Kevin L. Jamison 

16 May, 2007

We have six months before the Clinton campaign begins its sprint to the White House, and less than that before we must promote our own candidate.

I read GUN SHOW NATION Gun Culture and American Democracy by Joan Burbick, The New Press N.Y. 2006. She says that she looked at gun shows to answer questions posed by Michael Moore’s "Bowling for Columbine" first "Why are Americans so obsessed with guns and what can be done about it?" She says that she had some experience target shooting so she thought that she could go unnoticed. This indicated to me that the book was not going to be a friendly treatment; I was right. She makes repeated references to a "fetish" about "single shot revolvers," an apparent misunderstanding about cowboy action shooting. She claims that most conversations at gun shows involve race and gender. Throughout the book she cannot refer simply to gun owners, it is "white" gun owners, frequently "white racist" gun owners. She claims that the gun rights movement was begun to counter the gains of the Civil Rights movement and refers to it as "white nationalism". She quotes virulently anti-gun figures, without disclosing their prejudices, but anyone attempting to defend gun rights is labeled a white NRA shill. She claims that self-defense is a code for anti-black and complains that there is never a mention of women being attacked by stalkers or abusive boyfriends or husbands. She misrepresents the history of the Second Amendment, the militia tradition, and gun ownership. Listing her errors would take more space than is available. It is clear that at best she heard and saw only what she wanted to hear and see. The problem is that this thing is in libraries; some high school kid doing a report will come across it and believe that since it is in a book, it must be true.

In a 6-4 decision the full Appellate Court for the District of Columbia decided to let stand the Parker decision that the Second Amendment is an individual right. This is huge. While there may be several reasons why a court will not grant a re-hearing before the full court, the major one is that the panel got it right the first time.

The case is likely to go to the Supreme Court, but not certainly. There is a bill in Congress to abolish the D.C. gun ban; if it passes the case may be considered moot. While Republicans introduced the bill, the current Democratic majority does not want to risk a decision upholding the ban in the 2008 election year. A decision in favor of the District’s ban would energize the gun rights community which would tend to hurt the Democratic Party. Making the issue moot would go against their grain, but would be the safe choice.

Since the Parker decision there has been much complaint that it goes against seventy years of decisions based on U.S. v Miller, 307 U.S. 175 (1939). In reality, the Court in Miller only ruled that it could not take judicial notice that a sawed-off shotgun is a militia weapon. This decision must be confined to its facts because at the time of the Supreme Court argument Jack Miller was dead and his co-defendant Frank Layton was in prison. Their unpaid lawyer sent a telegram to the Court saying that he had not been retained for the appeal and "relied on the prosecution brief".

In Parker the Supreme Court might look at a history of the U.S. Army issuing shot cartridges for muskets and smooth bore pistols. It might look at the use of shotguns, even sawed-off shotguns, used especially by militia units in all of our wars. It might consider the military’s adoption of the XM26 shotgun which is designed to attached to M-16 rifles. Photos of the gun indicate that it has a barrel of twelve (12) inches. It might consult an Army memo regarding the legality of the use of shotguns in warfare which defines the M-79 and M-203 grenade launchers as shotguns on the evidence that buckshot rounds are issued for these weapons. The M-79 has a 14-inch barrel and the M-203 a 12-inch barrel. The Court might consider all of this evidence, but it will not.

There are other Second Amendment cases working through the federal system and I doubt the Court wishes to encourage them. In U.S. v Hollis Wayne Fincher 5:06-cr-50064-JLH-1 the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas found the Commander of the Militia of Washington County, Arkansas guilty of a number of weapons offenses, mostly home-made machine guns and one sawed-off shotgun. There was also a 25 mm artillery piece, probably because they had some one-inch pipe lying around. He was denied the right to argue the Second Amendment to the jury, and the game begins. This militia claimed that where the national "so-called" gun rights groups had failed, their militia had restored the gun rights of Washington County Arkansas. The fact that their commander is in prison indicates that they have not been as successful as they thought.

If congress decides to make the Parker case moot by repealing the DC gun ban, it will want to pair it with an anti-gun measure to provide political cover and solace for the members voting for the repeal. The natural partner is the new "assault weapons" ban. This bill bans many more guns than the old ban did, and specifically states that a gun does not have a "sporting use" even if there is a sport involving the gun. Despite recent victories in court and the legislature, we have a great deal of work ahead of us.

The Missouri legislature has given us 90% of the Castle Doctrine and abolished the PTA. The governor is pledged to sign it. I must admit to mixed feelings. Getting 90% of anything in the timid Missouri Senate is quite an accomplishment. Further, we did not have to give up anything in order to make these gains. We did not get the "stand your ground" language, which allowed a person to act in self-defense without first observing the medieval retreat requirement. The usual suspects claimed that this would lead to blood in the streets. The usual suspects cannot point to a single case of this happening in any of the states adopting "stand your ground", but the usual suspects have never been confused with facts.

