Thoughts on the Giffords assasination attempt and fallout

A lot of yapping has been going on in all quarters the past few days. I decided to wait it out before posting anything. Right now, here's the facts. Anything else is opinion, conjecture, speculation, opinion, demonetization, or even lies.

1. Six people have been killed, including Judge John Roll and a nine year old girl.
2. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat, was shot and is in critical condition, but likely to survive. Good. Hopefully she makes a full recovery.
3. In custody as the prime suspect is Jared Lee Loughner who was by all accounts, caught at the scene. He's been charged with murder and attempted murder. The case has not gone to trial.
4. Loughner had things posted on myspace and youtube, but that's the extent so far about what is known about his opinions.
5. This is a federal case due to a federal judge being killed and a congresswoman being attacked. There is also Pima County jurisdiction for other charges that may occur.
6. Loughner has invoked his right to remain silent at this time.
7. The firearm was a Glock 19 (9mm) pistol. (not an automatic as earlier news reports stated)
8. Loughner has two priors, one for drug paraphernalia possession, the other unknown outside of it being a "minor" charge.

Those are the facts. Anything else is conjecture. What follows below is opinion.

One thing surprising to a lot of people, but that we take for granted is how easy it really is for us to meet our representatives. I've seen Mike Rogers several times over the last 10 years. The only entourage I've seen him with is staff. Sometimes, it's just Mike. Mike's office has been vandalized in the past, and he's had his share of threats. The only security I've ever seen around Mike are concealed pistol holders. I've also met in the past Debbie Stabenow (then congresswoman), John Dingell, Tim Walberg, Pete Hoekstra, Vern Ehlers, Justin Amash, Fred Upton, Candice Miller, John Conyers, Dan Benishek, and Thad McCotter, as either a candidate or congressman (or both). People in both parties. I'm not saying that to sound important, but to mention accessibility to those who make the effort. None of them had police escorts that I could tell. None of them had overt private security. I know several of them are gun owners and are probably CPL holders, and have CPL holders on their staff, but it's nothing like presidential security.

Same goes for the state level. I've never seen major security for our state reps either outside of the check in at the house building and the floor itself at the capitol. DC is more stringent, but security is not difficult there either. Our state reps are even more accessible than our congressmen. Many here in Livingston County (and Shiawassee and part of Ingham) probably saw Joe Hune knock on their door.

Even the gubernatorial and senate candidates I've seen did not have a lot (or any) security. I saw Granholm making the rounds at the capitol without police escort. I don't know how much security she had at speaking events. Carl Levin drove himself to one event (I've seen Rogers do the same several times). Bouchard, Butler, Zandstra, and Rocky have been easily accessible during their campaigns without massive security.

Unfortunately but understandable, I think we may be losing that to a degree with this. It'll be interesting to see what future security measures are taken to reduce the chance of lone wolf deranged individuals like the next Loughner.

And that's exactly what Loughner is by all accounts. A lone wolf deranged individual who didn't really fit in any political spectrum, as you'd guess by a guy who lists Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto has favorites.....next to We the Living (Polar opposites of one another Collectivists books next to Objectivist books). He was athiest, supported flag burning, didn't support the currency, thought there was mind control through grammar (whatever that is), and was big on "conscience dreaming". This guy really couldn't be put on a map.

As far as Giffords goes, she's a moderate by democrat standards and isn't as controversial to the mainstream as a lot of the other democrats. By most accounts, people liked her (and her district went for Bush twice and McCain). She's relatively pro-2nd Amendment, and at least moderate on border issues (and better than Bush there). If this was indeed a right v left ideological hit in Arizona, I can think of someone else I'd expect to be the target, and no, I'm not mentioning who it would be. This is the work of one nutter.

But according to the leftists, kos crazies, and the media, this is all Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck's fault, not the shooter. Dancing in the blood before it is dry. It was almost like it was glee. They wanted to find something to attack Palin, who they are obsessed with (and I think it comes down to their pro-abortion views, and Palin is a real threat to that as she chose life over eugenics) I'm not surprised. This is politics, which is about power, and the left wants power over people. The big attack on Palin is gasp, targets on districts from her PAC site during the election. Big f'ing deal. Big deal. (DCCC did the same thing, and KOS targeted Giffords for not being leftist enough) Anyone who works in the business understands some of the terms. Target seats. A target district is a swing district. That's it. That was the clear intent, and anyone with a brain knows it. Those saying otherwise are idiots or agenda driven. The cable TV and talk radio attacks are out there as well. Free speech for some, not for all. Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.

