A proposed crackdown on single-slice pizza sales in Adams Morgan has many patrons of the nightlife hot spot perplexed, especially considering the area's other issues, including violent crime. 

But Ward 1 D.C. Councilman Jim Graham, who represents Adams Morgan, says the pizza parlors selling single slices along 18th Street, some of which are open until 4:30 a.m., are part of the problem when it comes a recent rash of street fights, stabbings, muggings and even a shootout involving two plainclothes police officers.

"Even though it's a legal business and everything, they have become a nuisance," Graham said. "Behaving the way they do in terms of music, in terms of letting people hang out and also in terms of tolerating a certain level of violence."

A hidden ABC 7 camera captured an example of what Graham is talking about a couple weeks ago. Two girls began arguing in front of one of the jumbo slice businesses, the altercation turned physical when punches were thrown and people wrestled to the ground. The melee went on for 10 minutes before police arrived.

But Graham's proposal has many opponents. For many, a slice after a night out has been a part of the tradition of visiting Adams Morgan for decades.

"It's big pizza, it's cheap and it's good after a night of bar hopping in Adams Morgan," said Nicole Harrison, a Silver Spring resident.

Adams Morgan resident John Sawyko agrees the late night congregating is at times overwhelming and down right scary, but he says blaming pizza is absurd.

"The crowd out here in general is the problem," Sawyko said. "The pizza places are a small part of the issue."

Abdul Souada is the manager of one of the three jumbo slice restaurants on 18th Street. He says he is unfairly being picked on just for being to "popular"

"We are taxpayers also," he said. "Our business is the same as bar business, as the club business, as the other restaurants next door..."

While most people who spoke with ABC 7 in Adams Morgan thought the proposal was a joke, Councilman Graham said he is very serious. He says he's already talked to the mayor about the issue and is drafting legislation.

This leaves me wondering whether Councilman Graham thinks the problems would disappear if all the pizza vendors switched to, say, burritos or falafel.

In a piece entitled "It'll Never Happen Here,"  Ferris observes thus:

...the NRA long ago retreated into a reactive stance when it actually had the power to utterly defeat prior legislation, our so-called gun rights advocates will once again fall prey to typical “dialectic” maneuverings by the victim disarmament crowd. An insane bill is presented (thesis), reaching far beyond what our opponents actually want (at the moment), the NRA screams and takes a flaccid stand (antithesis) … and then compromises, and we get saddled with another sellout of our rights (synthesis).

What can be done? Petition the politicians who already ignore you? Petition the NRA Board of Directors, when it is blatantly obvious that the NRA was infiltrated by Bill of Rights saboteurs decades ago? No, all your letters and faxes and emails and phone calls won’t work with the two- faced connivers who are running things, both in D.C. and deep within the NRA. Forget the traitors and their dupes. Don’t waste your breath.

Outrageous as it sounds, this observation is difficult to refute. To give a few examples of egregious government over-reaching that has been ignored by NRA:

• BATFE harrassment of Red's Trading Post, Idaho's oldest gun shop.
• Maryland state police harrassment of Don Curtis, a law-abiding gun owner and collector.
• Baltimore City's arrest of Lovell A. Wheeler, who was imprisoned without bail for several months, over misdemeanor charges. Wheeler happens to be a White Supremacist, and many believe his arrest and incarceration had more to do with his political beliefs than any of his actions.
• The un-horsing of Sanford Abrams, a long-time gun dealer, NRA Board member, and president of the Maryland Firearms Dealers Association. Abrams lost his Federal Firearms License over allegations of hundreds of violations, many extremely technical and arcane. Rather than coming to his defense, the NRA board dropped him like a hot rock, and has written not a word about him.

While taking credit for gaining criminal judgments against New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, over the illegal seizure of firearms after Hurricane Katrina, NRA has declined to hold responsible the individual police and National Guard personnel who carried out Nagin's illegal order. One plausible explanation is that NRA depends heavily on police-folk among its membership and is unwilling to do anything that might potentially alienate those dues-payers, even to the extent of refusing to comment on bad police work.

This is not the main thrust of Ferris' article, which is well worth reading for the way in which the writer describes the "perfect storm" that appears to be leading towards the registration and eventual confiscation of all guns in civilian hands.

 The Associated Press reports that the BATFE lost 76 weapons and hundreds of laptops over five years.

Remember, this is the same agency that has been attempting to lift gun dealers' licenses over such minutiae as (a) how the name of a city or state is abbreviated in paperwork, or (b) whether an applicant for a NICS background check writes out the words "yes" and "no" in response to the questions on the federal form 4473. (Simply writing "Y" or "N" is considered a violation of the rules on the part of the gun dealer.)

Thirty-five of the missing handguns, rifles, Tasers and other weapons were stolen, as were 50 laptops, the internal audit found. Two of the stolen weapons were used in crimes.

A Justice Department official observed that ATF's rate of loss for weapons was nearly double that of the FBI and DEA, and that ATF did not even know whether most of its lost, stolen, or missing laptop computers contained sensitive or classified information.

The audit revealed that ATF lost three times more weapons each month than it had in a similar 2002 audit by the Treasury Department, which used to oversee the agency. It also lost 50 times as many laptops as reported in the earlier audit.

Worst of all, ATF employees did not report 13 of the 76 lost weapons, or 365 of the 418 missing laptops, to internal affairs as required.

You might also recall that many cities and states have enacted laws that make it a felony to fail to report a lost or stolen firearm within a short period of its disappearance.

The bottom line is that these guys are unwilling to play by the same rules that they enforce so ferociously upon the rest of us.

This is one more reason why Congress and the President need to abolish the BATFE, a powerful and expensive agency that is not authorized by our Constitution.

The June 2008 issue of America's First Freedom carries an interview of McCain conducted by Chris Cox (Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action) and the redoubtable Wayne LaPierre (Executive Vice-President of NRA). If you are unfamiliar with this pair, they are the two most highly paid officials of the NRA who are not elected by the membership, and presumably cannot be fired.

I skimmed the article until I found a reference to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, more familiarly known as the McCain-Feingold Act. Yes, that McCain. Here's their question and the Senator's feckless answer, as published:

Senator, you were the chief sponsor of “campaign finance reform” legislation—legislation that, when passed, included a provision that restricts the NRA’s ability to run broadcast ads lobbying on legislative issues in the 60 days before a federal election. Many gun owners believe that this provision severely restricts their ability to participate in the legislative process, and in fact, many believe it to be unconstitutional. Would you explain your motivation behind campaign finance reform, and why the broadcast restriction was included in the final bill?
 
