20 April 2007

K.L. Jamison

We have seven months before Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president is a daily event.

For the last two years, I have warned of the Clinton presidential bid. I should also have warned that we have only seven months to prepare to support our own candidate. At present we do not know who that might be. Worse, we have only seven months to raise money, gather lists of names, organize, and win.

On the Republican slate, the Gun Owners Action League, based in Massachusetts, has issued a summary of Governor Romney’s record on firearms. It appears that we could do much worse than Governor Romney. He has supported laws that favor our side, but has made some stray remarks which did not go over well. He may have done as much as he could given the state he governs. Fred Thompson, on the other hand is blunt about his support of the Second Amendment and that he favors people owning handguns.

On 12 February 1944 General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force, was directed to "enter the Continent of Europe and, in conjunction with other United Nations, undertake operations aimed at the heart of Germany and the destruction of her armed forces."  Recently, Congress has passed a resolution to the effect that if the General cannot win the war in Iraq by next year to forget about it and leave the country to the enemy. The difference between the two sets of directions is striking.

A set of retired generals is touring the country to say that we must abandon the war in Iraq on the grounds that it is using up assets (men and material) and exhausting the Army. Welcome to warfare general. I read about a Russian general who lived a century and a half ago. He opposed war because cannonballs bouncing through the ranks disrupted the symmetry of the regiment. If one needs a reason to be against war, this is as good as any. The reality is that when war is necessary, destruction follows. If it were possible to save the Army for a campaign on more favorable ground the generals might have a point, but it would not be the only one to consider. Withdrawal from Iraq leaves the enemy in possession of a fortune in oil revenue, enough to finance a dozen terrorist wars like Iraq without being missed from the general revenue. Withdrawal from Iraq tells the enemy that they need only inflict casualties, and we will retreat. This will make a campaign on more favorable ground, if there is any, bloodier, more difficult, and more exhausting to the Army.

Adam Petrie applied for a Permit To Acquire in Jackson County. The Jackson County Sheriff asks several illegal questions and demands a psychiatric records release which is as broad as all outdoors. Adam refused to answer the illegal questions or sign the release. Under Missouri law a psychiatric history is not grounds for denial, only a court finding of incompetence. Findings of incompetence are a matter of judicial record and do not require a release. It gets better. At trial, the deputy who refuses PTA’s admitted that Adam is fully qualified to purchase a handgun, that the questions he refused did not matter, the information they demand automatically comes up on her computer. The psychiatric release does not matter either, she is tied in to the Department of Mental Health and any mental findings would pop up. She has never used the mental health release in any way. So, the questions are not only illegal, they are useless. They are only important if someone refuses to answer them. The court ruled against us from the bench and asked the Sheriff’s lawyer to write an order denying our petition. I demanded a reconsideration, which the judge denied because he had not ruled. Five weeks later the judge finally ruled against us. I shall have to file yet another motion to reconsider, even though I know how that will come out. We are headed for the court of appeals.

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch, the legislature is pushing through a bill to abolish the PTA system. The bill was passed in the House with no organized opposition. In the senate hearing the only opposition was an administrator from the St. Louis Police who claimed that they were doing a public service by vetting the buyer and ensuring the gun is not stolen. These people also refuse to issue a PTA if the buyer says it is for self-defense, claiming (falsely) that it is not an "authorized" reason.

A new "Assault Weapons" bill has been introduced in Congress. It is much worse than the expired law. The new bill bans M-1 Carbines, Ruger rifles and other firearms not banned by the old law. The new bill allows modifications of the banned guns to be banned. There is some doubt that Speaker Pelosi will allow the bill to come to a vote, out of fear that it will mobilize gun owners for the 2008 elections. However, these people cannot help themselves. If they have a chance to hurt us, they will grab it. If they cannot pass it now, we can expect a serious attempt after the 2008 elections.

Twenty years ago a client received a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) on a felony charge of receiving stolen property. At the time he was told by his attorney, his probation officer, and his judge that the SIS meant that it was as if the crime never happened. For my entire career it was the "Go and sin no more" result for persons who were thought to have made a mistake and were deserving of forgiveness. This is no longer the case. He applied for a PTA and was denied on the grounds of the old case. We took it to the Court of Appeals, and I lost. We are increasingly an unforgiving society; no mistake is ever forgiven or forgotten.

Regrettably MSSA Director David Jones was not re-elected to the NRA Board. However, he lost to New Jersey activist Bob Viden. I spoke to Evan Nappen a New Jersey firearms law attorney and he has great confidence in Mr. Viden. I spoke to David Jones; he also knows Mr. Viden and has great confidence in him. Mr. Jones has given a great deal to the NRA and the Missouri firearms community and deserves some time with the grandchildren.

