As we’ve discussed before, Pew research recently performed a poll in which they concluded that “62 percent of Hispanics polled by Pew say they support controlling gun ownership, versus 45 percent for the nation.”  Yet another more recent Pew study concludes the same thing, but with worse statistics than before.

Today, about six-in-ten whites (61%) prioritize gun rights over gun control. By contrast, only about a third of blacks say this (34%) while six-in-ten (60%) say it is more important to control gun ownership. And Hispanics prioritize gun control over gun rights by a wide 71% to 25% margin.

And yet these are the people whom the government is allowing to cross the border, even abetting their permanent residency here, with states like Texas and Arizona deeply implicated in Hispanic voter proclivities.

Timothy Carney:

Naturally, Democrats and the Left have tried to pry Southerners away from their guns and religion. Gun control has largely been a culture war effort for Democrats. “Some of the southern areas have cultures that we have to overcome,” was Congressman Charles Rangel’s explanation for why gun control was both needed and difficult.

The Washington Post’s Gene Weingarten cursed the Second Amendment as “the refuge of bumpkins and yeehaws who like to think they are protecting their homes against imagined swarthy marauders desperate to steal their flea-bitten sofas from their rotting front porches.”

So let’s deal with the second amendment yet again.  To be sure, the second amendment was written within a certain cultural context of unorganized militia who used their own weapons, weapons they had to defend themselves and their families against both animals and men, as well as provide for themselves.  So one might argue for the notion that the presupposition necessary for the second amendment to make any sense at all is private ownership and use of guns.  But this requires deductive thought, and progressives aren’t big on that.  So in legal debating terms, I will stipulate, and I won’t press the issue because I want to make another more important point.

Progressives have yet to pick up on the fact that we don’t believe the second amendment gives us rights to defend ourselves or homes.  They would be much more aghast at the truth, but their blindness keeps them from seeing the truth.  God gives us rights, the state only recognizes those rights.

But more importantly, the second amendment says nothing about defense of persons or the home during the normal course of life.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with that.  I have a right anyway to defend myself and my family with any weapon I choose, so says God.  The second amendment says something different.  It says that the state recognizes that God gives me the right to shoot people who would take away our guns – like Gene Weingarten – through the skull, even if their taking is approved by the state.

Illinois Policy:

Earlier this year, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a state eavesdropping law that made it a crime for citizens to record conversations with police or anyone else without the other person’s permission. The court held that the old law “criminalize[d] a wide range of innocent conduct” and violated free-speech rights. In particular, the court noted the state could not criminalize recording activities where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, including citizens’ “public” encounters with police.

Now the old law is back, with just a few changes, in a new bill sent to the governor’s desk by the Illinois Senate on Dec. 4. The bill not only passed, but did so overwhelmingly with votes of 106-7 in the House on and 46-4-1 in the Senate.

The new version is nearly as bad as the old one.

Under the new bill, a citizen could rarely be sure whether recording any given conversation without permission is legal. The bill would make it a felony to surreptitiously record any “private conversation,” which it defines as any “oral communication between 2 or more persons,” where at least one person involved had a “reasonable expectation” of privacy.

[ … ]

citizens can’t be expected to know for sure precisely which situations give rise to an “expectation of privacy” and which don’t. The Illinois Supreme Court said that police don’t have an expectation of privacy in “public” encounters with citizens, but it did not explain what counts as a “public” encounter. So if this bill becomes law, people who want to be sure to avoid jail time will refrain from recording police at all, and the law will therefore still effectively prevent people from recording police.

The bill would also discourage people from recording conversations with police by making unlawfully recording a conversation with police – or an attorney general, assistant attorney general, state’s attorney, assistant state’s attorney or judge – a class 3 felony, which carries a sentence of two to four years in prison. Meanwhile, the bill makes illegal recording of a private citizen a class 4 felony, which carries a lower sentencing range of one to three years in prison.

There’s only one apparent reason for imposing a higher penalty on people who record police in particular: to make people especially afraid to record police.

But I thought that we had a due process right to record police in the performance of their duties?  In fact, I think judges have said so time and time again, and again, and again.

