York Dispatch runs article on LTCF’s in York County

After several months, the article on York’s LTCF numbers finally ran today. When this story was first being planned, the reporter and I talked about doing a behind-the-scenes piece on people (like me) who carry a concealed weapon. Unfortunately, a series of events, including conflicting information from the PA State Police and the York County Sheriff’s Department, and ending with the reporters untimely move to Boston, kept us from doing the story as planned. Pile on the fact that several of the “gun enthusiasts” that I had lined up for the reporter to talk to ended up not wanting to give their names or going off on tangents about Obama’s quest to confiscate guns limited our quotable information.
Our new reporter did a fine job of reporting the facts and given that she was handed a mess, I think it turned out good. I truly like the fact that I’ve gotten a photo involving a firearm on A1 three times in the past three months and all were for positive stories.

A week of violence leads to York Daily Record editorial

“The headlines last week were filled with news of gun violence.— Kwilson Coleman, accused of gunning down Gregory Wright in the 400 block of Prospect Street in York last Thanksgiving, was found guilty of first-degree murder.

Coleman, 18, was accused of shooting Wright after a confrontation about an alleged stolen cell phone. Wright had confronted a friend of Coleman’s about the alleged theft, and the shooting occurred after Wright pistol-whipped the man, according to testimony.

— Shannon Leroy Mayo Sr., 54, of the 500 block of South George Street, was charged with criminal homicide, accused of shooting and killing Donnell McIntyre outside his home Tuesday morning. Mayo claimed it was a case of self-defense as McIntyre tried to rob him. Police said the multiple shots fired and other circumstances led them to believe otherwise.

— John Houseman Jr., 45, of Red Lion was found shot in his car on East Boundary Avenue on Tuesday evening and later died at York Hospital. Police had not made an arrest in the case.

If all that violence makes you want to get a gun to protect yourself, you might think twice about that.

Thursday’s paper carried the story about the murder of a Lebanon woman who made national headlines last year for wearing a pistol on her hip at her daughter’s soccer game. She caused a stir by wearing a gun for protection at the youth soccer game, and her permit was revoked by the county sheriff, prompting a lawsuit and a lot of debate about Second Amendment rights.

Meleanie Hain was found dead in her home Wednesday evening, an apparent victim of a murder-suicide by her husband, a parole officer and former prison guard.

It’s a tragic story — especially since the couple’s young children were reportedly home during the incident.

And it suggests that guns are usually not the protection people hope they will be.

In far too many cases, people are shot by their own weapons — either accidentally or during domestic disputes or even as they are being robbed. Worse, children are too often able to get their hands on loaded weapons with tragic results.

And all this local gun violence comes in the wake of a new study released by a University of Pennsylvania professor that found people in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

“This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are protective or perilous,” said study author Charles C. Branas, associate professor of epidemiology. “Will possessing a firearm always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of security?”

Probably the latter.

That’s not to say that people don’t have Second Amendment rights or shouldn’t be allowed to carry concealed weapons.

But if you do have guns, you should have the proper training to use them — particularly in stressful, threatening situations. More importantly, guns should always be locked up safely away from children.

And don’t fool yourself into believing that because you’re carrying a weapon, you’re invulnerable to criminals — or even your own friends or family members.

You’re not.

If this study is accurate, you are, statistically speaking, more at risk.”

York Daily Record link

Last week was a tragic week for the Hain family and the many people who knew them.  A man who was to be the protector, the husband, lover, father, shot and killed his wife because she had asked for a divorce. This story is tragic enough because domestic violence is so rampant in our society, but what makes it worse is that some people believe that Meleanie somehow brought this ending on herself or deserved a brutal death because she was a gun-rights activist.

We all know about Meleanie, the “gun toting soccer mom” as the media portrayed her, SHEFEARSNOTHING to those of us who were privileged with knowing her via the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association (PAFOA). Meleanie believed in her Second Amendment rights enough to go to court to defend those rights and become the focus of ridicule by not only the media, but of the anti-gun movement.

