Articles by Herschel Smith

Via David Codrea, N.C. Sheriffs on purchasing weapons:

The North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association (NCSA) is pressuring both House Speaker Thom Tillis (R, Mecklenburg, GRNC ****)  and NC Governor Pat McCrory (R, GRNC-***) to oppose GRNC’s repeal of the antiquated pistol purchase permit system that has been in place since 1919. As part of omnibus gun bill HB 937, which contains restaurant and limited campus carry, the purchase permit law would be repealed IF the House votes to concur with Senate improvements to the bill and IF Gov. McCrory doesn’t veto it.

The purchase permit law slated for elimination through HB 937 was designed to grant discriminatory power to NC Sheriffs and enable them to subjectively deny handguns whoever they consider “undesirable.” To this day, several counties abuse the permit system in ways that make it difficult for law-abiding citizens to rightfully obtain handguns.

Ironically, as documented by The Charlotte Observer, the law sheriffs defend is  letting untold numbers of felons bypass background checks to buy guns. Why? Because the untrackable slips of paper issued by sheriffs after background checks can’t be repealed and are good for 5 years. Eliminating the system would mean that checks using the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) would be done at the point of sale.

I don’t want to turn this conversation into one on open carry of firearms, but it’s relevant.  I’ve discussed before that I openly carry a weapon from time to time, mostly when I am trying to avoid sweating my weapon and don’t want to carry IWB.  The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police respect that choice, and smile and wave when they see me.

But it isn’t like that everywhere.  Even the CMPD has to be reminded of our rights.

Sean Sorrentino notes an instance where the 4th Circuit had to reprimand the Charlotte Police for using openly carrying a weapon as a reason to stop an individual, even someone who later turned out to have been guilty of a crime.  Even worse, I know individuals who live around the Lake Norman / Huntersville area (North of Charlotte) who openly carry, and one particular individual has been stopped by both local and state police.  Both times the law enforcement officer unholstered his weapon and pointed at my friend for doing nothing more than walking on the sidewalk.

Note to law enforcement in North Carolina.  The answer above by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police (“not breaking any laws …”) is the right one.  You cannot lawfully detain or arrest someone for openly carrying a weapon.  It is legal in North Carolina, as North Carolina is a traditional open carry state.  LEOs need to know and understand the law.  If you continue to unholster and point your weapons at someone who is behaving legally, an innocent person will eventually be harmed or killed and you will be responsible for it.  Don’t be ignorant.  Be thinking men and women.

Isn’t it ironic that the only ones who want final say over who can carry a weapon are some of the very ones who will unholster their weapons and point them at law abiding citizens?  I would be arrested and charged with brandishing a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon (assault can mean perceived intent), and a host of other things if I did that.  But then again, I don’t get to argue in front of the court that I wanted to make sure that I “went home at the end of the day.”  Only LEOs get to do that.

Local LEO approval of firearms purchases is a throwback to Jim Crow laws, plain and simple.  Their approval does nothing that form 4473 doesn’t accomplish.  And LEOs who point their weapons at law abiding open carriers should be prosecuted for crimes in court.

USA Today (via WRSA):

When a National Security Agency contractor revealed top-secret details this month on the government’s collection of Americans’ phone and Internet records, one select group of intelligence veterans breathed a sigh of relief.

Thomas Drake, William Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe belong to a select fraternity: the NSA officials who paved the way.

For years, the three whistle-blowers had told anyone who would listen that the NSA collects huge swaths of communications data from U.S. citizens. They had spent decades in the top ranks of the agency, designing and managing the very data-collection systems they say have been turned against Americans. When they became convinced that fundamental constitutional rights were being violated, they complained first to their superiors, then to federal investigators, congressional oversight committees and, finally, to the news media.

To the intelligence community, the trio are villains who compromised what the government classifies as some of its most secret, crucial and successful initiatives. They have been investigated as criminals and forced to give up careers, reputations and friendships built over a lifetime.

Today, they feel vindicated.