Instead of passing this stupid bill, they should have passed what reader Ned Weatherby calls Herschel’s Law.

Via Overlawyered:

Why am I still hearing about Operation Choke Point?  Why?  Why can’t the GOP-controlled House act, up to and including shutting down the government if the DoJ doesn’t come clean on Fast and Furious, or stop intimidation of gun and ammunition companies?

Why, after all of these years of obscene, immoral criminality by this administration, can’t anyone stop it?

David Codrea:

Noting it was largely due to the gun rights vote that Republicans captured the Senate and widened their lead in the House, what will change as a result, if anything, is unclear. If restrictions remain unchallenged, it will recall the many times rules objectionable to gun owners have quietly been allowed to remain in place. Still, there is one change that could be insisted on now, and if it derailed the spending approval process either in a Harry Reid-controlled Senate, or if Barack Obama rejected it, that decision would fall squarely on the Democrats: Congress could, if it wanted to, restore funding to allow for relief of firearms disabilities — or at least it could after January if it passed a short term resolution and left the long term bill for the incoming majority.

Per the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, “prohibited persons” convicted of state-level offenses can contact their state attorney general to learn their options for civil rights restoration. Federal offenses currently require a presidential pardon, with other lawful options provided for in the Gun Control Act of 1968 closed off due to an appropriations technicality, once implemented due to maneuvering by Sen. Charles Schumer.

Not that they will, but the GOP should push that issue.  But the GOP has proven cowardly on too many occasions for me to count.

Mike Vanderboegh on more Jonathan Gruber absurdity.  Now we learn that he is a eugenicist on top of everything else, in the spirit of Margaret Sanger and other Nazis.

Hiker shot on California hiking trail.  Folks, carry guns in the bush.

NO.  Next question.  Can we end our love affair with guns?

CNBC:

I haven’t seen any of those “aggressive promotions” in my area.  The S&W revolvers, M&Ps and other guns are the same as they’ve always been.  And anything from the performance shop at S&W will be very pricey.  I have a E series 1911 and S&W .357 magnum R8 revolver, both from the performance shop, both very nice, but both very expensive.

For some reason S&W feels that they need to expand their product line to include whatever is produced by Battenfeld Technologies rather than either (a) become more competitive with the prices of those they already produce, or (b) move to another location where they don’t have the high cost of union labor.

Since Colt dropped out of eyesight and off of the consumer map by focusing all of their energies on military contracts for the M4 (which has now dried up) and letting their revolver program perish, the reputation is that if you want a good revolver, you buy S&W.  My two S&W revolvers are very good.  But Ruger has laid the smack down and taunted S&W with its Ruger GP100.  I have held this weapon, although not shot it, and it balances nicely and its trigger action is smooth.  It will prove to be a worthy competitor to any .357 magnum / .38 Smith wheel gun.

S&W is probably relying on becoming the supplier of choice for the new U.S. military pistol.

For gun manufacturers, no customer rivals the Pentagon for prestige and revenue potential. That’s why, after years of anticipation, firearm makers are mobilizing for the U.S. Army’s imminent competition to replace the Beretta M9 pistol, the American soldier’s standard sidearm since 1985.

The procurement process for several hundred thousand new pistols formally begins in January and is expected to last about two years. Based on more than 15 years of reporting on the gun business, I’d identify the early favorites as a much-improved Smith & Wesson (SWHC), which enjoys a made-in-the-USA marketing edge, and the formidable Glock of Austria.

For a second opinion, I asked longtime industry consultant and former National Rifle Association organizer Richard Feldman for some snap handicapping. “Beretta starts with a 30-year history of supplying the Army, and that counts for something,” said Feldman, now the president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association, an advocacy group based in Rindge, N.H. “S&W, which lost a lot of police and civilian business to Glock in the 1980s and 1990s, has transformed itself into a modern firearm manufacturing enterprise with much better quality than in the past. Glock, barely in existence the last time this contract was up, is undeniably a powerful contender.”