On the negative side, I have been preparing to take a Permit To Acquire case to the Court of Appeals. The transcript is posted on www.WMSA.net. The judge allowed the Jackson County sheriff to ask illegal questions for permits only by adding language to the statute, which a judge is not allowed to do. I could win this one, and we would have an excellent example of judicial activism for future reference. Now it appears there will be no case for me to win; and I like to win. I shall have to revise my lesson plan, and update my web site www.KLJamisonLaw.com. I do not mind the extra work, but losing the chance to win hurts.

The NRA Convention at St. Louis was successful beyond the wildest dreams of the NRA. People kept coming. Gas approached $3 a gallon, and they came; it was a cold April weekend, and they came; rain fell and still they came. The convention broke all records for attendance, sales of merchandise and memberships. While at the MSSA table I heard a bell constantly ringing, I was told that every time a life membership was sold, the bell rang, and it rang, and rang, and rang. The experience has vaulted St. Louis into consideration for the 2011 convention.

For the first time, there were no protestors at the convention. There were college students representing the American Hunters and Shooters Association. These persons were not hunters, they had been hired to distribute propaganda literature. The American Hunters and Shooters Association is more dangerous than the run of the mill demonstrators. It is what is called a "false flag" operation in the special operations community. A false flag operation pretends to represent our community, sends out propaganda designed to confuse the community and create dissention.

I saw on the news that a thug attacked a 91-year-old veteran, beating him senseless and senselessly in order to steal his car. Bystanders did nothing. Experts explain their fear that the bad guy might have a gun etc. This is why we fought for LTC, so that thugs do not abuse elderly veterans.

I have heard a story about an elderly man who had been a champion boxer in his youth. He was attacked by two thugs, and dispatched both of them. He was reported to have explained that the thugs knew nothing about boxing. At the NRA convention I was told of a lady in the Headquarters who had "decked" two men. I immediately asked how much alcohol was required to get the story. The lady had been in Spain and a drunken French boy tried to pull her into an alley. Since he liked the alley so much she left him stretched out in it. Another person insulted her father, and she decked him as well. These were two separate incidents and I advised her that they needed work. The French boy needed to be German, perhaps Russian, and they had to be at the same time. I was also told of Colonel Applegate’s time as an NRA director. The founder of modern close quarter combat was in the habit of wearing a gold chain as a reward for anyone who could take it from him. The elderly Colonel was reportedly walking away from an evening meeting years ago when two thugs "tried him". The Colonel swung his cane faster than the eye could follow, breaking one fellows wrist and ending in the crotch of the other; keeping him out of the gene pool to the betterment of the species. He then walked away, the matter being closed. These stories may be just that, but if they are not true, they should be.

I am informed that in recent years Los Angeles has been frustrated by Mexican citizens committing crimes in that city and then fleeing to Mexico. Mexico will not extradite its citizens. The city has responded by asking Mexico to prosecute those cases. Mexican law allows Mexico to prosecute its citizens for crimes committed outside of Mexico. Certain formalities must be observed, but the process has been successful. Evidence is supplied by affidavit, not one witness, not even a detective has been required to give evidence in person. All defendants have been convicted. There is no death penalty, but sentences are longer than in the US, the procedure and prison costs are cheaper. In this age of outsourcing this appears to provide an opportunity for the justice system. Some will demand that Mexico prosecute persons who violate our immigration laws. It will not. Mexico relies on the money sent back by persons working in "Los Estados de Gringo".

In his book ONE RANGER Juaquime Jackson recounts the guns that he carried in the trunk of his patrol car. He carried a 1911A1, a backup, and a backup for the backup. He favored a 1894 Winchester in 30-30. In the trunk was a fully automatic rifle, a Glock in .357 Sig, a .44 magnum, a shotgun, tear gas grenades for the recalcitrant, ammunition, ammunition, ammunition, rations and equipment to stay in the field until the job was done, and more ammunition. He was detailed to a polling place one season where a riot was expected. He did his "one riot one Ranger" bit and kept the peace. He later asked the leader of the mob what his strategy was for the riot; the man replied "Keep you away from the trunk of your car." There is a company that builds gun vaults designed to fit in cars and trucks. I cannot vouch for them but the principle is good.

Following the Virginia Tech killing I notice that people refer to "33" deaths at the school, and "15" deaths at Columbine High School. Of course, this is only if you count the murdering bastards; I do not. When a farmer counts the damage done to his livestock, he does not include the rabid dog that slaughtered the herd. To include the murdering bastards in memorials to their victims is obscene. When the victims lay dying I cannot imagine them thinking of their killer in terms of fellowship. It is always possible that I have missed something, but I am certain that those who include murderers in the total of victims have a flaw in their reasoning process.

One letter writer claims that if victims of a massacre had guns, the casualty count would have been twice as high. Another demands to know if self-defense advocates had ever heard of a crossfire. This might be a valid thought if the victims drew guns and shot the person next to them, but those demanding submission cannot point to a single instance where this has been the case. In Washington State an active killer was confronted by an armed citizen who declined to take a shot because of innocent parties in the way. He tried to talk the killer out of murder and was badly wounded for his pains. In every instance where an active killer was confronted with force he either surrendered or committed suicide. While it is entirely possible that innocent parties might be hit by stray bullets such an incident does not come to mind.

We shall overcome.