Speaking of "hateful" rhetoric, here's some blasts from the past.

Craig Kilborn Show - Graphic of Target Site around then President Bush. Sniper's Wanted was the caption.

"Death of a President" - 2006 Film about assassinating George W Bush.

Alec Baldwin talked about stoning Henry Hyde and killing his family. This c***s***er Baldwin even brought the kids into it....and I don't even care for Mr. Hyde.

Or Kos Crazy 'Boy Blue' who ripped...Gabrielle Giffords as dead to him.

Plenty more at Michelle Malkin's site

Talk show host Mike Malloy - I hope Glenn Beck kills himself.

Talk show host Montel Williams - Michelle (Bachman), slit your wrist. Better yet, start at the collarbone.

And about 90% of what comes out of Congresscritter Pete Stark's mouth.
Surprisingly, in a good way, I haven't heard Obama run his mouth and take pot shots like Clinton did after the OKC bombing. Yet. We need to be prepared, though. Clinton did it in 95, and the doubletalking political hack Sheriff Dupnik (long known leftist and anti-freedom - and reason why guns only in hands of cops is terrible idea) in Pima County is blaming talk radio now for this. Speaking of Dupnik, he needs to finally be taken out. (oops..inflammatory rhetoric). Taken out election time politically.

Rahm Emanuel mentioned "Never to let a crisis go to waste." After major events, our freedoms are most at risk. The attack on gun shows happened after Columbine. The ban one evil black rifles happened after the Stockton mass shooting. The Class III regulations came after mafia wars of the 20's and 30's. The KKK pushed for and achieved pistol registration and CCW restrictions after Dr Ossian Sweet defended himself with a firearm in 1920's segregated Detroit. The 1968 Gun Control act came after Bobby Kennedy's assassination. The Patriot Act happened after 9/11 after Reno and Clinton pushed for the same thing and failed a couple of years earlier, in the name of the War on some Drugs. The 2nd and 4th amendment are the usual attacks.

Right now my concern is the upcoming assault on our first, second, fourth, and tenth Amendment rights. From Politico.

McCarthy’s spokesman confirmed the legislation will target the high-capacity ammunition clips the Arizona gunman allegedly used in the shooting, but neither he or the congresswoman offered any further details.

“Again, we need to look at how this is going to work, to protect people, certainly citizens, and we have to look at what I can pass,” McCarthy said. “I don’t want to give the NRA – excuse the pun – the ammunition to come at me either.”

Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html#ixzz1Af8bYLqg

Actually, it's "standard" ammunition magazines (not clips) for a Glock 19. As far as the Brady proposal, it'll be real interesting for what the language is, as it is already illegal to threaten congresscritters. "Could be seen" Real broad language there, and shouldn't pass Constitutional mustard. I'll look for the actual language when it is out.

We need to circle the wagons, and make sure that Congress knows that our freedoms are non-negotiable in any new legislation. Period. We can not let the establishment or left try to do the same thing that was done after the Oklahoma City Bombing. It may sound crass to put things in this perspective and it is unfortunately, but that's how things work in politics (power). Politicians will never let a crisis go to waste. We need to be ready and have a strong defense for any anti-freedom restrictions proposed. No more gun grabs, free speech clampdowns, or Patriot Acts. I remember what Clinton did in 1995, and we need to make sure that any repeat attempt of Clinton is challenged forcefully (like the NRA finally did in 2000) and does not happen again, whether it is by the media, Dupnik, or anybody else. We can not let ourselves be the goats.

Gun bill passes house HR2640

Gun legislation passed the house today by voice vote. It was a compromise bill by John Dingell and Carolyn McCarthy - HR 2640.

The NRA and GOA were split on this bill. I'm going to say "We report, you decide." If it is good or not.

First - The NRA's side of the story

The new version of the NICS Improvement Act (H.R. 2640) would require federal agencies to provide records of prohibited individuals for use in NICS. It would also provide financial incentives to states to do the same, by rewarding states that provide records to NICS and penalizing those that refuse to do so over an extended period of time.