They say the documents leaked by Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old former NSA contractor who worked as a systems administrator, proves their claims of sweeping government surveillance of millions of Americans not suspected of any wrongdoing. They say those revelations only hint at the programs’ reach.

Some are saying that Edward Snowden is a hero.  That word is bantered about too casually for me these days, and frankly, I would never have worked for the IRS, NSA or any division of the DHS (including the ATF).  I’m not being a snob, I’m just pointing out moral choices and the fact that I would never have even been in the position of relinquishing this information to the public.

Furthermore, I’m not sure what he’s telling the government of China right now, but if they asked me I would tell them where they can stick their questions.  You see, I don’t cotton to communists.  Totalitarianism in any form or manifestation is wicked.

No ruler becomes a totalitarian by mistake, looking to do the right and good thing and just overreaching because he let himself go too far.  No.  Totalitarians are what they are by choice.  They are evil men with evil designs, and their plans are wickedness and abomination in all cases and all of the time.  God hates them – every one of them, whether they are Chinese or American.

On the other hand, there are those who say that Snowden is a traitor and villain.  Of course, this is silly talk by totalitarians.  Those who say this don’t really believe it, they just feel threatened that Snowden said the things he did.

Listen carefully.  Edward Snowden didn’t divulge any secrets.  We have all known for a very long time that the government was dumping every one and zero that went across the lines to a government data base.  Snowden simply brought it to the attention of a nation because he found a main stream media outlet that was willing to publish it.

If someone argues that Snowden is a traitor because he divulged secrets being used to protect American citizens, you can tell them that the American government doesn’t now and has not been protecting American citizens.  Anyone who argues that Snowden revealed American “secrets” and should be prosecuted for treason is either a moron or takes you to be a moron.  Snowden simply used his voice to inform the stupid American people that they had better wake up and look the Leviathan in the face.

I’m doubtful that the American people will have the attention span to do anything about it.  As long as idiot workers have their stupid sitcoms to watch at night, and as long as little girls can text naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriends, American will stay fixated on bread and circuses.

Ms. Magazine:

My hands are shaking; my adrenaline is surging.

No, it’s not from the latte I just inhaled or because this is the first time in two years I’ve been in a Starbucks since declaring a boycott on its open-carry gun policy.

What’s got me jittery this morning is the 9mm Glock that’s holstered on my hip. Me, lead gun policy protester at the 2010 Starbuck’s shareholder meeting. Me, a board member of the Brady Campaign. Me, the author of a book about the impact of gun violence, Beyond the Bullet.

Yes, I bought a handgun and will carry it everywhere I go over the next 30 days. I have four rules: Carry it with me at all times, follow the laws of my state, only do what is minimally required for permits, licensing, purchasing and carrying, and finally be prepared to use it for protecting myself at home or in public.

[ … ]

It was obvious from the way I handled the gun that I knew nothing about firearms. Tony sold it to me anyway. The whole thing took 7 minutes. As a gratified consumer, I thought, “Well, that was easy.” Then the terrifying reality hit me, “Holy hell, that was EASY.”  Too easy. I still knew nothing about firearms.

Tony told me a Glock doesn’t have an external safety feature, so when I got home and opened the box and saw the magazine in the gun I freaked. I was too scared to try and eject it as thoughts flooded my mind of me accidentally shooting the gun and a bullet hitting my son in the house or rupturing the gas tank of my car, followed by an earth-shaking explosion. This was the first time my hands shook from the adrenaline surge and the first time I questioned the wisdom of this 30-day experiment.

I needed help. I drove to where a police officer had pulled over another driver. Now, writing this, I realize that rolling up on an on-duty cop with a handgun in tow might not have been fully thought through.

I told him I just bought a gun, had no clue how to use it. I asked him to make sure there were no bullets in the magazine or chamber. He took the magazine out and cleared the chamber. He assured me it was empty and showed me how to look. Then he told me how great the gun was and how he had one just like it.

The cop thought I was an idiot and suggested I take a class. But up to that point I’d done nothing wrong, nothing illegal.