   I fought for campaign finance reform because I strongly believed that prior to the enactment of this legislation, our system of financing campaigns was seriously broken and in need of repair. I genuinely worried that legislative provisions were being passed or defeated based on the size of “soft money “ contributions made by affected interests. I can assure you that my motivation in this effort was directed at these out-of-control amounts of “soft money” that seeped into federal campaigns—not a desire to restrict the ability of gun owners or any other group of citizens from making their voices heard in the legislative process. I am fully committed to defending the constitutional right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. 
 

Interestingly, the cutline under the photo heading this article claims that Cox and LaPierre asked McCain some "direct questions," while the table of contents even says they are "tough questions." Damn shame they did not bother with a follow-up.

Compare this against NRA's strong statements over the last few years:

NRA FAX Alert March 22, 2002

On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate joined the House in assaulting free speech when it passed H.R. 2356—the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance "Reform" bill—on a vote of 60-40. Congressional opponents to this attack on the First Amendment have vowed to challenge it in the courts, and U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), one of the most vocal opponents of this bill, has already assembled a team of attorneys, including former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, to mount a legal challenge. NRA also remains committed to protecting its ability to exercise free speech and ensuring the privacy of its members, and your Association will fight this assault on the First Amendment all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, if necessary. (emphasis added)

 NRA First to File Constitutional Challenge (Press release Dated March 27, 2002)

JOINT STATEMENT BY WAYNE LAPIERRE , EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA and JAMES JAY BAKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NRA`S INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION

(Washington, D.C.) --"Early this morning, President Bush signed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA"). When the federal courthouse opened for business today, NRA was there – we have filed suit to invalidate this unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment rights of the NRA and our four million members nationwide.

We are proud to be the first plaintiff to formally ask the federal court to invalidate these new limits on the political speech of ordinary citizens because we believe that this law cannot be allowed to stand – not even for a moment.

Sen. Paul Wellstone said on the floor of the United States Senate during the campaign finance debate that it was his intention to silence the NRA. As a direct and intentional target of this law, NRA has no choice but to protect our right to be heard.

NRA has been mentioned by name – but the authors of this law have delivered a clear and straightforward message not only to NRA but to all American citizens. That message is this: ‘Keep your mouths shut.` ‘Stay out of our political debates.` ‘Be quiet.`

Our response is this: the First Amendment protects us from such directives from the government. The First Amendment does not allow Congress to make laws which deny us the right to speak out on issues, the right of our members to associate together on public policy issues and the right to petition our government for redress of grievances. That is what this lawsuit is about.

Through this law Congress has essentially granted speech licenses to giant corporate conglomerates such as Viacom, Disney Corporation and General Electric Company by allowing those corporations unlimited rights to spend money talking about issues and candidates, while silencing the voices of ordinary citizens and citizens groups such as NRA.

Why should corporations such as these media conglomerates, all of which own multiple non-news business enterprises and spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress—why should those corporations be allowed to spend whatever they wish, whenever they wish, saying whatever they wish regarding any issue or candidate – when a non-profit citizens organization such as ours is prohibited from even responding via the broadcast media?

The law imposes severe civil and criminal penalties on citizens who have the audacity to speak out on issues of concern – and we do not believe that the Constitution of the United States of America and the U.S. Supreme Court can possibly allow such a result."

The above, reprinted in part in "Grassroots Alert" volume 9, number 13, March 29, 2002

...under the headline "NRA Files Suit Against Sham Campaign Finance 'Reform' "

Quiet Time Campaign Muzzle (April 1, 2002)

"John McCain is an enemy of the First Amendment." 

Soft Money, Hard Feelings (May 16, 2002)

Links to a George Will column, quoting it thus:

"The document`s title is bland: 'Reply of Senator John McCain, Senator Russell Feingold, Representative Christopher Shays, Representative Martin Meehan, Senator Olympia Snowe, and Senator James Jeffords in support of their motion to intervene as defendants supporting the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.' But the document`s message is fascinating. "File the document under: 'Give them enough rope,' "

Foreign to the First Amendment (July 2, 2002)

Later this year the Supreme Court will be asked to consider the most recent attack on editorial issue advertisements that deal with the conduct of elected officials. The proponents of this new assault are elected officials--namely, Congress. The issue advertising ban in question is contained in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002--frequently referred to as McCain-Feingold, for its legislative sponsors in the Senate. Because this newly minted restriction is inconsistent with the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and a free press, the court should reject it.

Free Speech in the Twilight Zone ( November 2, 2002)

A few excerpts:

Americans are facing an Orwellian nightmare--a bottomless pit of regulation and rules, all designed to cut off collective free speech....

This is a ban on a major aspect of grassroots lobbying and has nothing to do with purely political activity. It has nothing to do with directly exhorting the public to vote for or against a candidate....

there is a major exception to the contributor disclosure, granted under two FEC Advisory Opinions in 1996 that "allowed the Socialist Workers Party to withhold the identities of its contributors and persons to whom it had disbursed funds because of a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure of the party`s contributors` names would subject them to threats, harassment or reprisals from either government officials or private parties."

So the NRA-PVF has to cough up the names and addresses of contributors who give it more than $200, while the Socialist Workers Party`s funding sources are sealed.

Additionally, the commission boldly took powers never even intended by Congress--powers to regulate what state and local candidates are permitted to say in their paid political advertising....

In his "declaration" filed with the court, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre made the case succinctly.

"The Second Amendment and the NRA are at the center of a culture war LaPierre said. "The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act effectively cedes the entire battlefield in this cultural war to the broadcast media corporations and politicians. It allows federal candidates and the big media conglomerates to say whatever they want about the NRA in the months before an election and shields them from any effective response by prohibiting the NRA from tittering the name of its attackers . . ."

The First Amendment on Trial (December 2, 2002)

...At issue is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, alias McCain-Feingold), by which the just-adjourned 107th Congress followed in the footsteps of the 5th Congress, which enacted the Sedition Act of 1798.

An Appearance of Corruption (5/23/2003)

The Weekly Standard`s David Tell closely examines "the bogus research" undergirding the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

A Sad Day for the Constitution (December 12, 2003)

...So noted NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre when, on December 10, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision to uphold the major provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act...

Wayne LaPierre said, "You`re going to have to put an asterisk by the First Amendment, and a footnote, because for many months of the year it`s no longer in effect."  Wayne went on to say, in no uncertain terms, that NRA still has many ways to make its position known in federal elections.  "They didn`t say we couldn`t mention the U.S. Congress, or the Senate. And we will run advertising directing the American public to information sources as to where they can find the truth, and the facts, and who`s for them and who`s against them.  This is a sad day for the Constitution, but the 4 million members of the NRA will continue to be heard.  That I can promise."

