GOA has sent out an urgent request to call senators, saying this.

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be voting on Chuck Canterbury, who is the President’ pick to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

Canterbury headed the Fraternal Order of Police and articulated several anti-gun positions during his tenure there.

Go here to add your name to the pre-written letter (above) which urges Republican Senators to vote against Canterbury as the new ATF head.

This pick to lead the ATF represents another troubling nominee, who has been selected to fill an important position in the administration.

Earlier this year, we warned Republicans Senators that Attorney General nominee William Barr had a long history of supporting gun control, including semi-auto bans.

Apparently, the GOP senators, at least some of them, can do something right for a change.

Chuck Canterbury, President Trump’s nominee to serve as head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, is likely to see his nomination withdrawn due to stringent opposition from Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Washington Free Beacon learned on Thursday.

“Chuck Canterbury does NOT have sufficient support in the Judiciary Committee and is now expected to be held up instead of getting a vote today,” a GOP Senate aide told the Free Beacon on Thursday morning. “Republican members are (1) Concerned about his stances on gun control, and (2) there is still some bad blood for him flipping the Fraternal Order of Police in support of the First Step Act (after opposing the more moderate version), allegedly in exchange for the ATF Director nomination.”

“His 2A views are bad and he’d lose a lot of votes in committee,” a second Senate source told the Free Beacon. “We expect the White House will pull him given lack of support from Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.”

At least one Republican senator, Utah’s Mike Lee, seemed to agree with this assessment when reached for comment.

“Sen. Lee has concerns about Canterbury’s Second Amendment views and is pleased the markup has been delayed,” Lee’s office told the Free Beacon.

We’ll see what Trump does with this.  I hope this is the end for Canterbury.

Prior:

FOP President Chuck Canterbury Picked To Head The ATF

Further Fisking Of Chuck Canterbury’s Second Amendment Credentials

What was that you said, controller?  I didn’t hear you.  Speak more plainly.

Breitbart.

“Over time, I realized having a gun made me feel smaller, not bigger,” he said during a conversation about guns with a BuzzFeed reporter as part of his bus tour in Iowa.

The mayor was asked about his feelings on guns as a veteran who served in Afghanistan in the Navy Reserves but apparently did not engage in combat.

Okay.  So we have to talk about feelings, do we?

Then here’s mine.  I have the same attitude for him as I do for all of the other progressives who participated in OIF or OEF.  They all wanted to lawyer the campaigns to death while playing social justice warrior with a gun.  I detest them all, and there are many lives broken and lost and many limbs lost, many eyes lost, many brains that can’t function right from TBI.  They should feel responsible for each and every one of them.

I have wept over veterans who have no legs because of that damned war.  The social warriors should feel as responsible as should Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz.  They are detestable, every one.  I loath them all.

And I notice that Mayor Pete apparently didn’t feel so ashamed that he refuses to allow that ridiculous picture of him to be displayed holding an M4 as if he’s something special.  Hey, Pete.  Go get a combat action ribbon like my son did and then maybe I’ll debate you.  Until then, I’ll just keep believing that you are the product of a set of hippie, Marxist parents who wanted some military creds for your future in politics so you could use that to get elected and tear down America like you tore down your own sense of morality and decency.

I think you’re a sniveling, snarky smartass – a poor excuse for a man.

Via David Codrea, this wicked man has ruined many lives.

Via David Codrea, this disturbing report.

Prosecutors said Weed was attending the fair Friday with his family when he was “harassed and followed by a group of teens.” The prosecutor said the teens were angry Weed would not give them a dollar bill, and that’s when they allegedly hit him in the head.

“There was some sort of dialogue that ensued after that that made it a negative situation. There was a punch that was delivered to the back of the head by the 16-year-old, at that point in time there was a number of minutes that elapsed after that at which point in time, you all saw the video, the younger 15-year-old came flying through, lands a deadly blow to the victim,” said Frederick County State’s Attorney Charlie Smith.

David is kind, saying “his own actions show he can’t be trusted outside of a cage and needs to stay in one until he can be.”

I’m not such a nice guy as David.  Put him to death.  He’s guilty of premeditated murder.  That’s the Scriptural prescription, and besides, I don’t believe in the rehabilitative power of prisons, a fact my readers know full well.  That prison is rehabilitative is a notion of modernism.

The Scriptural prescription for murder, kidnapping and rape is death.  The Scriptural prescription for theft is slavery to the offended person until the debt is paid.  There is no such thing as a biblical idea of a debt to society.

As background for his paper, this makes good listening.

It couldn’t ever have been any other way, really.  As I’ve pointed out before so many times, guns were ubiquitous in colonial America, a tool, a means to survive, a means of defense of home and hearth.  The right was seen as God-given, because it is so.

In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statues comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.

When the British government began to increase its military presence in the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, Massachusetts responded by calling upon its citizens to arm themselves in defense. One colonial newspaper argued that it was impossible to complain that this act was illegal since they were “British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights” while another argued that this “is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense”. The newspaper cited Blackstone’s commentaries on the laws of England, which had listed the “having and using arms for self preservation and defense” among the “absolute rights of individuals.” The colonists felt they had an absolute right at common law to own firearms.

Their laws about children and guns were strict: every family was required to own a gun, to carry it in public places (especially when going to church) and to train children in firearms proficiency. On the first Thanksgiving Day, in 1621, the colonists and the Indians joined together for target practice; the colonist Edward Winslow wrote back to England that “amongst other recreations we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us.”

In fact, when congregants showed up to worship without weaponry, it was most often the pastor who collected the tax for going unarmed.  The notion that the founders would have made sure to prohibit the FedGov from interfering with state militias and fail to incorporate that into protection of individuals is preposterous on its face.