On the contrary.  She’s done everything wrong, from refusing to get adequate training on her firearm and the laws of her state, to asking a cop about anything.

The drama is exhausting and breathtaking.  But the thing that really worries me isn’t that she has a gun.  It’s that bimbos like this can purchase an SUV the size and weight of my Ford F150 and drive it down the road with screaming kids in the back whilst jabbering on the cell phone attached to her ear, after qualifying with a driving test that a monkey could be trained to take.

Makes you stop and ponder, no?  It’s one reason I drive so defensively on the road nowadays.

David Codrea:

An elementary school toy gun “buyback” conducted Saturday in Hayward, Calif. offered children a chance to win bicycles in exchange for violating a school policy that does not authorize exceptions.

“Playing with toys guns, saying ‘I’m going to shoot you,’ desensitizes them, so as they get older, it’s easier for them to use a real gun,” Strobridge Elementary Principal Charles Hill maintained in a Mercury Daily News report, with absolutely nothing to substantiate his ignorant, offensive and absurd claim.

“If we want older kids to not think guns are cool, we need to start early,” Hill proclaimed, revealing his interest is manipulating the way children entrusted to his care perceive and react to issues, that is, by adopting the beliefs that agree with his. In other contexts, this would rightfully be perceived as educational malpractice and psychological child abuse.

I am proud to report that my two year old grandson already knows that papa has guns, and he wants to look at them.  We are already teaching him that guns are cool.  As soon as he is able to handle it, he will be the proud recipient of a .22 rifle and he will learn all about the rules for gun safety.

Because guns are cool.

Read the rest at Examiner.

In July 2012 the Small Wars Journal published Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A Vision of the Future.  It was a touchstone marking their descent into weird collectivism and illegal military operations by the armed forces of the U.S.

The specific scenario was stupid beyond belief, where “extremist militia” takes over the government of Darlington, South Carolina.  My son and I got a good laugh out of that one.  The only insurrection against the local government of Darlington might occur as a result of losing the one remaining NASCAR cup race, but as an aficionado of South Carolina, I can vouch that federal troops won’t be the savior of Darlington.  They might be the target, but the local Sheriff is just as likely to side with the militia.

But laugh as we might, this is serious business, and marks a dark moment in the history of our military.  They are now willing to say out loud what wouldn’t have even been thought a hundred years ago.

Small Wars Journal continues its theme with Political Violence Prevention: Profiling Domestic Terrorists.  The paradigm the author seeks to build is right up front.

… the process of becoming a violent extremist is a series of steps that leave footprints we should be able to track”. A national standard from which to identify individuals who have left these footprints and are on the path to becoming violent would be invaluable to law enforcement, especially at the local level. Without a set standard each local law enforcement agency interprets who may or may not be a threat and what is worth reporting or investigating differently as they have different experiences and expectations about domestic terrorists and terrorism. Domestic terrorists can be identified prior to committing any terrorist attacks through a profiling systems based upon identifying factors that influence committing acts of terrorism.

The entire effort is worthy of funding and support, according to the author.

The area in which profiling could be useful is in identifying Lone Wolf terrorist attacks as they are executed nearly twice as often as other attacks. This is under the assumption that Love Wolf attacks are more successful because the clues that alert the general public and law enforcement are less apparent or non-existent. It would also involve an intelligence agency to track the individual over an extended period of time. An agency that is not concerned with arresting or detaining would be free from the pressures of cased based intelligence enabling them instead to pursue preemptive intelligence where the profiling may be useful (Chalk & Rosenau 2004).

In order to prevent domestic terrorist attacks resources should be allocated into improving existing efforts that have proven to be effective as well as into the development and implication of concepts that improve weak areas of domestic terrorist threat detection such as a profiling system.

Make no mistake about it.  If you believe that the second amendment exists to keep government tyranny in check, you make the grade.  The “thinkers” are figuring out ways to watch you and profile you before you become “violent.”