In addition to expanding NRA-PVF`s fundraising activities, this, no doubt, will also mean an even greater reliance on the grassroots efforts of our nation`s 65 million gun owners who have answered the call time and again.  One clear advantage NRA has over virtually every other group in America is a large, passionate, and active base of grassroots support that is willing to not only vote on Election Day, but actively work on the campaigns of pro-freedom candidates.  The engine that drives the NRA machine is our grassroots, and you can rest assured in the months ahead, we will refine, improve, and expand our grassroots operations to meet the challenges that now lay before us.  Please keep an eye out on future Grassroots Alerts to find out how you can take on an even more active role in our grassroots activities in this new day and age of campaign restrictions.

Summed up in five words: "Wayne says, 'send more money.' "

Amending an Amendment (Dec. 22, 2003)

Introducing a Rich Tucker commentary at TownHall.com:

...political parties hardly matter anymore, because of another provision of McCain-Feingold. The law also bars them, and unions, interest groups and corporations from running TV ads that mention a specific candidate in the 60 days before a federal election. But if they’re not allowed to engage in politics during the two months before election day (when people might actually be paying attention), why should any of these groups bother engaging in politics at all? Or, maybe, that’s what the incumbent politicians want.

Democrats' Magic Number: 527 (March 10, 2004)

Introducing a MSNBC story:

With the unlimited “soft money” contributions to national political parties ostensibly banned by the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, also known as the McCain-Feingold law), Democrats are counting on their 527 groups, organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, and bankrolled by billionaire currency speculator George Soros, Real Networks CEO Robert Glaser, labor unions, and others.

Standing Guard: A Win for free speech (September 7, 2007)

When Congress enacted this oppressive law, the National Rifle Association, as a grassroots corporation, was singled out for censorship. Our highly acclaimed infomercials were labeled "sham ads" and were targeted for broadcast speech bans.

Without this new ruling, NRA's running an educational broadcast alluding to any candidate for federal office anywhere in the nation during the pre-election blackouts could amount to a federal crime. A broadcast expressing NRA's staunch opposition to a gun ban could be seen by FEC enforcers as indirectly urging Americans to vote against a candidate favoring a firearm ban--say, Hillary Clinton.

So, Wayne & Chris, if I might be so familiar--and as a Life Member of NRA I think it's my right--what's the source of this sudden failure of courage on your part?  If I recall correctly, right after the BCRA was signed into law--and before NRANews.com was created, in the hope it would be considered a legitimate media outlet and therefore unaffected by BCRA--Wayne LaPierre wrote an impassioned letter published in all the NRA monthlies, saying that by God, he'd anchor a ship with a TV transmitter in international waters and broadcast the Truth, if that's what it took.

So why all the kowtowing to McCain in this interview? Unless there is some secret deal being cut, McCain has more to lose by being criticized by NRA than NRA has to lose by not endorsing McCain, or any Presidential candidate in November.

I have been saying for the last month or two, the "Stimulus Check"  would have been spent on more ammo. If asked by media or in a survey, that would be my answer.

Think of "Buy Back" in reverse. Think of the positive press it could make. Think of how folks can pull together on this one.

1) Publicize the "Stimulus for Freedom" with an Anti-Buyback.

2) Encourage Ammo and Firearm dealers to offer their own additional "Stimulus", such as a discount for anyone presenting the check in payment (or if by e-mail credit card order if invoking "Stimulus Day" event).

How might you use your returned hard-earned cash?

• Sign up for a shooting instruction course.
• Sign up for Women On Target or Refuse to Be A Victim
• Join the local gun club and get a membership for a friend.
• Join or contribut to the NRA, GOA, JPFO, VCDL, MSI, or Second Amendment Sisters.
• Sign up for a firearms instructor or range safety officer course.
• Buy AMMO and then take friends shooting, especially if you can invite an an anti-gun friend for a positive first-experience on a firing range.
• Volunteer at the Camp Perry matches, and use the money to pay your transportation.
• Contribute to the election or re-election campaign of a gun-friendly legislator
  

Do you have additional ideas along these lines? Please comment.

In 2002, near the end of his five years as president of the NRA, Heston disclosed he had symptoms consistent with Alzheimer's disease.

The disclosure was soon followed by an unflattering appearance in Moore's 2003 best documentary winner "Bowling for Columbine," which took America to task for its gun laws.

Moore used a clip of Heston holding aloft a rifle at an NRA rally and proclaiming "from my cold, dead hands." The director flustered the actor in an interview later in the film by pressing him on his gun-control stance. Heston eventually walked out on Moore.

Moore's Web site, http://www.michaelmoore.com, on Sunday featured a photo of Heston, the date of his birth and death and a note from the actor's family requesting that donations be made to the Motion Picture and Television Fund in lieu of flowers.

There was no other reaction on the site from Moore about Heston's death.

Saturday's news of Heston's death was accompanied by some footage of an interview he gave--I forget to whom--in which he was asked whether he had any fear over the Alzheimer's diagnosis. The gist of his reaction was no, it's just another part of this big adventure called life.

It struck me as I watched that bit of footage, with the actor in his late seventies, that if ever there were an actor suited to portray Ronald Reagan during his Presidential years, it would have been Chuck Heston.

Among this morning's email was a transcript of a speech that Heston gave at Harvard Law School a few years ago, before his illness. The speech contained a few bon mots that bear repeating here:

I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you . . . the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is. ...

As I have stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only issue.

No, it's much, much bigger than that.

I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated.

For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 - long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist.

I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.

I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.

Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country.

But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.

From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind like that? You are using language not authorized for public consumption!"

But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys - subjects bound to the British crown.

In his book, The End of Sanity, Martin Gross writes that "blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction.

Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a name is undermining the country, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don't like it." ...

If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist.

If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you sexist.

If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion.

If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe.

Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism.

But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation? The answer's been here all along.

I learned it 36 years ago, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., standing with Dr. Martin Luther King and two hundred thousand people.

You simply ... disobey.

Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely.

But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don't. We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom. ...

In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous laws that weaken personal freedom.

But be careful ... it hurts. Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies.

You must be willing to be humiliated ... to endure the modern-day equivalent of the police dogs at Montgomery and the water cannons at Selma.

You must be willing to experience discomfort. ...

So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country.

Powerful words. Words that I suspect will be omitted from the eulogizing that all the neocons will indulge themselves in, thinking they know something of this man.

Maryland's Constitution, Article 13, states: …every man hath a right
to petition the Legislature for the redress of grievances… .

Inherent in that declaration is an expectation that such a petition
will receive a proper hearing.

Such is not the case regarding the people's plea for relief from the
State's discriminatory handgun permit law.

Every year a bill is introduced which guarantees the people's right of
self-protection. Every year such bills are ignored by the judiciary
committee chairmen.

No committee vote, no floor debate. No floor debate, no proper hearing.

