Stephen Halbrook:

Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress in April about an idea he had directed the Department of Justice to investigate: a requirement that gun owners wear electronic bracelets that would enable only registered owners to activate their firearms. Some critics, focusing on abusive surveillance powers, have called it Orwellian.

But one needn’t look to fiction to be wary: History offers numerous examples of well-intentioned policies to control crime that have had disastrous consequences. In my new book, “Gun Control in the Third Reich,” one particularly horrific case study begins in Germany during the tumultuous early 1930s.

In 1932, Alfred Flatow, the three-time gold medalist in gymnastics at the 1896 Olympics, complied with a gun-registration requirement that Weimar officials hoped would reduce the threat posed by extremist groups. The former athlete dutifully registered three handguns, but this didn’t spare him. The government warned that gun-ownership records must be stored securely so they wouldn’t fall into the wrong hands. It failed to consider that only law-abiding citizens would register, whereas political extremists and criminals would not.

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and immediately set about using gun-registration records to identify, disarm and attack “enemies of the state,” a euphemism for all political opponents. Police conducted search-and-seizure operations for guns and “subversive” literature in Jewish communities and working-class neighborhoods.

And you know the rest of the historical account.  Holbrook’s piece is good right up until this.

None of this is to claim that Eric Holder or today’s proponents of gun control are totalitarians in waiting. But this frightening saga is a reminder of good intentions gone horribly wrong. And unless we let the lessons sink in, we will dishonor honorable people such as Alfred Flatow – and millions more whose suffering we should never forget.

I argue – and have many times – that there is nothing good about the intention behind a universal background check or national gun registration.  And Obama and Holder are indeed totalitarians, not just in waiting, but in realitatem.  All gun control is totalitarian, and as I’ve pointed out before, gun control is a sign of wicked rulers.

Nonetheless, Holbrook has written a very good piece worthy of the few minutes it takes to read it.  It’s good to see him back in the public eye.

Illinois Governor Quinn is still pushing an “assault weapon” ban.

Gov. Pat Quinn is making another push on gun legislation, including an assault weapons ban.

The governor made an appearance Sunday on behalf of the Illinois Public Safety Act, which was introduced in the spring legislative session but not acted upon.

Part of the measure is a ban on assault weapons. “Part of fighting against the violence is to put a ban on assault weapons. Assault weapons have been used over and over again to kill people. We’ve gotta put an end to that,” Quinn said.

The bill also would ban high-capacity magazines, but anybody who legally owns these weapons could keep them, or transfer them to a family member.

With that last stipulation he’s throwing a bone, and gun owners won’t go for it.  So, a note to Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms, both of which manufacturers have made firearms I own (and like very much).

How long with you stay in Illinois where there is hostile terrain?  Haven’t you learned anything from Mossberg, Ruger, PTR and many others?  Don’t you understand that you are harming your brand by operating in an environment hostile to firearms?  Will you be the next firearms manufacturer to do the right thing?

Via Mike Vanderboegh, news on Mossberg:

America’s largest shotgun manufacturer, O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc., decided not to expand in Connecticut. Sure it was founded there 1919 and still has its corporate headquarters in North Haven. But in 2013 Connecticut rushed through legislation to ban some of Mossberg’s popular products. As a result, Mossberg CEO, Iver Mossberg, says, “Investing in Texas was an easy decision. It’s a state that is not only committed to economic growth but also honors and respects the Second Amendment and the firearm freedoms it guarantees for our customers.”

Mossberg has instead expanded its Maverick Arms, Inc. facility in Eagle Pass, Texas, with 116,000 new square-feet of factory space. Mossberg is not a small gun manufacturer. According to records kept by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Mossberg made 475,364 guns in America in 2011. Of those guns, a total of 423,570 were shotguns made for sportsmen, for shotgun sports enthusiasts, for law-enforcement and for people who want a shotgun to protect their homes and families.

More than 90 percent of Mossberg’s guns are now made in Texas. Some of its Connecticut jobs are going there, too. Tom Taylor, O.F. Mossberg & Sons’ senior vice president, sales & marketing, tells me, “We’re moving all wood gun stock production to our Texas facility. More of our product lines—like our modern sporting rifles—might move to Texas in the future.

Good.  Now I won’t hesitate to buy those Mossberg shotguns I’ve had my eye on.

In other news, Daniel Defense once made their financing available only to LEOs, something about which I complained.  They’ve changed their position.

Unlike with previous attempts at financing that offered Law Enforcement payment plans on LE Packages, now all qualifying customers will have the ability to finance Daniel Defense complete rifles, upper receiver groups and other products.

“We ran into a few issues with the past program and decided it best to end the option until we could provide a solution agreeable to all our valued customers,” says Hunter.