Mike Vanderboegh recently relinquished support for Rand Paul because of Paul’s stance on immigration.  Rand Paul is basically an open borders advocate.  Mike also calls himself a Christian libertarian.

I wouldn’t propose to speak for Mike, and he wouldn’t want me to even if I could.  Mike can speak for himself.  But I also consider myself both an opponent of open borders and a Christian libertarian.  How then can I take the positions that I do and be consistent?

I have long opposed Rand Paul because of his stance on the border and immigration, and the only Senator I find to be clearheaded on this issue (thus far) is Ted Cruz (and to some extent Mike Lee (to some extent because I need to know more about him).  To the extent that Ted Cruz repudiates my ideas in the future, I will oppose him.  But his views on immigration are far stronger than Paul’s views.  It’s one reason why John McCain and Lindsey Graham hate him so much.

But before we deal with immigration, let’s deal with broader doctrines like libertarianism and what I do and don’t believe.  Let’s deal with the issue of legalization of drugs and one example.  While as a Christian I should say that I care about my readers concerning their spiritual and physical health, from a legal standpoint I don’t care one whit what you put into your body.  That’s from a theoretical standpoint.

Now for the practical side of things.  If you want to legalize drugs of all kinds, then be my guest, right after you turn around socialized medicine and forswear forever my fiduciary responsibility for support for any drug addict or funding of their medical care.  While my hard earned money is confiscated by the power of a badge and gun to support people who will not support themselves, then those people (the recipients of my money) should expect me to be involved in their lives.  My involvement will be as obnoxious and overbearing as I can possibly make it – right up until you no longer want my involvement, and then at that point I will assume you no longer want my money either.  I’m good on both accounts.  Leave me alone and I will leave you alone to do what you want.

This relates to immigration and migrant workers in the following way.  Migrant workers who “do jobs that no one else will do” are a cost to me and other ratepayers and taxpayers that the employer won’t pick up.  When these workers get sick they go to the emergency room, and my insurance premiums pick up the tab.  When these workers have automobile accidents without insurance, my premiums pick up the tab.  And when these workers refuse to pay taxes, I have to pay more.

You see, the existence of migrant workers is a subsidy to corporations, a form of corporate welfare that I pay.  I don’t want to pay welfare to corporations any more than I do to individuals who won’t work.  True libertarians don’t advocate for open borders and then ask me to pick up the tab for the workers.  That’s fake libertarianism, and it proves that the one who advocates it is a farce and hypocrite.   If you want to go libertarian, then go libertarian.  Don’t go half way.  Otherwise you’re just a liar.

There is a larger issue for the border.  I have advocated for Marines being deployed on the Southern border with arming orders and robust rules of engagement.  I see no contradiction here either, just as I advocated robust rules of engagement for Soldiers and Marines in combat in the various campaigns in which we find ourselves.  Leaving aside what one thinks about the campaigns, to deploy men in harm’s way for the purpose of nation building is immoral.  Iraq and Afghanistan were campaigns fought by the social planners (Afghanistan more so than Iraq).

But as long as there are thousands of transportation routes across the Southern border and as long as we are seen as one gigantic trans-American economy, there will be no border security regardless of what we do on the other parts of the border.  No party appears to want the close the borders.  Not the Democrats (it means votes to them), not the GOP (they are in bed with the corporate executives), and no even the so-called libertarians.

Marco Rubio, the erstwhile savior of the GOP, has weighed in on immigration.

In a Spanish-language interview Sunday with the network Univision, Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican on the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform group, made his strongest statement yet that legalization of the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants must happen before any new border security or internal enforcement measures are in place, and will in no way be conditional on any security requirements.

“Let’s be clear,” Rubio said. “Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”

And thus Rubio is advocating adding millions of new socialists to the voting rolls.  As I have explained before:

“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”

One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished.  South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology.  Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build.  This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.

Neocons like Krauthammer are liars.  The Mexican immigrant doesn’t naturally vote conservative.  He naturally votes collectivist.  So don’t expect me to advocate adding more collectivists to the voting rolls.  It runs contrary to my world view.