House Bill 2 is in committee now. Even though hundreds of folks
showed up to support it, HB2 still sits in Chairman Vallario's desk
drawer (the Assembly adjourns April 7th).

One person should not be able to stymie the people's will. Chairman
Vallario should call for an up or down vote and report HB2 out
(favorably or unfavorably) for a House floor debate.

What good is representative government if representatives don't
represent us?

If you are among those who think Maryland's current policy on concealed -carry permits needs no revision, may I suggest that you read this account of a well-trained applicant's travails in getting a permit, and take a look at the Maryland Shall Issue web site.

To keep yourself current on HB2, here's the state's information page. As you will see, Don Pollock is right: the bill has been languishing for two months now, and there is no sign of any change.

Suggested action: look up the members of the judiciary committee (see the link above) and contact every last one of them. Fax, telephone calls and snail-mail letters have a greater impact than emails, as all those modes of communication require staff time and create office clutter for the representatives' staff, whereas emails are readily deleted unread.

A spokeswoman for the county prosecutor says the charge was dropped because Snowden had no knowledge of a presence of a firearm in the vehicle.

Snowden had plead guilty in December to possession and intent to distribute marijuana and is awaiting sentencing on those charges. Nonetheless, he is a convicted felon, making it a crime under both state and federal laws for him to be in possession of a firearm. His defense was that the gun belonged to the other guy who was riding in the car, and he did not know it was there. Now, if ever there was an issue that cried out to be heard by a judge and jury, this would be one. Young Snowden should have been placed under oath and grilled along the now-classic  lines of what did he know and when did he know it. For the matter to have simply been dropped by administrative decision smacks of favoritism and unequal treatment under the law. It would be interesting if someone in the MSM took the time to look up statistics and outcomes on past arrests of this kind, because it immediately raised several questions in my mind:

Question #1: Suppose this had been some convicted felon other than the son of someone politically well-connected?

Suffice it to say that Lovell "Artie" Wheeler was not treated so generously a few years ago in Baltimore, and the crime he was accused of was a mere misdemeanor. It just happened that Wheeler is an impolitic old whiteguy, and Kojo Snowden is the son of a "prominent civil rights activist." I have no patience with white supremacists like Wheeler, but I think professional racists on both sides of the issue deserve equal treatment.

You might remember that another "prominenent civil rights" type, Carl T. Rowan, drew a "walk" some years ago when he shot an teenager found swimming in the pool in his Washington DC backyard. That incident occurred in 1988, long after the District had enacted (in 1975) the gun control law that almost completely banned firearms possession. (N.B. this is the law that is being challeneged in the Heller case.)

Question #2: Did Kojo get a "walk" due to some intervention from O'Malley? Those of you who know of Frank Weathersbee, the Anne Arundel County State's Attorney, know that he is a pretty hard-nosed prosecutor, especially compared to some of his cohorts in other Maryland counties. It seems pretty unlikely to me that Weathersbee would have backed away from this case without coercion.

Question #3: [Irrelevant, but interesting nonetheless] What sort of person would name a child "Kojo," which sounds more like the name you would hang on a zoo animal or household pet? Unless perhaps the name is intended to have been a blend of "Kojak" and "Tojo." That's possible, but unlikely...

As reported in the Washington Post, [comments added]

...the Safe Homes Initiative, [is] aimed at parents and guardians who know or suspect that their children or other relatives have guns. Under the deal, police target areas hit by violence* and seek adults who let them search their homes for guns, with no risk of arrest. The offer also applies to drugs that turn up during the searches, police said.

*i.e., low-income black and Latino neighborhoods --ed.

Of course, the police chief says it will be a no-fault/no-foul operation, aimed at "getting guns and drugs off the streets."

 "If we come across illegal contraband*, we will confiscate it," Lanier said. "But amnesty means amnesty. We're trying to get guns and drugs off the street."

*Anyone with the slightest clue what might constitute legal contraband is urged to send me the details, a.s.a.p.

Fenty (D) and Lanier announced the plan as part of a new strategy to deal with the prevalence of firearms in a city that has one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation*. The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in a case challenging the constitutionality of the D.C. law.

*Eureka! Might this be a clue that those strict gun control laws are not enforceable and do not work?

Counting on the reader's being so brain-dead as to have forgotten what was written a mere two paragraphs earlier, Post reporter Allison Klein adds,

Residents who agree to the searches will be asked to sign consent forms. If guns are found, they will be tested to determine whether they were used in crimes. If the results are positive, police will launch investigations, which could lead to charges.

So, according to Lanier, "amnesty means amnesty," except when it doesn't. Apparently the Post has conditioned its reporters not to ask embarrassing follow-up questions.

Meanwhile, over at the Washington Times (you know: that mouthpiece of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy) reporter David Lipscomb attended the same press conference, and came away with a slightly different version of the story. As Lipscomb reports it, the police department spokesperson appears not to have been Chief Lanier, but "police spokeswoman Traci Hughes."  Hughes, not Lanier, is quoted directly in the Times piece. You don't suppose the police department held two parallel press conferences, or sent out two different sets of press releases, do you? Me either.

Lipscomb adds a fact omitted in the Post story, which is that the program will begin March 24 to coincide with D.C. Public Schools' spring break and will run indefinitely...

If Lanier really meant "amnesty means amnesty," why wait until children--who are apparently the prime targets here--are home from school, especially if the program is meant to help parents/guardians who are actually afraid of the children in their homes (as the police spokesperson has asserted)?

I have not found any hard data, but a quick check on the web suggests that NATIONALLY around 14 percent of the children between the ages of 5 and 12 are so-called "latchkey kids,"  home alone after school. Nothing I could easily find estimates the percentage of children under 18 who are at home alone after school, and presumbly will also be home alone during spring break.

Presumably, a person under the age of 18 cannot legally give consent to a search, and the potential pandemonium caused by police officers stomping into houses where no adults are home should not be underestimated.

Under the best of circumstances--that the door is answered by a person over the age of majority--what's likely to be the police response if the request to search the place is denied, especially if the refusal is delivered with hostility and profanity? Can we expect that the police will simply apologize for the intrusion and go on to the next house? Or will this be considered a motivation to seek a formal (i.e., legal) search warrant? Or, will the cop on the doorstep simply take two steps back and unholster his Taser, figuring that a convienient cover-your-ass lie can be dreamed up later?

Apparently the only person not 100 per cent on board with this program is the head of the police union, as Lipscomb reports:

Officer Kristopher Baumann, head of the union that represents the city's police, said the group "supports any well thought out plan to reduce violence*."

However, he hopes the department has considered potential problems with advertising amnesty while checking for guns connection to crimes.