WMSA Board Member Gary Davis spoke at a seminar at the NRA convention. The topic was the experience of election volunteer coordinators. The attendees got the benefit of Gary’s blunt straightforward advice.

I taught a block of instruction at the National Firearms Law Seminar. It was a great experience and seems to have gone over well.

At the NRA Convention, a variety of news clips are shown to the members. One showed the congressional representative for Washington DC at a District meeting. In the video she viciously attacked attempts to repeal the DC gun ban. At one point she incredulously announced that some people actually wanted to repeal the ban, the room exploded in cheers; the look on her face was worth cash money and a 401k plan. She tried to recover announcing that she had been in congress for 15 years and the people in the room "looked strange" to her. There was jeering and she told her constituents to "pipe down". That is her attitude, be a good little subject. As the descendent of a man who fought at Concord Bridge that day in April, 1775 I say hell no.

In the Parker case a panel from the DC Court of Appeals overturned the District’s ban on firearms. In a lengthy, well-reasoned decision the panel found that the Second Amendment is an individual right. The dissenting judge said that it did not apply to the District on the grounds that the Second Amendment refers to a "free state" and the District is not a state. I can only assume that the dissenting judge wanted to contrast his opinion with that of the majority and so adopted the most absurd theory advanced by the District. The case has been sent to the full court for reconsideration. Regardless of the result before the full court it will probably go to the Supreme Court. The result of such a case seems obvious to us, however, the campaign finance case seemed unconstitutional to everyone except the Supremes, and the eminent domain case appeared to be an unconstitutional taking of property to everyone except the Supremes. There are some who fear that the current Court will not be hospitable to a Second Amendment case. This may be true, but the case is on its way and has generated a great decision for our side. There is a concern that the effort to legislatively abolish the DC gun ban will remove the matter in issue and bring the case to an end. Some would take this course leaving the issue on a winning note. The opposing view points out that there are other cases with Second Amendment claims, but they are brought by people who are contesting criminal convictions. The Parker case is brought by upstanding citizens who are demanding a civil right. The DC gun ban is the most severe in the country; it is the most offensive and the plaintiffs the cleanest. First Amendment cases have been won by pornographers and annoying religious groups, Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases have been won by drug dealers trying to suppress evidence. Mobsters keeping silent have won Fifth Amendment cases. This may mean that a criminal could win a Second Amendment case, but I doubt it. In the Civil Rights period, the NAACP carefully selected their plaintiffs and issues. We will not have better than the Parker case. The gun haters are concerned that if the full Court of Appeals rules against Parker, it will do so in the midst of the 2008 elections. This will bring the shooting community out to campaign; the opposition hates that possibility.

Governor Blunt signed the "Katrina Bill" at the NRA convention. This is the first time that a bill has ever been signed at the convention. The bill prohibits local law enforcement from confiscating legally owned firearms during a disaster. Federal law already prohibits federal agencies from participating in such confiscations. The need for such a law is underlined by the continued refusal of New Orleans to give back guns that were stolen by the government during the Katrina disaster.

A caller asked me if the Virginia Tech massacre would be used against us. I'm afraid that I was a little short with him. Of course it will be used against us. The usual suspects are dancing in the blood of the victims, claiming that the only way to stop bad people is to punish good people. It is bandied about that the killer has achieved a "record"; he is not even close. In 1858 an arson attack in St. Louis killed 60 people. In 1927 an Iowa farmer blew up a school killing 45 children. In 1958 an arson attack on a Detroit school killed 92 children and three nuns. In 1990 an angry ex-boyfriend with a half-gallon of gas killed 87in New York’s Happy Land Club. A few years later an arson attack on a Puerto Rican hotel killed 97. Still people have deluded themselves that taking guns away from good people will abolish mass murder. If they wish to delude themselves that is their business. If they wish to take my rights and my property, that is my business.

As long as there are lunatics and helpless victim zones there will continue to be massacres. We know what works, the only thing that has ever worked, is for someone in the school to have a gun and know how to use it. Programs encouraging kids to turn in violent students are fine although this will take in much of the student body in some quarters. Metal detectors are useful in slowing people down. However as we saw in the school shooting in Minnesota, they only mean that the unarmed guard at the metal detector is the first one killed. Even lunatics do not go after hard targets. The racist who shot up a Jewish facility in California considered a different target, but passed on it due to security. This is not a unique incident. These creatures want to commit suicide, but they do not attack police stations. They want to go out in a blaze of glory, they want attention, they do not want to die alone. I asked a psychologist why some people with AIDS deliberately infect others with the disease. It seems that the old saw "Misery loves company" has some truth. Lunatics do not want to die alone and the government has thoughtfully provided the chance to take our children with them.

Evan Nappen is suing the Newark airport for harassing gun owners with frivolous criminal charges. This is encouraging.

We shall overcome.