Now, in death, she is mourned by her friends and family, and even more ridiculed by people who have been quick to use her story as propaganda. In the first days following Meleanie’s death, many comments were posted on news websites by readers that believe she deserved to be shot just because she was a gun owner, some even celebrated her death. It disgusts me to no end.

Meleanie carried a gun to protect her family. None of us would ever expect that the biggest threat to our lives would come from within. Regardless of the fact that there were marital problems, I’m sure Meleanie didn’t fathom that her husband would ambush and kill her.

The main-stream media and anti-gun groups love to use statistics.

“people in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.”
Aside from the fact that groups like the Brady Bunch intentionally misrepresent statistics, what they never point out is that guns are used by law-abiding citizens every day, to the tune of 2.5 million times a year, to deter crime. In 2006 there were 30,896 firearm related deaths. Out of that number 16,883 were suicides, I don’t count them a firearm related deaths because those people would have just found another way to end it.

We have 70-80 million firearm owners in this country with 14,013 dying from firearms other than suicides. If my math is right, that equals about 2 % of gun owners. By comparison, there are 62 mil vehicles in the US . There were 42,642 vehicle related fatalities (2006), that’s 6.85 % meaning you are three times more likely to die in or by your car then your gun.

Of course, many of the people killed by firearms each year aren’t gun owners (and many of them aren’t innocent) so the percentage is even lower, that’s why I don’t buy the 4-5 times more likely statistic. What I do know, from professionals I train with and people I meet who have been involved in a violent encounter, is that if you are unarmed or unwilling to defend yourself, your life has only the value your attacker desires. Either way you end up a statistic, I personally would rather be a live one.

RIP Meleanie.

At least one media outlet gets it

Contained in the NRA Freedom Times Issue No. 8 was a few interesting tidbits.

First off, BRAVO to the Washington Times for exposing MSNBC and other outlets agenda driven reporting concerning armed civilians near President Obama’s events. In an obvious case of sensationalizing the news and pushing their own anti-gun agenda, MSNBC has linked citizens expressing their Second Amendment rights to being racist threats to Obama.

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Many media outlets have misfired about guns. Countless newspapers and television networks — from CBS to MSNBC — have misreported that conservative protesters are threatening President Obama with guns at public events. It hasn’t happened.

In Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a gun, William Kostric, joined an Aug. 11 health care protest. This was blocks away and hours before Mr. Obama’s town-hall meeting in that city. Mr. Kostric was given permission to be on church property where the protest occurred and was not at the place the president visited. What most of the coverage left out was that Mr. Kostric didn’t carry his gun only for the protest; he legally carries a gun with him all the time for protection.

While the media regularly used terms such as “hotheads” to mischaracterize the situation, the coverage ignored that union members who opposed the protest had attacked Mr. Kostric and a friend, kicking, pushing and spitting on them. Despite violence against him by Mr. Obama’s supporters, Mr. Kostric did not draw his gun or threaten anyone.

On the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric asked, “Are we really still debating health care when a man brings a handgun to a church where the president is speaking?” Deliberately or not, she got the facts wrong. As we know, Mr. Kostric did bring a gun to the church, but the president was not there and never was scheduled to speak there. Mr. Obama spoke at a separate event at a local high school at a different time. Not letting facts get in the way of her hysterical story line, Ms. Couric linked Mr. Kostric’s gun to “fear and frankly ignorance drown[ing] out the serious debate that needs to take place about an issue that affects the lives of millions of people.”

link to article

In other news, a report on the SCOTUS Blog, an Illinois family is asking that a lawsuit against a gun manufacturer be reopened and the Supreme Court to strike down a federal shield law.

excerpts from the report:

The 2005 law – titled the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act — was controversial when passed, and has been attacked repeatedly since then in court.  The challengers have argued variously that Congress either had no power to wipe out already-filed lawsuits against gun makers, or that it went too far in doing so. So far, the Supreme Court has not been willing to get into the controversy, and the first issue facing the new lawsuit is whether it is sufficiently different that it can not only draw the Justices’ interest, but also overcome likely resistance from the federal government.