*But evidently with no regard to whether or not such a plan is Constitutional. Just as a little refresher, that dusty, outmoded old document (or "living" document, depending which flavor of liberalism you espouse) says the following:

ARTICLE IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmations, and particularly describing the place to be searched, andd the persons or things to be seized.

Alan Gottlieb, of the Second Amendment Foundation quickly responded to Fenty's announcement thus:

Calling this project the ‘Safe Homes Initiative’ is an insult to our intelligence... If District residents allow this to happen, no home will be safe from warrantless fishing expeditions by police, because that’s exactly what this thinly-disguised program is really all about. We think Congress should step in immediately and stop this from happening.

The entire Gottlieb commentary comprises only a few paragraphs, and is well worth reading. Find it here.

Writer Andy Dolan leads off his article thus:

"Meet the pistol that fits in your pocket - and packs a hell of a punch.

"The SwissMiniGun is the size of a key fob but fires tiny 270mph bullets powerful enough to kill at close range.

"Officially the world's smallest working revolver, the gun is being marketed as a collector's item and measures just 2.16 inches long (5.5cm). It can fire real 4.53 bullets up to a range of 367ft (112m).

"The stainless steel gun costs £3,000 although the manufacturers also produce extravagant, made-to-order versions made out of 18-carat gold with customised diamond studs which sell for up to £30,000. "

The silliness continues, and it's worth reading the article, if only to see the inconsistencies. Is the muzzle velocity 270 mph (as the text says) or 300 mph (as per the headline)? That's a ten percent difference, and since both are round numbers, why exaggerate?

Later, the article claims "the gun shoots 2.34 mm calibre ammunition." That's about half the 4.53 mm number quoted earlier in the article.

Of course the "forensic scientist" neglects to mention that merely perforating skin is usually insufficient to kill, unless the perforation happens to occur at the exact site of, say, the femoral or carotid artery.

Genuine firearms experts express the power of a round of ammunition in terms of muzzle energy, expressed in foot-pounds. The reason is that a tiny, lightweight projectile will need to travel much faster than a larger one, to do the equivalent amount of damage. Just for the sake of comparison, Chuck Hawks estimates the muzzle energy of the venerable .25 ACP cartridge as a mere 66 foot-pounds.

You can extrapolate from this that the deadly-as-a-machine-gun mini revolver's muzzle energy can't be as much as half that. Hawks' estimate is based on a muzzle velocity of 815 fps, slighly more than twice that of the mini revolver. Moreover, the mini's projectile could not have as much as half the weight or cross-sectional area of the .25 ACP. These are the other paramaters that enter into the calculation of muzzle energy, or if you will, "deadliness." For those among the uninitated in gun knowledge, the .25 is generally derided as useless, occasionally referred to as a "mouse gun." A slightly better perspective is provided by gun writers such as Jeff Cooper and Mas Ayoob, who observe that the .25 is an expert's  weapon, best usable by an assailant cagey enough to  get very close to his prey, and perhaps deliver a round through an eye socket or ear canal.

My own perspective is this: at this moment, I am carrying in my pockets at least three implements that are deadlier than the Swiss mini revolver, and probably more deadly than the .25 ACP under most circumstances. My retractable ballpoint pen is a formidable stabbing/thrusting implement. Not far behind that is the key to my '97 Dodge Caravan, conveniently provided with a plastic grip. Self-defense and close-quarters combat courses generally teach that such a car key can be used with great effectiveness, if gripped in the fist with the key shank protruding. Then there's my cell phone, whose protruding antenna can be employed as a striking implement (concentrating the force of a blow into a small physical cross-section). And perhaps it's remote, but it would not be out of the question for me to use the edge of one of my credit cards as a slashing weapon.

But the real folly of this irrational fear of the mini revolver lies in its price. At the current rate of exchange, you would pay $5,981.61 for this little gun. By any method of comparison, that amount of money will purchase exponentially more firepower, in a weapon that if not quite as concealable, would be more accurate at a longer range. So who, exactly, could be expected to purchase the mini revolver with malicious intent?

In truth, this gun is a work of art, the weaponry equivalent of a Fabergé egg. Regard the photographs below, with an eye towards the fit-and-finish of this item. It's a piece of jewelry that happens to fire a projectile. No more dangerous than a hat pin or poison vial (both of which are generally considered items of personal adornment).

 

 

Arguably the Super Bowl story might be the most popular piece in the latest edition, but the most interesting one is Alan's observation that the mainstream media failed entirely to cover the annual SHOT (Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade) show in Las Vegas. Apparently the rationale is that to say anything about the show would reveal the paucity of all their stereotypes about the firearms industry, gun dealers and gun owners. Alan writes thus (emphasis added):

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Seven hundred thousand square feet of space, tens of thousands of attendees from all over the world, nearly two thousand exhibitors in five halls so big you can't see one end from the other, indoor exhibits built two stories high, mountains of weapons and arsenals of every description -- high powered, rapid fire, extended capacity -- assembled once again at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas, and no controversy of any kind was evident.

No lamestream media was evident either, though trade press was abundant. Lamestream media could not cover the event, because it would show the shooting, hunting and outdoor trade (SHOT) industry as a regular business just like any other, which would violate news-media policy.

It's a little smaller than the Consumer Electronics Show, and few items are as big ticket as the Barrett Jackson car auction, but it's a multibillion dollar business with multimillion dollar deals on the floor, and no news coverage, unlike other big-time annual shows.

The most expensive item seen, aside from armored vehicles, helicopters, 18-wheeler self-contained ranges and stores, military miniguns and some of the women, were a set of four matched Perrazi shotguns for $440,000. The Uninvited Ombudsman actually held one in his hands. Carefully. Very carefully. Hey, it's just a shotgun, I'd rather buy a house with that kind of money.

The most unusual exhibit was samples from a find in a Nepal arsenal, remnants of the British East India Trading Company, with 55,000 firearms. They're now all in the U.S. after several years of effort, including piles of original U.S. colonial-era Brown Bess muskets, all available for sale.
http://www.ima-usa.com

Among the most clever new products was Shock Knife, a combat-training tool shaped like a knife with a zapper for an edge. Blackwater Int'l., reviled in the "news" media but saving lives in Iraq and around the world, had a huge booth and recruitment videos on big screens, which switched over to the big game just in time when the beer kegs arrived. Artist Wayne McLoughlin offered to paint your name onto a poster for "America's Cheapest Ammunition -- It Usually Works." In the background, a bear is chewing on the remnants of a hunter's clothes.

Here was American enterprise at its finest, new products of incredibly clever design and advancement, entrepreneurship in unbridled fine array, the buzz and hustle of free markets unlike anywhere else on Earth, and no news media.

All these guns and there's no crime, no death, no controversy. It's just good healthy business, and after incessant media pounding, that was just plain weird.