In order to understand the second amendment, you must first understand the milieu in which it was written. An understanding of unvarnished and unbiased history is what most “scholars” today lack.

Field & Stream.

It’s called hunting, and it’s fun. Of course, you ultimately need to put a bullet through a squirrel’s quarter-size brain, and your gun is the tool for tying the process together. But if you’re going squirrel hunting mainly to show off your custom rimfire, the redneck who’s using iron sights and knows how to identify and creep up on the sound of pignut husks peppering the ground can probably teach you a thing or two.

That squirrel hunting has become overlooked is a hell of a statement about modern hunting culture. “You hunt squirrels?” people say to me. “That’s cool. My grandpa used to hunt those.” Instead of woodsmanship, today’s hunters seem to value and obsess over gear, especially guns and cartridges and optics. We pore over information about bullets and twist rates and custom turrets so that we’re ready for that 400-plus-yard shot we’re sure we’re going to get—but we forget to pick our feet up and whisper on the way there. We buy choke tubes and reflex sights and pattern shotguns with $10 shells so we can kill a turkey from 70 yards—but in the process, we fail to learn what a drumming turkey sounds like because we have never listened to one that’s been completely fooled at 15 steps.

When you see a bunch of outdoorsmen gathered around a phone these days to look at pictures of a buck or bull, the question you’re almost bound to hear is: How far was the shot? If it was a close shot, the ­hunter’s reply is usually sheepish: “Oh, he walked by at 40 steps. Kind of hard to miss that.”

Funny.  My youngest son was saying that same thing to me just this morning.  Oh, he knows a thing or two about long range precision shooting.  He was a DM and he went through Scout Sniper training.

But he would still rather shoot at 20-40 yards than 250 or further.  Because that’s hunting.

News from California.

Authorities are investigating how an off-duty Alhambra police officer ended up with a self-inflicted gunshot wound after an encounter on the road with an off-duty Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy.

The San Marino Police Department initially said the driver of a blue Subaru had shot himself after a road rage incident about 8:40 a.m. Sunday near Duarte Road and San Gabriel Boulevard. But on Monday morning, the Police Department said that wasn’t the case.

“At this point in the preliminary investigation, this does not appear to be a road rage incident and neither party knew each other or was aware they were members of a law enforcement agency,” police said in an updated news release.

According to San Marino police, a second driver, identified as an off-duty sheriff’s deputy, told investigators he thought the man in the Subaru was driving erratically.

He wanted to stop the man and ask him not to speed in the neighborhood, he said.

Police said the deputy, who was in a Mercedes-Benz, pulled alongside the other man while they were driving and tried to speak to the Subaru driver, motioning for the man to lower his window.

The Alhambra officer slowed and moved to the right to allow the Mercedes to pass.

The officer later told investigators that the deputy was speeding and that he believed the man in the Mercedes was driving in an aggressive manner.

“Fearing for his safety, the Alhambra officer drew his firearm while inside his vehicle,” San Marino police said.

San Marino Police Chief John Incontro said the officer accidentally shot himself in the process of pulling out his weapon.

Alhambra police said the officer was hospitalized.

“He’s OK,” Alhambra Police Sgt. Rodney Castillo said Monday morning.

Whew!  I was worried.  It’s awesome he’s okay.  I remember the last time I yanked my gun out during road rage because I was “fearing for my safety.”  An internal affairs investigation completely exonerated me.

Heroes of the community, both of them.

Fox News.

A Canadian man fighting for his life begged his assailant to let him go, but his pleas went unheeded — which is probably because black bears don’t understand English.

Brandon Lattie, 27, was on a walking trail in British Columbia at the Ferguson Lake Nature Reserve on Wednesday night when he says he spotted the bear, which began to chase him.

Lattie told CBC News he ran and jumped into a small lake, not expecting the bear to follow him.

“It happened so fast I couldn’t even think, so that seemed like the right thing to do,” he said.

Brandon Lattie says he was attacked by a black bear at Ferguson Lake Nature Reserve in British Columbia, Canada.

Brandon Lattie says he was attacked by a black bear at Ferguson Lake Nature Reserve in British Columbia, Canada. (Brandon Lattie)

But the swampy water slowed him and the bear swiped at Lattie, leaving him with scratch marks on his back and arm. The 27-year-old said the dogged bear even tried to hold him underwater.

“I think it was trying to hold me underwater. I was already physically tired and kind of out of breath from when I ran away and then the next thing I know I’m…going to try to get drowned by a frickin’ bear,” he told the news outlet.

Lattie said he noticed “there was at least a foot or two of water above me” and pushed himself “back up to fight back.”

It was then, Lattie said, he resorted to begging.

“You don’t have to do this,” he said he told the bear. “You don’t want to do it.”

A family said they were nearby and saw Lattie running away from the bear in the lake. Lucky for Lattie, the family’s dog began to bark, distracting the bear and giving the 27-year-old a chance to break free and swim to a dock.

“It could have been a whole lot worse,” Lattie said. “As soon as I got hit, I just thought, ‘OK, this is where I die. This is where my head gets chewed apart.'”

I don’t think bears have feelings of sympathy or a conscience.  I think a large bore handgun would have been a better choice.

News from the Northwest.

MTN News reports that the morning attack involved two bowhunters who, after getting medical care, “came into Shedhorn Sports in Ennis dressed in hospital gowns looking for new clothing. Shedhorn staff told MTN the men said they were able to deploy bear spray which ultimately drove the bear off.”

I don’t consider this successful use of bear spray.  If it had been successful, the men wouldn’t have been in hospital gowns.  I think a large bore handgun would have been a better choice.