S&W is fielding a ported version of their M&P .45 (if I am not mistaken), and it would suit me just fine if they won the contract.  My son Daniel (a SAW gunner) thought his Beretta was a piece of crap and the 9mm an underpowered cartridge.  He never used it, and even in combat he avoided actually needing it.  I have never liked the boxy design of the Glock or the slant of it’s frame.  But oh, my friends at S&W, watch it.

As I have said before, “To S&W, I say again like I have to every gun manufacturer.  Don’t even start down the path of relying on government contracts to keep your company solvent.  It’s like shooting heroin once.  Just say no.  Just don’t do it.”  It never works out quite like you intend.  The Marines want a version of the Colt 1911, Cerakote flat dark earth with a tactical rail, if sold on the open market to the civilian population, worth less than what the Marines are paying for it (it has night sights, a tactical rail and Cerakote finish – my S&W E Series 1911 has Melonite coating, a tactical rail, and Trijicon night sights, and sells for less than what the Colt 1911 sells for to the public).  The Army will prove to be finicky and fussy, and the orders won’t stack up to as many as you had bargained for.  The phase-in will be slower than you wanted, and the demand that it does place on your production capabilities will change forever your attention, programs and dedication to QA for other customers.

I’ve had my run-ins with S&W before, but I’ve been kind and understanding to a company that – I admit – I really love.  But S&W’s commitment to stay in labor union territory and a badly anti-gun state, flirt with law enforcement contracts to the exclusion of custumer rights, and now to chase after military contracts and buy out companies in strange moves that I cannot discern or understand, makes this all very troublesome for me.

It’s probably an exaggeration to say at the present that Smith & Wesson is going to go under.  I say this thankfully because I would regret a world without S&W.  But it doesn’t speak well of the current state of the company strategy to buy out other manufacturers to expand your line from your core business, to do so while sustaining higher debt, and to continue to ensconce themselves in an anti-gun, pro-union state.

The way to make money is to be a proud craftsman at your work for a competitive price, be loyal to your base, and respect their rights and their choices.  Why is this so hard to understand, and why do some U.S. gun manufacturers have so much trouble stepping up to the plate to show themselves worthy of the title?

Daily Mail:

A British-born U.S. photojournalist and a South African aid worker held hostage in Yemen by al Qaeda militants have been ‘murdered’ in a failed rescue attempt.

American citizen Luke Somers had been held hostage since September 2013 in Yemen’s capital Sana’a having moved to the country two years earlier.

The 33-year-old was reportedly shot by his captors as Navy SEAL Team six, made up of around 40 men, carried out a dramatic rescue bid in the Wadi Abdan region of the southern Shabwa province late on Friday night. 

It is the second attempted extraction by special forces in as many months.

Another hostage, South African aid worker Pierre Korkie, was also killed during the operation – a day before he was due to be released. 

According to the Wall Street Journal the commandos hiked for six miles through a mountain range to reach the village where he was being held.

They were only 100 yards away from the compound when the terrorists reportedly heard a dog bark – prompting the militants to shoot the pair dead.

Two medics involved in the operation tried to revive both of the hostages, but one died at the scene while the other succumbed to his injuries on the operating table inside the USS Makin Island.

[ … ]

David Codrea:

Obamacare is still “anti-gun” and a proper concern for gun rights groups to seek repeal of, the question becomes “How?” Even with the new majority, Republicans will still find themselves as many as 13 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto.

That’s where NRA could come in – if Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and ILA Executive Director Chris Cox wanted it to, or could be persuaded to follow through on. NRA political grades are a powerful tool the politicians in all but incontestable “blue states” vie for, and there are so-called “pro-gun Democrats” in states like Montana who are dependent on them to retain their seats. Even those currently rated lower than an “A” would have powerful incentives not to go into their next election with a markedly lower rating than their challenger. It may even take only one or two “defections” to act like a crack in the dam, convincing balkers that their political fortunes are best served by opposing an administration centerpiece that Americans are increasingly rejecting, with approval at “a new numerical low” providing additional cover for crossing party lines.