The picture painted by the media is so perverse, so negative, so deadly and crime ridden, that to see this show with so many fine upstanding people, from business suits to gilley suits, casual dress to corporate uniforms, babes bursting from show costumes to your basic bubbas shopping for their businesses, the disjoint between the publicly promoted image of guns and the reality was hard to reconcile. The bias and distortion of the media shined from a brightly lit pedestal.

The show themes are familiar and pervasive -- law enforcement, personal safety, hunting for food, military protection, convenience in the outdoors, high performance for competitors, gear for everyone, every manufacturer's entire handgun and long gun line out in the open for touchy feely examination, and no media.

That's probably a good thing. Because knowing their sorry ways, they would use this show as a way to make everything look bad. Despite the obvious reality to the contrary, they would immorally make us seem evil instead of righteous, ignoring the fact that guns are why America is still free.
http://www.shotshow.com

Korwin's dispatch neglected to mention that 58,769 people attended this year's show, which is open to the trade (manufacturers, wholesalers, firearms dealers, journalists) only. 

I highly recommend Alan's blog, which is available as a RSS feed: http://www.pagenine.org

You will find several interesting articles about the Super Bowl, if that's what floats your boat, and a recent piece in which Korwin coins the word "muzzling" to describe the nasty retaliations against some of us who refuse to limit ourselves to the politically-correct lexicon.

-30-

While most of the other 49 states are enacting sensible legislation that recognizes a citizen's right to defend his person, family and property, here in Maryland things are moving in the opposite direction. Our governor (may he rot in Hell) has expressed the intent to abolish the death penalty for criminals here. At the same time, he is doing nothing about the death penalty so often imposed upon crime victims.

Worse still the National Rifle Association of America, although hated by many as an extremist organization devoted to encouraging wholesale bloodletting in our cities, has badly dropped the ball here in Maryland. NRA's political arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, periodically emails a briefing on the status of legislation, nationally and state-by-state. The Association has become so intent upon money-raising to perpetuate itself that it has taken to skewing these news briefs, and the latest one is a prime example.

Friday, Maryland NRA members received an e-mail with the breathless title "Maryland House of Delegates to Consider Four Pro-Gun Bills!"  The little fly in the ointment is that one of these four bills is not "pro-gun." In fact, it's not a paranoid delusion to imagine how it can be used as a further means of oppressing legal firearms owners. And worse still, the NRA news releases have completely ignored a handful of egregiously anti-gun bills in the hopper.

Start with the bill NRA-ILA promotes as "pro-gun", HB-1061. This bill would "require the Secretary of Police to refund the application fee for a permit to carry, wear, or transport a handgun to an applicant whose application is denied. Because Maryland is a 'may-issue' state, the police are not required to give law-abiding citizens a permit to carry, yet under current law people are not allowed to recover their denied application fees."

The NRA news release completely ignores the existence of HB-2, which would turn Maryland into a "shall-issue" state. This is the holy grail of the pro self-defense community. Instead, NRA thinks we should congratulate ourselves if we persuade the authorities to refund our application fee when they arbitrarily deny a concealed-carry permit. Not only is that ridiculous, I do not think it's paranoia to consider 1061 a back-door registration scheme, or worse.

Consider the following scenario:

Many pro-RKBA activists have been urging Marylanders to apply for a CCW permit, knowing it is likely to be denied. The rationale behind this is sound: at the moment, the Maryland State Police report that they deny relatively few permits. This is because the average gun owner knows he's not going to get a permit, and has enough sense not to waste the application fee, which runs more than $100. If this refund-upon-denial law passes in the absence of a shall-issue provision (HB-2) the number of permit applications is likely to increase exponentially. And while that may prove the activists' point about the difficulty of obtaining a permit in Maryland, it will provide a bigger data bonanza for the state government.

As far as I know, there is nothing prohibiting the MSP from maintaining a list of people who have applied for and been denied handgun permits. The police departments already have at their disposal a little-known tool called the "M-Gun" database. Adding to the database the names of those who unsuccessfully apply for a permit, provides the police a handy list of people whom they might suspect of carrying a concealed firearm without the permit. M-Gun is available on the in-car computers of police officers. Once your driving license information has been entered, a few more key strokes provide access to information about the guns you own and whether or not you have a CCW permit. (Just how much information it provides is a closely guarded secret.)

Now imagine this: you are pulled over for a burnt-out tail light. In the process of checking to make sure you are the legal owner of the vehicle, the cop sees that you applied for a CCW permit but were denied. Now he has "probable cause," or at least "reasonable suspicion" (which is the reduced standard they are now using) to search your vehicle and person, figuring you are packing without a permit. Whether or not you are in possession of a firearm at that moment, you will have been subjected to a search that was hitherto not permitted. In short, one more bit of freedom and privacy down the dumper.

And there are yet other anti-self-defensebills in the hopper. There's HB-108, which would prohibit the possession of an "electronic weapon." If you're näive enough to think that would simply prevent "civilians" from owning Tasers and stun guns, think again. Once such a law is on the books, anything, including a loud battery-powered noisemaker, could be added to the list of prohibited electronic weapons.

There's HB-640, which would require anyone placed under a temporary restraining order to surrender any firearms he or she owns. Aside from the obvious problem this creates for the subject to re-acquire his guns at some future date, it does nothing to protect the potential victim from attack by knife, automobile, blunt instrument, incendiary device, poison, or an endless list of other readily available means.

HB-655 would deny youth hunting licenses to people under the age of 13, thus depriving parents of the opportunity to pass along this sporting tradition to their children at the earliest practicable age.

But the worst of all the bills ignored by NRA-ILA is HB-517, the "encoded ammunition" law. Among the provisions of this bill are requiring each shell casing and bullet base to be stamped with an "indelible" serial number that can be traced, requiring all non "encoded" ammunition to be destroyed or surrendered by a certain date, and imposing a tax of 5 cents per round on the "encoded" ammo, assuming that any manufacturer is willing to produce such stuff, and without regard to the increased cost of producing this ammo, which will be passed on to the consumer.

Now, if you are a recreational shooter, this tax becomes a big burden. Cowboy Action shooters, for example, may attend two, or even three matches each weekend. The average cowboy match consists of six stages, in the course of which about 120 rounds of this more expensive ammo is used. So, without even considering how much Winchester, Remington or CCI is going to sock you at retail, every time you take those cowboy guns out of their cases to use them, it's going to cost you six dollars more than it does now. For an active cowboy shooter, the tax alone will add up to $500 a year or more.

Even this isn't the entire story about the 2008 legislative session in Maryland, but in the interest of (relative) brevity, it should be enough to frighten you into action.