Some pro-gun groups have claimed that H.R. 2640 would “prohibit” thousands of people from owning guns. This is not true; these bills would only enforce current prohibitions. In fact, H.R. 2640 would allow some people now unfairly prohibited from owning guns to have their rights restored, and to have their names removed from the instant check system.

The following are the key provisions of H.R. 2640, introduced by Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), which passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote on June 13, 2007.

Key Provisions of H.R. 2640

H.R. 2640 would prevent use of federal “adjudications” that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent.
For example, NICS currently accepts Veterans' Administration decisions that a veteran or other beneficiary is an “adjudicated mental defective” where there was no “adjudication” at all--only a decision that the patient is unable to manage his own finances. Many patients may have accepted such a decision without expecting to lose their gun ownership rights.
H.R. 2640 would eliminate purely medical records from NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to himself or others, or lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.

H.R. 2640 would require all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or commitments (such as the VA) to provide a process for “relief from disabilities.” The bill allows de novo judicial review when an agency denies relief--that is, the court would look at the application on its merits, rather than deferring to the agency's earlier decision.
As a practical matter, the mental health disability is the only firearm disqualifier that can never be removed. Criminal records can be expunged or pardoned, but mental records cannot.
While BATFE used to have the ability to accept applications to remove individuals' prohibited status, appropriations riders every year since 1992 have barred it from doing so. Allowing this process through H.R. 2640 would be an improvement over the current law.
Under H.R. 2640, even if a person is inappropriately committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency, the person would have an opportunity to correct the error--either through the agency or in court.

H.R. 2640 would prevent reporting of mental adjudications or commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments have been removed.

H.R. 2640 would also make clear that if a federal adjudication or commitment has expired or been removed, it would no longer bar a person from possessing or receiving firearms under the Gun Control Act.
This actually restores the person's rights, as well as deleting the record from NICS--a significant improvement over current law.

States that receive funding would also need to have a relief from disabilities program for mental adjudications and commitments. State relief programs would have to provide for de novo judicial review, as in the federal programs.
Relief granted by a state program would remove the federal prohibition on the person possessing or receiving a firearm under the Gun Control Act--again, an improvement over current law.
Many states have processes for temporary emergency commitments that allow a short-term commitment based only on affidavits from police, doctors or family members, without opportunity for a hearing. Because federal law prohibits gun possession by a person who “has been” committed, a person committed under such a process can't possess a gun even after full release from the temporary order. By requiring participating states to have a relief program that actually removes the disability, H.R. 2640 would be a significant improvement over current law.

The legislation would improve the accuracy and completeness of NICS by requiring federal agencies and participating states to provide relevant records. For instance, it would give states an incentive to report people such as Virginia Tech murderer Seung-Hui Cho--that is, people who were found after a full court hearing to be a danger to themselves or others, but not reported to NICS due to lack of funding or contrary state laws.

The legislation requires removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records. Today, totally innocent people (e.g., individuals with arrest records, who were never convicted of the crime charged) are sometimes subject to delayed or denied firearm purchases because of incomplete records in the system.

The legislation prohibits federal fees for NICS checks. Under current law, only annual appropriations riders prohibit the FBI from trying to impose fees by regulation (as the Clinton Administration proposed in 1998). A permanent ban on such a “gun tax” has been an NRA priority for nearly a decade.

The legislation requires an audit by the Government Accountability Office of funds already spent for criminal history improvements. There has only been limited documentation of how hundreds of millions of dollars intended for NICS were spent on non-NICS programs such as automated fingerprint systems.
Voluntary Psychological Treatment

Neither current federal law, nor H.R. 2640, would prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital:

Current law only prohibits gun possession by people who have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution.” Current BATFE regulations specifically exclude commitments for observation and voluntary commitments. Records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws.

Similarly, voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would not be reported to NICS. First, voluntary treatment is not a “commitment.” Second, current federal law on gun possession by drug users, as applied in BATFE regulations, only prohibits gun ownership by those whose “unlawful [drug] use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.”

In short, neither current law nor this legislation would affect those who voluntarily get psychological help. No person who needs help for a mental health or substance abuse problem should be deterred from seeking that help due to fear of losing Second Amendment rights.

And then - GOA

While the entire nation was focused on the immigration bill the past couple of weeks, the gremlins on Capitol Hill were finalizing a "compromise" on gun control legislation.