The tragedy that led to the Adames lawsuit in Illinois occurred eight years ago, when 13-year-old Billy Swan aimed and fired a Beretta pistol at a friend who had come over to play, Joshua Adames, who also was 13. The gun belonged to Billy’s dad, a Cook County sheriff’s deputy. Billy had taken out the gun’s clip before aiming it, believing that would make it harmless. A bullet that had remained in the gun’s chamber killed Joshua.

Billy’s parents sued Beretta, among others, contending that the gun manufacturer failed to warn users of this kind of pistol that removal of the magazine did not make it safe.  Without a cheap device to prevent just such accidents, and without a specific warning about the hazard, the pistol was too dangerous, the lawsuit contended. (There were other claims, but that one is the center of the case now.)

While the death of a 13 year old boy is tragic, Beretta is not responsible for it in any way. Without getting into all the reasons why a magazine safety shouldn’t used on a defensive handgun, the fact of the matter is that Billy’s parents didn’t teach their son the first rule of handling firearms. TREAT EVERY GUN LIKE IT’S LOADED AND DON’T POINT IT AT ANYTHING YOU DON’T WANT TO DESTROY.

How about suing Billy Swain’s parents for absolute stupidity.

Gun Facts We Need to Remember

A good friend of mine out in Colorado sent me this email today which I thought would be perfect to share here.  I haven’t checked all the numbers but everything seems to be accurate and it doesn’t show up on Snopes.

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY…….

Most importantly note the difference between Australia and  Switzerland at the bottom of this.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.—–

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.  From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.—-

Germany established gun control in 1938 From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and
exterminated.—–

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to  defend themselves, were rounded up  and exterminated—–

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.—-

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend  themselves, were rounded  up and exterminated.—-

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated  people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.—-
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.—–

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their  own Government, a program costing Australia   taxpayers more than $500  million dollars. The first year results are now in:

1:   Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

2:   Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent..

3:   Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up  300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past  12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended  in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.

The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save  lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the  law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans,  before it’s too late!  The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of  this history lesson. With guns, we are ‘citizens’.  Without them, we’re ’subjects’.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they  knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, please spread  this anti-gun control message to all of  your friends. The purpose of  fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is  supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!

SWITZERLAND ‘S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY  IN THE WORLD!!! IT’S A NO BRAINER! DON’T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS  OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS
AN EASY TARGET.

MSNBC trying to tie gun owners to being racist

In yet another failed attempt to push their own agenda, an MSNBC report from another Obama health care reform rally shows a close-up of a man carrying a AR-15 rifle slung over his shoulder. As the commentators (they really aren’t reporters anymore) ramble on about “racial overtones” because we have a “man of color in the presidency” they are showing a clip of the armed man, but conveniently crop the footage so that you can’t see that the man is black.

edited to add photo of the gun-toter.

MSNBC freaks out over open carry

Before a town hall meeting with President Obama yesterday, a New Hampshire man stood on private property along the main road holding a sign. Hundreds of other supporters and protesters lined the road, waiting for Obama to arrive, but MSNBC singled out this one man and completely flipped out, why? Because he was exercising his Second Amendment right. William Kostric had his handgun openly displayed in a drop-leg holster, completely legal not only in New Hampshire but here in PA too.

MSNBC reporters immediately took the display of constitutional right as a threat against the President. Kostric wasn’t making threats, and, has acted in a more rational, adult manner than the MSNBC staff and Chris Matthews (can’t he ever shut up? Maybe he should turn his hearing aide up so he doesn’t have to yell) have while reporting this event.

Check out the video on the page linked below to see the initial report

VIDEO #1

The news anchor absolutely freaks out over the fact that Kostric was exersicing his 2A rights.  At about 1:20 into the report the anchor says the following.

A guy has a gun in the open, where we already know the concern about every president’s safety, but certinly this historic president, the 44th president of the United States, and this guy is being allowed to stay here?