Now Daniel Defense just needs to back off of their high prices some and maybe they could compete with Rock River Arms for volume.

Smith & Wesson, are you watching other gun manufacturers do the right thing?  Are you listening?  Are you still selling guns to LEOs in California that ordinary citizens cannot have?  Remember that we discussed this issue, and you never got back to me?

NBC Connecticut:

A 49-year-old Connecticut man has been charged with threatening after his wife told police he stabbed and carved a watermelon in a passive-aggressive manner.

Thomaston Police Chief Jim Campbell said Carmine Cervellino’s wife originally went to police on July 4 to report finding marijuana and drugs in a toolbox at the house. The toolbox was not there when police responded and no charges were filed.

When the woman later returned home, she found a watermelon on the counter with a butcher’s knife in it, police said.

She told police that Cervellino came in soon after and carved the watermelon in a passive-aggressive manner, Campbell said.

The Register Citizen of Torrington, which originally reported the story, said the woman took a photo of the toolbox and the knife and showed them to police.

 

Cervellino was arrested on July 12 and charged with threatening and disorderly conduct, according to online court records.

Because, you know, there are all those laws protecting watermelons.  Family problems, you say?  I don’t know, but there’s only one answer for this situation.  Arrest Jerry Miculek immediately!

LA Times:

After a lengthy hearing in Tijuana for a Marine reservist jailed since April 1 on weapons charges, a judge Wednesday declined to throw out the case as urged by U.S. politicians and instead scheduled another evidentiary hearing.

Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, 25,  who served two combat tours in Afghanistan, was arrested after crossing the border at San Ysidro with a rifle, shotgun, pistol and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in his pickup truck.

[ … ]

Some 74 members of U.S. Congress have called on the Obama administration to work with Mexican authorities to gain Tahmooressi’s release.

On the eve of Wednesday’s hearing, Rep. Lee Terry (R-Nebraska) and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California) wrote to the Mexican judge, Victor Octavio Luna Escobedo, reminding him that Tahmooressi is “a Marine Corps veteran who risked his life for his nation and his fellow Marines.”

His case, the two wrote, should be “favorably resolved on the basis that he made a simple mistake at the border.”

Mexican officials have stressed that while the Mexican judicial system is different from the U.S. system, it shares one key characteristic: Cases are not decided by political pressure.

Yea, let me tell you about a pressure that would in fact work.  Shut down the border to all commercial traffic and let that Mexican produce rot in the hot sun, while the Mexican truck drivers go unpaid.  Begin lining the trucks up at the border – Tahmooressi would be released within a day.

But Obama won’t do that, because he hates the United States Marine Corps.  The USMC does things like fight Islamic insurgents in the Anbar and Helmand Provinces, and fight piracy in the Gulf of Aden.  Obama hasn’t the least bit of interest in that sort of thing.

But he gets to double dip on this one.  Obama doesn’t believe that Sgt. Tahmooressi should be able to have those guns anyway, and he certainly won’t tell the Mexicans not to enforce their gun laws, mistake or not.  This isn’t about justice.  Besides, creating problems with the Mexicans would just get in the way of his plans to add voters to the rolls of the DNC and bring about the end of the middle class in America.

From Obama’s perspective, a Marine is on trial for having guns and his trial isn’t subject to the laws of America, which Obama hates.  What’s to dislike about this?

David Codrea:

“Are those urging the ignorant and inexperienced to handle guns in public offering training, just to make sure?” it asked.

Here we go again.  Listen, I’m harder on those in our camp who mishandle weapons than the police – and I’m hard on everyone who does so.  But don’t tell me the police are better off.  I know that to be false.  Moreover, do we see automobile turn-ins or buybacks because they can kill people, and do on a regular basis?

Kurt Hofmann:

… the fact that they supposedly lacked the resources to investigate problematic gun sales that were already happening makes the official explanation of Operation Fast and Furious just that much less convincing.

Like I’ve said, don’t ever get into a logical debate with Kurt.  He will remember what you said a long, long time ago, and it must be consistent with what you say today.  And as for combining the ATF with the FBI or any other agency, just don’t do it.  Let’s focus our efforts not on the scraps that fall from the master’s table, but in repeal of the onerous gun laws America already has.

Mike Vanderboegh: Holder Plays The Race Card – Again: Hell, I Don’t Care About His Skin Color.  I Do Care About His Criminal Brain.  Yes, but even if his brain was well functioning, it’s his evil soul that matters most.

Mike on the Citizen-Soldier in the Ukraine.

Military.com:

Many readers are under the impression that U.S. special operations forces have returned to using .45 caliber pistols since the adoption of the M9 9mm in 1985.