First order of business: log on to the Maryland Shall Issue web site for a comprehensive look at what the lawmakers are trying to do to us. If you have more time on your hands, have a look at the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership web site, or that of Gun Owners of America, to gain a perspective on the way the NRA is neglecting its members in Maryland, which we still jokingly call The Free State.

West Virginia is considering a bill to teach schoolchildren how to handle a gun and hunt safely its proponent hopes will increase state revenues from hunting licenses, a state lawmaker said Thursday. "We will teach a hunting safety course during their physical education class," state senator and bill sponsor Billy Wayne Bailey told AFP. The courses would be imparted in secondary schools, from the eighth to 10th grade (13-16 years of age). "They will learn gun safety, the proper use of fire arms. All the weapons will be disabled so there is no chance of discharging," he said, adding that the state Senate was expected to take up the bill next week. "Hunting is an economic and cultural thing and we have seen a decline of hunting licenses over the past years," said the lawmaker, explaining that his bill would boost interest in hunting in West Virginia. Children 10 years and older can already apply for a hunting license in West Virginia, which makes 1.5 billion dollars a year from hunting-related activities, the senator said. Kudos to the folks in WV! The absolutely best way, bar none, to satisfy a child’s natural interest in firearms is to teach him or her to handle them safely and to shoot. When the anti-gun bedwetters start ranting about the number of “children”* killed every day by guns, someone needs to ask if they can name a single incident of accidental shooting death, or a school shoot-em-up being perpetrated by a child who is a competitive marksman. *A large percentage of the “children” killled by gunfire seem to be 17 to 21 years old, and dabbling in drugs, but that’s an insignificant detail, no?

As you might expect, others who have found themselves similarly misused have been sharing their stories with Horsley, and this one in particular bears being repeated here in its entirety. I do not know the name or location of the narrator of this horror story, but I'm doing my best to track it down, and I'm more than 99% certain it's legitimate. Read, and be outraged:

My house burned down about a year ago. I almost died trying to find my dog in the smoke and flames, but I could not find him. The fire started in the garage from faulty electrical wiring. and the flames had engulfed the entire garage within a couple of minutes.

Unfortunately, I had just filled 3 bar-b-que propane tanks that day and set them in the garage. When those exploded, the additional heat caused my hunting ammunition and cabinet full of paint cans to explode. All of that was bad enough, but then my oxy/accedaline [sic] tanks exploded and the blast shook the neighborhood.
 

After the fire was out, I had the painful task of burying my dog. I could hardly see the hole I was digging through all the tears in my eyes. I had just laid him to rest when an ATF agent walked up and started asking me questions. He said that he had just listened to the 911 calls that had come in from the neighbors when the fire started. He said that there were 14 calls, and 8 of them reported bombs going off inside the garage. I explained that the neighbors simply heard the paint cans, ammunition, and black powder exploding from the heat. At that point he said, "Tell me more about the black powder, because as it stands you are facing 10 years." WHAT? Ten years for 10-20 lbs. of black powder? I told him that the law allows an individual to keep 50 lbs at home, and I had no where near that amount. He told me that in "His Town", he expects a phone call if I keep as much as a firecracker at my house. Since I had not been in contact with him, he said he was inclined to believe that my black powder was intended for bomb manufacturing. I told him a jury would hear the truth and see that the whole thing is absolutely ridiculous! He then told me that jury's are simply decorative ornaments in court cases the ATF is involved with, because the Federal Government does not lose. After two hours of questioning me and threatening me with prison, he wrote me a $500 "fireworks" citation. He told me I better count my blessings and be happy with just a citation.

When he handed me that citation, I was absolutely stunned. I said, "last night I lost my house and all of my possessions to the fire, I just buried my dog that I loved like a child, and you are writing me a $500.00 "fireworks" citation for having 20 lbs of black powder in my garage?" His response, again, was "yes, count your blessings." Before he left, he said, "Be aware that the ATF knows who you are now and where you live.....You better not cross paths with us again".

Cross paths with them??? My house burned down for God's sake! I didn't cross paths with those evil bastards. They found me, and then victimized me when I was at the lowest point in my life! I don't have as much as a traffic ticket on my record, but the ATF is "watching me" now?"

The first three of these attacks have been black predators attacking white victims. Altogether too many words have already been said about that, none of them the right ones. In a city where blacks are in the majority, only a fool would be shocked at this information. Not only do these kids harbor a lot of unwarranted anger-even allowing for the ordinary hormonally surge-but they have somehow been conditioned to see impoverished whites (such as Sarah Kreager) and the elderly as attractive prey.

Dixon and the others act as though this is a recent phenomenon, and peculiar to the MTA's buses. Refusing to believe there is such a thing as black prejudice towards non-blacks, the Powers That Be see no connection between the attack on Kreager and-for example--the attack earlier this year on Zach Sowers. In the name of expedience, the state's attorney has done a grave disservice to Sowers (who remains comatose) by bargaining away the right to charge this monster with murder, should Sowers eventually die. This, despite the willingness of the co-attackers to testify on the prosecution's behalf.

MTA officials appear in deep denial over the long history of nasty behavior aboard their vehicles, at their bus stops, and in other public places. A few years ago on the SunSpot news forum, a woman reported having witnessed a young (black) man openly masturbating aboard a subway. Others followed in close order, saying they'd seen similar stuff. My own wife rode MTA buses to work for more than a decade, and every day I waited breathlessly until she'd gotten safely home, wondering whether the assault du jour would be merely a groping or verbal insult, a purse snatching, or something unimaginably worse. And that was more than fifteen years ago.

The city's self-anointed black authority figures have addressed their remarks not to the young generation responsible for the violence, but to their shocked parents and grandparents. They know from whose pockets their money flows, at it's from the elders who feel ashamed and powerless about the kids.

It has been at least two generations since any city has seen an activist with the courage and "street cred" to go out amongst the youngsters and work directly with them. The result is a generation of children who know that adults fear them, and use that fear to great effect. Nobody has managed to teach them that this same fear, from which they derive a transitory thrill today, will tomorrow deter someone from hiring them, for example. They have, by their own efforts, de-humanized themselves.

Meanwhile, the Deep Thinkers in the city and state government will grasp at any cockamamie notion, knowing that it will fail, but praying that it won't fail until someone else is at the helm. Kurt Schmoke, as mayor, attempted placating the thug element with silliness such as midnight basketball. Martin O'Malley attempted, during the brief period he was paying attention, to have the city arrest its way out of the problem. That bit of folly only clogged the court system so badly that many serious crimes went unprosecuted because of speedy-trial rules, or were plea-bargained away to nothing. Sheila Dixon has proven herself worse than incapable of ameliorating the violence; she's actually made herself a laughing stock. And from his new seat of power, O'Malley is about to make matters exponentially worse by abolishing officially the death penalty in this state, thus removing any genuine negative consequences for predatory violence.

