your entire family knowing that the fellow parishioner sitting next to you has a handgun tucked in his belt?
• Stand in line at a bank to make a deposit as two men enter with baseball hats on and what appear to be guns in their pockets?
• Board a crowded bus with your newborn child with upwards of 5 other passengers carrying concealed weapons?

Well, let's think about that, shall we?

"Sip hot chocolate with your toddler at Starbucks while a fellow patron openly displays a gun at the table next to you?"

Absolutely not! I don't pay Starbucks prices.

"Attend a church service with your entire family knowing that the fellow parishioner sitting next to you has a handgun tucked in his belt?"

Heck no! I don't go to church, either. (No disrespect to my Christian friends, but you don't go to your local mosque for the same reason I don't go to church.) I think I'm doing pretty well on this quiz.

"Stand in line at a bank to make a deposit as two men enter with baseball hats on and what appear to be guns in their pockets?"

Aha! A place I go. Let's see, I'm at the bank, and two guys have what appear to be guns in their pockets . . . how am I figuring that? Are their pockets bulging in the shape of guns?

"Board a crowded bus with your newborn child with upwards of 5 other passengers carrying concealed weapons?"

OK, I admit it, I don't want to ride a crowded bus with a newborn. I get what they're after, here, of course. I'm supposed to be horrified at these scenarios, right? But there's something they left out: nobody is doing anything threatening or scary with these guns. There's no threat. I'm not frightened of some guy peacefully sipping his coffee, nor do I particularly care whether a couple of guys want to walk into a bank. I don't mind if five guys want to sit on a bus, either, and since the scenario doesn't say they're doing anything wrong . . . . or even giving an indication that they might do something wrong later . . . . I guess I'm missing the part where I decided that they're a threat. Actually, the one on the bus is particularly puzzling, since it specifies that their weapons are concealed. I'm supposed to be frightened of their guns without even knowing they're there? That's asking rather a lot.

Of course, that's not the question I'm supposed to be asking. What they're really hoping for here is the kind of reader who will pick up on their implied fear and adopt it as his own. They'd like the reader to realize, on some level, that the people in their examples are to be feared and hated because they possess those guns--the reader should make the logical leap that a person behaving normally with a weapon in his possession is no longer acting normally. You really have to wonder how they would feel about eating lunch at McDonald's next to a police officer with a Glock on his hip.

Unbeknownst to most Americans, these scenarios are already perfectly legal in many parts of the United States and are occurring with more frequency and bravado. Next time you take your child on an outing with you, think about how many people within earshot may be carrying a gun as you wait in line at the aquarium, sit in a theater watching a movie, or shop at the local grocery store.

Yes, think about. And while you're at it, check yourself for gunshot wounds. Then listen carefully for the screams of the wounded and dying. Look around and see if you can spot the bullet holes in the aquarium and the theater.
No? None of those things are happening around you? But if the guns cause violence, and you're in a room with people with guns, then clearly there must gun violence going on . . . . unless someone is lying to you.