And it runs counter to Christian libertarianism.  That phrase accurately describes me, but not completely.  I am a consistent Christian libertarian.  That means that neither Ron Paul nor his son Rand Paul cannot trot out the rubric libertarian and expect me to fawn over them just because they want to return to the gold standard (and I do too), or do away with certain government programs and departments (I do too).  Flooding the country with more collectivists won’t do their own cause any good, but they’re too stolid to admit it.

As for Rubio, he is a progressive and collectivist, and his career is over except for the extent to which he allies himself with his natural friends, i.e., other collectivists.  As for me, I take my advocacy seriously.  Don’t expect giggles and grins from me because you simply say a few nice words.  I won’t whore my advocacy out to the lowest bidder.

So you lie to the people, rulers one and all.  Let the foreign nationals and socialists cross the border with impunity.  But as long as they transport their damn gangs across the border, I’ll keep my guns.

ABC News, Denver:

GREELEY, Colo. – Weld County commissioners have voted to unanimously to approve an ordinance restricting the creation of local gun control measures.

The County Commissioners object to gun control measures passed during the most recent legislative session and signed into law by the Governor. Among other things, the new laws limit the amount of ammunition in magazines, adds a background check requirement for private sales, creates a fee for background checks and requires concealed carry permit classes be taken in person.

Although the county commissioners can’t override state law, all five commissioners voted to approve an ordinance that prevents the county from further restricting gun rights. The protections in Weld County Code Ordinance 2013-4 establish tit for tat protections directly opposed to the new state laws.

“What we did today was take the strongest action legally according to our county attorney that we could take,” said Commissioner Sean Conway. “I think it’s a start. I think it tells our citizens that this board is very concerned with the action that was undertaken by the legislature and was signed into law.”

The article is a little short on details, but it would be nice if they would disavow any lawsuit and focus not on what they can’t do, but what they can do.  They can dispatch the local sheriff to prohibit enforcement of the new state law and let the chips fall where they may.

From Buffalo, New York:

Another raid on the wrong residence; another dead dog. This time, Iraq War veteran Adam Arroyo says he came home on Monday to find his door busted down, and his beloved pup dead from bullet wounds. The Buffalo, NY police did not seem too concerned with cleaning up blood or anything like that, but nonetheless left behind a note of sorts: a search warrant for the apartment next door.

“They busted the door down, with a battering ram or whatever,” he told the Buffalo News. “They came in, and within a few seconds of entering the apartment, they murdered my dog. They shot her multiple times. They had no reason to do that.” Arroyo says his dog, a two-and-a-half-year-old pit bull named Cindy, was killed while chained up in the kitchen, which he discovered ridden with bullet holes.

As WKBW points out, the police made a serious error:

The suspect named in the warrant was described as a black male and was wanted on suspicion of dealing crack.

Arroyo is Hispanic and lives at 304 Breckenridge, upper-rear apartment, which has a completely separate entrance and is clearly marked on his mail box.

Let’s ignore the fact for a minute that this was another wrong address SWAT raid.  There was no point to it.  If the police had any smarts whatsoever, they would have peacefully stopped him on the street, while uniformed officers executed a search warrant on his home after getting a locksmith to open the door, keeping the physical plant and hardware intact.

But that’s not sexy and it isn’t statist and totalitarian.  And it doesn’t allow the police to play soldier boy.  There is moral element to these types of raids.  As I’ve said before:

Law enforcement officers have no moral or legal right to trespass on my property and threaten me, or especially unholster their weapons and point them at me.  And LEOs have no moral or legal right to shoot at me, my family members or my beasts.  I consider every home invader to be a criminal, since impersonating the police is a common tactic among crime gangs now.  Any such invasion of my home or property will be deadly, for the invaders, me, or both.

Soldier boy will stop invading homes and killing beasts and human victims when the price is too high.  Thus far it is still too easy on Soldier boy.