Kostric was nowhere near the security zone set up around the location of the town hall meeting. The Secret Service can, and does, suspend certain constitutional rights during the course of protecting the president, but they cannot deny a citizen’s rights outside of the security zone.

Kostric wasn’t threatening the president in any way, and be sure, that he wasn’t the only civilian there that was armed. This did happen in New Hampshire, the LIVE FREE OR DIE state.  What it comes down to is the MSNBC’s  absolute disdain over gun rights in this country.  The initial report was bad enough, but Chris Matthew’s interview with Kostric solidifies the point that the mainstream media, and MSNBC in particular, have absolutely no desire to provide fair, unbiased reporting concerning firearms, period.

Arlen Specter visits York

My first assignment today was to cover Senator Arlen Specter’s visit to York. This was Specter’s first visit since he switched parties in April.

I was interested in hearing what Sen. Specter had to say, his reasoning for making the switch. I was even more interested to hear what he had to say about his recent vote against the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Amendment.

Thankfully, one of the local dems thanked Specter for his “no” vote on the amendment and asked him about how he will vote when Senator Feinstein reintroduces the assault weapons ban.

Specter surprised me by saying that back in 1994 he opposed the assault weapons ban because the studies showed so called assault weapons differed very little from repeating rifles (earned an A from me there) but continued on to say that he’d take  to take another look at it because of the “we’ve had a changing world on police deaths and the use of weapons against the police, and that was a big factor in my thinking on voting against the reciprocity allowing somebody from Wyoming to bring their gun into York.”

I just stood there in disbelief.  Obviously, the great old Senator never did any research about Pennsylvania’s concealed carry reciprocity laws. If he had, he would have known that PA already honors concealed carry permits from Wyoming, along with 23 other states.

So, I expect that now that Specter has bowed to not only Ed Rendell but President Obama and VP Biden, that he will continue to do half-assed research before voting and will become an even greater enemy of the Second Amendment than he was as a “moderate Republican.”

I still can’t fathom how these lawmakers can, in good conscious, flagrantly disregard the Constitution.  “the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed” says nothing about my rights only pertaining while in my home state. As much as I dislike the federal government messing around with state rights, National Reciprocity needs to become federal law.  I believe that the Second Amendment is the only concealed carry permit I need and that my life, and the lives of my family, are worth no less when I travel out of state.

Good news from PA and a grim reminder

I’ll start off with a good piece of news provided by an NRA-ILA Alert I received yesterday. Tom Corbett, our Attorney General, has joined 33 of his peers in signing an amiscus brief supporting the incorporation of the Second Amendment. This is great news and all Pennsylvanian’s that support the 2A should call or write AG Corbett’s office and thank him for his support.  If only his counterpart in Washington D.C. was a good an American.  Check out the full text from the NRA-ILA Alert below.

Yesterday, I spent the better part of my work shift (and a good bit of OT) covering a huge fire that pretty much destroyed an entire city block.  While covering the fire our reporter told me he interviewed a resident who described himself as a “gun enthisiast” and that the gentleman had considerable ammo in his house.  I realized just how much about 30 minutes later when the rounds started cooking off and it sounded like a Fallujah gun battle.

I later interviewed the resident, Harold (61), for my video and realized how much this fellow shooter lost. A life long gun owner Harold shot six days a week, reloaded his own ammo and had amased an extensive collection of firearms. Harold, his wife and his pets all escaped the blaze but his home took the brunt of the fire’s damage. As we talked he told me he had more than 30 guns in the living room alone and a 50 gun Browning safe in the den. He realized as we talked, that he had forgoten about a peticularly “special” firearm that was lost. Judging from the extent of damage that I saw, Harold’s Browning safe is probably in the basement two floors below and even if it held it’s integrety in the fall, it had been cooking in the fire for a much longer time than the 90 minutes or so the safe is rated for.  I am going to head back out to the scene in just a few minutes and I hope to find Harold to see if he’s been able to salvage any of his collection.