This problem will not be solved by any number of people safely ensconced behind bulletproof glass watching the violence unfold on video screens, by any amount of political oratory, however sincere, or by any number of "gun buy-backs."  In this city, countless firearms have been "bought back," nearly always in violation of federal laws. Pellet guns, most knives, knuckle dusters, pepper spray, stun guns and nearly every category of improvised defensive weapon has been declared verboten. The violence grows more frequent and random, and the Deep Thinkers continue along the same course that has steadily proven itself counterproductive.

There is a reason that jackals prey upon antelopes, rather than tigers and elephants. The simple fact is that thugs, punks and other miscreants are less likely to attack victims if there is any certainty that one of their potential targets may be armed.

It is past time that governments admit they can seldom protect anyone, but only pick up the broken pieces after a tragedy has occurred. People will remain at risk until they demand that the governments quit condemning them for defending themselves.

Zelman is now offering what he calls "Goody Guns," cookie cutters in the shape of little semiautomatic pistols. As he envisions it, "With the supervision and help of the adults in their lives, boys and girls can turn their own kitchens into "Arsenals of Liberty" by making gun-shaped cookies to keep and share, while absorbing firearms safety lessons the public schools would never teach them, and which the mass media don't want to see taught."

 Halloween would be a great time to send a message to the anti-gun whackos in your neighborhood by baking up a batch of trick or treat cookies using this insidious cookie cutter. Being a responsible adult, you would of course wrap each cookie individually, and enclose a name and address label.

When the rabidly gun-hating parent shows up at your doorstep, you can offer a barter: you will trade the cookie for one of the window stickers shown at the right, provided the neighbor promises to paste it on his front door for at least a month.

If you're operating in a virulently anti-freedom environment like Baltimore, Maryland, you will want to have your lawer on retainer ahead of time, and a bail bondsman on alert. The police will surely throw you "under the jail," and you are guaranteed to make the Late News. Chances are, they will send a news crew to do a "stand up" in front of your house for at least the next two newscasts, and you can take advantage of the air time to paste the pro-liberty poster of your choice on the front of your house, knowing it will be televised.

But wait! There's more...

The next step will be deploying the Goody Gun device as a sandwich cutter, sending little Joshua and Emily to school with gun-shaped sandwiches.

Yellow American cheese would be the most symbolically appropriate filling, although peanut butter and jelly would drive those my-kid-has-allergies whiners straight up the wall as well. White bread is a must, the doughier the better.

Now, envision the news story that will result when the vice-principal confiscates your child's lunch as evidence, and attempts suspending him or her from school.

You'll be able to have a field day with the kid interviewed on television, tearfully describing how "Mr. Goober took away my sam'wich and made me go hungry." The school officials will look like the fools they are, and you can probably make book on an "emergency school board meeting" being called.

 

If you are a member of a "protected minority," or can claim poverty, you get extra credit.

Republican Rudy Giuliani sought to reassure the National Rifle Association of his support for a constitutional right to bear arms as rivals Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee contended the former New York mayor is no friend of gun owners.

In a direct appeal Friday to the powerful lobbying group, Thompson, McCain and Huckabee stressed their backing for gun rights and record of siding with the NRA. Giuliani, who once referred to the NRA as "extremists," tried to explain his shifting views on the issue. ...

Giuliani, an outspoken proponent of gun control during his eight years as mayor, said Friday he agrees with a recent federal court ruling that overturned a 30-year-old ban on private ownership of handguns in Washington, D.C. He added that he would appoint judges who take a similarly strict view of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. ...

Giuliani's cell phone rang in the middle of his speech; he said it was his wife, Judith, and as the audience laughed, he answered it and had a brief conversation.

That last sentence, in itself, is enough reason not to vote for the sonofabitch.

UPDATE, Sunday Sept. 23, 2020 EDT: I just heard most of Guiliani's speech broadcast on C-SPAN radio. It sounded to me as though he was trying earnestly to bullshit his way out of claiming responsibility for his past actions, namely the illegal lawsuits against gun manufacturers. He absolutely ducked the question he was asked, as to whether he approved or disapproved of "waiting periods" for gun purchases. And in the course of the speech, he contradicted himself seriously. Towards the end of the speech, he talked about the importance of local laws and local law enforcement, but not ten minutes earlier, he had proposed a scheme under which "gun crimes" would be kicked upstairs to the federal government for prosecution.

If this speech becomes available online (either at C-SPAN or NRANews.com), I would recommend that you listen for yourself.

My conclusion is that Mr. Guiliani is not to be trusted.

A man determined not to be the victim of a robbery in downtown Baltimore wrestled a gun away from his attacker and shot him three times, city police said.

Around 9 p.m. Sunday, police responded to the 100 block of North Howard Street where they found Calvin Ray, 21, suffering from gunshot wounds to the chest, hip and lower back, police said.

Upon investigation, police learned that Ray — who has a long arrest record — and another man followed three men who got off the subway on North Eutaw Street for 20 minutes and then attempted to rob them on Howard Street, said Officer Troy Harris, a police spokesman.

One of the would-be victims, a 22-year-old man whose name was not released, wrestled Ray over the handgun and “was able to redirect the gun toward the suspect,” Harris said.

The gun fired twice, striking Ray, and the gun fell to the ground.

The 22-year-old man picked up the gun and shot Ray again as he charged at him, Harris said.

Ray was in serious but stable condition at the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center Wednesday.

“If you look at Ray’s charging history, he’s been a bad boy with guns, robbery and assault,” said David Briggs, a community activist and blogger who often speaks out against crime. “Certainly, the justice system didn’t protect the victim.

“If you want to survive in this town, you need to be good on your feet.”

Ray, of the 400 block of Cummings Court, was convicted of first-degree burglary in 2003 and was sentenced to five years in prison. He was released early, in July, on good-behavior credits and is under the supervision of Parole and Probation, said Elizabeth Batholomew, an agency spokeswoman.

“No sooner does he get out than this happens,” Briggs said. “This is like the poster child for criminality in Baltimore.”

Margaret Burns, spokeswoman for the Baltimore City State’s Attorney’s Office, said the office will investigate the shooting to determine what, if any, charges should be filed.

“We will review the statements of witnesses and forensics to determine whether the shooting was in self-defense and therefore a justified shooting.”

Un-bloody-believable. Nearly anywhere else in the USA, this would be a slam-dunk, and the would-be victim considered an urban hero. Here in Baltimore, he will have to twist in the wind while a flock of people second-guess what happened. Perhaps he could have run and evaded the robber; was the third shot justifiable; did the victim "aggravate" the robber in some fashion; on and on and on, while it's as obvious as the nose on your face that this SOB deserved what he got.