My last article on ammunition availability erupted in a flurry of controversial comments, and I’m not trying to repeat that here, but I’m glad to report that my local gun shop is now selling 5.56 mm ammunition (PMC) for nearly 50 cents per round, approximately what it was going for prior to the run on ammunition.  I can also find handgun ammunition (of any caliber) for the same prices I could before the run.  So this article confuses me a little.  But I wanted to call out one quote in particular.

Federal Premium Ammunition, a large manufacturer in Minnesota, said Homeland Security’s contract makes up a very small percentage of its total output and any talk about the federal government restricting availability is “false” and “baseless.”

“This contract is not taking ammunition away from civilians,” states a message on its website. “The current increase in demand is attributed to the civilian market.”

This denial is just wrong.  It may in fact be correct to say that the federal orders have had little effect on the market (a denial I also question because I think the effect is more than trivial), but to say that federal sales are “not taking away from civilians” is the baseless claim here.

Any assembly line tooled for making ammunition for federal agencies could be one that is tooled for making ammunition for civilians.  It’s simple.  If they weren’t selling to the federal government, they would have more to sell to us.

According to one doctor, this becomes something more than you and your children.  Listen carefully.

In the middle of a routine well-child visit, my 4-year-old patient started creating a ruckus in the exam room. Johnny systematically opened all the cabinets, pulled out any loose bits of paper he could find, and tore them up. He then got on the exam table, picked up my expensive ophthalmoscope, and almost took a dive to the floor before his dad stopped him.

Knowing that unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death among children, I used this opportunity to educate Johnny’s parents about safety at home.

Do you have your medicine cabinet locked? Are detergent bottles kept in the top shelf? Do you have working fire alarms? Do you have guns in your home?

While a routine part of well-child checkups, that last question has come under scrutiny lately. Why do I ask?

The data are clear: Gun violence is a public-health threat to children.

Now, it occurs to me that gun owners must consider what they might say when asked by their doctor about guns.  I could say something like the following.

“Well doctor, I’ll answer your questions about guns, but first you must give me verbal and written agreement that you’ll also respond to my questionnaire, and that I can publish the data (if you refuse to answer any specific question the answer reverts to the default answer in the data bank).  I have a web site with a page rank of 5, and after I publish your name and the Q&A session, I’ll own the Google search results on your name within 20 minutes of the page being indexed.  Yes I own guns.  Now for your questions.  First, do you still sexually abuse your wife?”

But I don’t have to do that.  I am good friends with my doctor, and I would respond (I’ll assume that his name is Michael), “Why yes, Michael, you know that I do.  You’ve been shooting with me before.  Why would you ask me?  How much pressure is the new Obamacare paperwork putting on you, and how late do you stay up doing it?  Is there something you need to tell me?  Why are you being forgetful like this?”

But take note of the reasons for the doctor’s questions.  Guns are a “public health concern.”  Doctors have been trained to treat “social ills” for the collective.  This mentality is alive and well among the totalitarians in the most recent attempt to encroach on firearms and related information.

Experts laid out a broad plan for firearms research on Wednesday, saying data is needed on who owns guns, where they keep them, how likely a gun is to be used to hurt someone else, whether having a gun keeps you safer, and whether there are ways to make guns any safer.

“There is no question that this is a public health issue,” says Dr. Alan Leshner, who chaired the Institute of Medicine panel that issued the report. “We have no political agenda.”

[ … ]

“Basic information about gun possession, acquisition, and storage is lacking. No single database captures the total number, locations, and types of firearms and firearm owners in the United States,” the report notes.

This work was commissioned by the totalitarian in chief, Mr. Obama himself.  And of course they’re “experts.”  And of course they want more information.  And of course they want to know everything about all people who own firearms.  And of course they intend to push so-called smart guns.

And if Mr. Obama cannot get the Senate to pass his gun legislation, maybe he can convince everyone that guns are a public health concern worthy of engagement by physicians who need to know everything about you and your guns.  This is the argument du jour.

It’s just totalitarianism masquerading as public health, and there is no doubt that state universities all over America teach it to doctors and in MPH courses.  There is nothing new under the sun.