I suggest my fellow gun owners do a complete inventory of every weapon, round of ammo, holster, magazine and other accessories (including make, model, serial number and photographs) and store the information off-site, a bank safety deposit box is your best bet. Make sure that your homeowners or renters insurance will cover replacement value of ALL of your firearms and accessories. Many policies will cover basic guns, but high-value items and extras are sometimes not covered. If you have a large collection or firearms of peticuarly high value, invest in an insurance policy with with the NRA or other company that provides coverage for such items.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Signs Amicus Brief Supporting Second Amendment Incorporation
Please Thank Attorney General Tom Corbett!

Two-thirds of the nation’s attorneys general have filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of NRA v. Chicago and hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This bi-partisan group of 33 attorneys general, along with the Attorney General of California in a separate filing, agrees with the NRA’s position that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms, disagreeing with the decision recently issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Attorney General Corbett was one of the many who agrees that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right and signed the amicus brief. Please call Attorney General Corbett at (717) 787-3391 and thank him for standing up in support of the Second Amendment. You may also e-mail him by clicking here.

The State Attorneys General Amicus Brief can be found by clicking here.

Philadelphia gun laws struck down by state appeals court

by The Associated Press

Thursday June 18, 2009, 2:30 PM

PHILADELPHIA — A state appeals court has struck down a series of gun laws passed by the Philadelphia City Council.

In a 6-1 decision, the Commonwealth Court says the city cannot enforce an assault weapons ban and a law that prohibits straw purchases. The court says only the state can pass gun laws.

The National Rifle Association had challenged the measures, which City Council passed in an effort to combat gun violence. Both sides say they expect the case to end up in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The state’s highest court has previously upheld the state’s exclusive right to enact gun laws.

It’s about time our cities and municipalities stop wasting taxpayer money defending stupid, and more importantly, illegal gun laws. Maybe the York City Council will see this and Toni Smith will end her crusade for York’s version of the stolen gun law.

They’re coming to take me away…..haha

The men in the funny white suits (or maybe brown shirts) are coming!

Introduced into the 111th Congress was a bill, H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009. Why don’t they just call it what it really is? The Denying Firearms to Anyone Who Fails to Accept the Liberal Lies Act of 2009.

The opening text of the bill goes something like this:

A BILL

To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009’.

SEC. 2. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS.

(a) Standard for Exercising Attorney General Discretion Regarding Transferring Firearms or Issuing Firearms Permits to Dangerous Terrorists- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) by inserting the following new section after section 922:

‘Sec. 922A. Attorney General’s discretion to deny transfer of a firearm

‘The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.

Last I heard, being a terrorist is already a felony crime, so why the need for this bill? A look to the recent Department of Homeland Security memos about domestic terrorism quantifies anyone that believes the government is plotting to take away our Second Amendment rights is a potential right-wing extremist.

Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a
threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.

If you voice your opinion about any of the following items,  you could be (in the DHS eyes) a terrorist

1. Current Economic and Political Climate

2. Historical Presidential Election

3. Illegal Immigration

or if you are a one of the  Disgruntled Military Veterans you fit the profile of a domestic terrorist.

So, because I believe that President Obama is leading our country to financial disaster with his stimulus bill, because I’ve expressed my concern on the internet that I believe President Obama  may not fit the legal requirements to be President, because I believe that illegal immigrants are criminals and should not get a penny of US taxpayer money and should be shipped back to where-ever they came from, and because I believe that, through bills like this and the Blair Holt Firearms Registration Act, the government is trying to take away my Second Amendment rights……..  You see where I’m going with this?

This bill, if made law, would give the Attorney General the ability to indiscriminately strip US citizens of their Constitutional rights. This bill isn’t about keeping real terrorists from acquiring firearms, that is already covered by the National Firearms Act and countless other state and federal laws. This bill would enable the government to systematically remove guns from the hands of it’s citizens. Not only that, but it provides the government the ability to illegally label anyone, not following along like a faithful puppy, a terrorist.

Can you say Socialism anyone?