The good news is that your tremendous outpouring of opposition to Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's Brady enhancement (HR 297) has sent a strong signal to Capitol Hill that this bill is unacceptable as written. The bad news is that there are some seemingly pro-gun Congressmen who are driven to get anything passed, just so they can say they did something about Virginia Tech.

So what's going on?

On Saturday, The Washington Post reported [ see http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn ] that both the Democrats and the NRA leadership had reached a "deal" on legislation similar to the McCarthy bill. This "deal" involves a new bill that has been introduced by Rep. McCarthy (HR 2640) -- a bill that has not yet been posted on the Thomas legislative service. While all the legislative particulars are not yet available, one thing is clear: it is, as reported by the Post, a deal with Democrats. And it involves legislation introduced by the most anti-gun member of the House, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).

The Post says that, under the new language, the federal government would pay (that is, spend taxpayers' money) to help the states send more names of individual Americans to the FBI for inclusion in the background check system. If a state fails to do this, then the feds could cut various law enforcement grants to that state. In essence, this is a restatement of what the original McCarthy bill does. The states will be bribed (again, with your money) to send more names, many of them innocent gun owners, to the FBI in West Virginia -- and perhaps lots of other personal information on you as well.

Under the terms of this compromise, the Post says, "individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records."

Oh really? The Brady law already contains a procedure for cleaning up records. But it hasn't worked for the 83,000 veterans that are currently prohibited from buying guns. Gun Owners of America is aware of many people who have tried to invoke this procedure in the Brady Law, only to get the run around -- and a form letter -- from the FBI. The simple truth is that the FBI and the BATFE think the 83,000 veterans, and many other law-abiding Americans, should be in the NICS system.

After all, that's what federal regulations decree. Unless these regs are changed, Congress can create as many redundant procedures for cleaning up these records as it wants, but the bottom line is, there is nothing that will force the FBI to scrub gun owners' name from the NICS system.

Not only that, there is a Schumer amendment in federal law which prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who are barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not repealed, then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your name for inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to be a disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun.

Moreover, will gun owners who are currently being denied the ability to purchase firearms -- such as the military veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress -- be recompensed in any way for their efforts to "clean their records"? They will, no doubt, have to spend thousands of dollars going to a shrink for a positive recommendation, for hiring lawyers to take their case to court, etc.

And this is not to mention the fact that this procedure turns our whole legal system on its head. Americans are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. But these brave souls, who risked their lives defending our country, were denied the right to bear arms because of a mental illness "loophole" in the law. Their names were added to the prohibited purchasers' list in West Virginia without any due process, without any trial by jury... no, their names were just added by executive fiat. They were unilaterally, and unconstitutionally, added into the NICS system by the Clinton administration. And now the burden of proof is ON THEM to prove their innocence. Isn't that backwards?

One wonders if these military veterans will be any more successful in getting back their gun rights than the gun owners in New Orleans who tried to get back their firearms which were confiscated in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. (Gun owners in the Big Easy have found it very difficult to prove their case and get their guns back, even though the courts have ruled that the police acted improperly in confiscating their firearms.) But isn't that the problem when honest people are thrust into the position of PROVING their innocence to the government, rather than vice-versa.

The fact is, current federal law -- combined with BATFE's interpretations of that law -- will make it very unlikely that any court will restore the Second Amendment rights of those 83,000 veterans.

Finally, the Post article also says the "federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks." Well, that sounds good, but GOA already won this battle in 1998 when we drafted and pushed the Smith amendment into law.

GOA had to overcome opposition from certain pro-gun groups to help Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduce and push his language as an amendment to an appropriations bill. The Smith amendment barred the FBI from taxing gun buyers, something which the Clinton administration was considering doing.

GOA won the vote in the Senate with a veto-proof majority and the Smith amendment has been law ever since. But now we're being told that we need to swallow McCarthy's poison pill so that the Smith amendment -- which is currently law -- will stay on the books. Huh?!

ACTION: Gun Owners of America is the only national pro-gun organization opposing the McCarthy bill, so it is imperative that you contact your representative immediately. Please take action today and spread the word about HR 2640! We need all the help we can get.

So which side do you believe? Thomas has the bill itself. I've been more of a GOA guy myself, especially with the unintended consequences I've seen with the Patriot Act and other bad federal bills and the way they become interpreted.