See also this followup.  True enough, Obamacare is anti-gun and intentionally designed that way.  Moreover, it is socialist and totalitarian in nature, meaning that the same people who support Obamacare support gun control.  This is appropriate ground for the NRA in my opinion.  But the NRA endorsed Governor-elect of Maryland, Larry Hogan.  You want to know the real bitch in all of this?  Hogan didn’t ask for the endorsement, and is dedicated to defending the laws of Maryland against suits to overturn them (yes, the recent Maryland laws infringing on the second amendment).  I am in favor of pressing the NRA to get score the Obamacare votes, but does anyone really think that an organization who would whore itself like they did for Hogan is ready for the big time on the national stage?

David takes on Mark Morford.  My take is here.

Mike Vanderboegh will be speaking at the We Will Not Comply Rally.  Folks, you know how much I loath I-594.  If I could be there, I would tell them (the rulers) to kiss my ass.  I would not comply either.

Mike notes that a gun-mounted flashlight plays a role in another Denver police shooting.  We’ve discussed this here.  Folks, gun-mounted lights can be done right (and I have them) as long as you know about and avoid sympathetic muscle reflexes, but I’m opposed to police using gun-mounted lights because I think most of them are so incompetent.

Cleveland.com:

CLEVELAND, Ohio — Cleveland police pull their guns too fast, fire at fleeing cars and people who pose no immediate threat and ignore potential danger to bystanders, the U. S. Department of Justice found.

A biting 58-page report released Thursday concluded that police violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, including by shooting an underwear-clad hostage victim and an unarmed driver who made an illegal turn.

The report blames several reasons for the “unreasonable” shootings. Police often lack the training and confidence necessary to  control a situation without resorting to force. They are not required to tell their supervisors when they pull their weapons. And the prevailing police culture promotes an “us-against-them” mentality.

“They too often fire their weapons in a manner and in circumstances that place innocent bystanders in danger; and accidentally fire them, sometimes fortuitously hitting nothing and other times shooting people and seriously injuring them,” the report says.

The Justice Department examined nearly 600 use-of-force incidents from 2010-13 and did hundreds of interviews for the report, released less than two weeks after Cleveland police shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was waving an airsoft pellet gun outside Cudell Recreation Center.

Training shortfalls are a consistent issue in the report. Officers also push situations to an unnecessarily dangerous level, “either because they do not know how, or because they do not have an adequate understanding of the importance of de-escalating encounters before resorting to force whenever possible.”

Let that wash over you again.  Think about that.  They see themselves as Judge Dredd.  Cleveland police fired weapons at drivers who committed misdemeanor traffic infractions by making illegal turns.

Of course, this violates the Supreme Court ruling in Tennessee versus Garner, clearly and without equivocation or qualification.  And while training may play some role in this, thuggish behavior by social deviants who have been licensed to act out their criminal sociopathy upon the public by the corrupt court system unfortunately wasn’t listed in the DoJ report.

The Seattle Times:

Buoyed by the passage of Initiative 594 last month, backers of stricter gun laws will press state lawmakers for additional measures aimed at keeping guns away from children, mentally ill persons and domestic abusers.

In what they vowed will be a long-term campaign, activists at a Thursday news conference at Plymouth Church in Seattle said they’ll push “evidence-based” policies to reduce gun violence — and hold legislators politically accountable if they don’t take action.

But their agenda was questioned by a prominent gun-rights advocate, who accused gun-control opponents of overreach.

Among the proposals for the 2015 legislative session:

• Criminal penalties for adults who fail to safely store guns, if the firearms are obtained by children who shoot themselves or others.

• New gun-violence protection orders to remove guns from persons showing signs of dangerous mental illness.

• Adding certain violent misdemeanors — such as domestic violence — to the list of crimes barring persons from purchasing guns.

• More funding for mental-health services.

• Policies to address health risks from lead at firing ranges.

• Alerting domestic-violence victims when guns previously removed by police are returned to offenders.

And so it goes.  It never stops with the first infringement, because the first infringement is merely something they think will pass with flying colors with the collectivist public because it all sounds oh-so-reasonable.  If they have their way, the Gestapo will be busting down doors to collect guns.

The statist evil of Bloomberg/Gates must be stopped.