This has some truth to it, but in most cases SOF units use 9mm, experts maintain.

The Army’s Delta Force adopted .40 caliber, but the elite unit is having the same problems as the FBI – the heavier caliber is causing excessive wear problems in guns that were originally designed to be 9mm. Delta is now using 9mm Glock 17s, 19s and 34s.

We’ve all heard about active duty officers, currently deployed in Afghanistan, getting pink slips.  But if retaining good people isn’t a top priority for the Pentagon, it’s important to know what is.

The administration of President Barack Obama has been identifying Muslims in the military in an effort to encourage their presence.

Officials said the Defense Department has been keeping records and tracking Muslims. They said the administration sought to attract Muslims both to the military and to the Pentagon.

“Our nation and our entire military family remain stronger because of the service and sacrifice of people of all faiths, including the thousands of patriotic Muslim Americans who have served and still serve in this long period of war,” Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work said last week.

And then there is this from Bill Gertz.

A former member of SEAL Team 6 has become the poster girl for a Pentagon effort to include transgenders — people who have undergone sex-change operations — in the ranks.

Kristin Beck, formerly Senior Chief Petty Officer Christopher Beck, spoke recently at several high-profile events at intelligence agencies and the Pentagon to promote the integration of transgenders.

If I tried to write parody I couldn’t make this stuff up.

We’ve previously discussed why you should never, ever talk to the police.  Unfortunately, we must add to the list of things not to do with the police.

Several Durham police officers lied about non-existent 911 calls to try to convince residents to allow them to search their homes, a tactic several lawyers say is illegal. The officers targeted residences where individuals with outstanding warrants were thought to be living, and told them that dispatch had received a 911 call from that address, when no such call had been made.

However, Durham Police Chief Jose Lopez says the 911 tactic was never a part of official policy. Last month, the department officially banned the practice, according to a memo from Lopez.

The tactic came to light at a court hearing on May 27, when a Durham Police officer testified it was part of official departmental policy. The hearing involved a defendant who had been charged with marijuana possession. (The INDY is not naming the defendant because the charges against her were dropped.)

In February, Officer A.B. Beck knocked on the door of the defendant’s home in South-Central Durham. When the defendant answered the door, Beck told her—falsely—that someone in her home had called 911 and hung up, and that he wanted to make sure everyone was safe. The defendant permitted Beck to enter her home, where he discovered two marijuana blunts and a marijuana grinder.

When Beck took the witness stand, he admitted to fabricating the 911 story in order to enter the house. Beck testified that his true intent was to serve a warrant, though he never produced the warrant in the courtroom.

Beck further testified that the 911 ruse was permitted under a department policy in cases where domestic violence is alleged, recalled Morgan Canady, the defendant’s lawyer.

During cross-examination, Canady quizzed Beck further.

Did you say there was a 911 hang-up? she asked.

Yes, he said.

But there was not a 911 hang-up?

No.

So you entered the house based on a lie?

Yes.

And this is your policy for domestic violence warrants?

Yes.

At that point Canady made a motion to suppress the marijuana evidence. Since the defendant’s consent was based on false premises, Canady reasoned, the consent was not informed and voluntary. Marcia Morey, chief district judge for Durham County, allowed the motion to suppress the evidence.

“You cannot enter someone’s house based on a lie,” Morey said from the bench during the hearing.

Without the evidence, the district attorney’s office dropped the charges.

The policy supported him in cases where domestic violence is involved.  Or so he said.  Perhaps it did.  This case had nothing to do with domestic violence, and so his justification was a misdirect to the court.

So the lesson is never to believe anything the police tell you.

Self defense against criminals or self defense against — criminals?  Kurt Hofmann asks the question:

But as a practical matter, does that really make much difference? When you defend yourself against an assailant who happens to be a common criminal, after all, you’re defending your rights from violation, no less than if your attacker–and aspiring rights violator–draws a government paycheck, carries a tax revenue-supplied firearm, and is acting on government orders. Likewise, in resisting a tyrannical government, you are defending yourself from that government–and the hired muscle of said government, from whom you are defending yourself, is no less criminal than the common street thug or rapist.

To claim a difference, other than one of scale, between a thug who rapes a woman, and a tyrant who rapes a nation, is to elevate the tyrant to something greater than the thug-writ-large he is.

Great point.  Consider for a moment gun control in Nazi Germany and what it did to the Jews.  It matters little (or not at all) whether the home invader is uniformed or not.  We must all ponder these difficult things.

Remember when you do ponder that we’re not the first to do so.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer decided – albeit a little late to the game – that he had to speak and act.  “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”  I claim that God has very specific requirements of us when we act.

So as to the question, the answer is not “either-or.”  It is “both-and.”