From the Heartland

This is my soap box, on these pages I publish my opinions on firearms and any other subject I feel like writing about.

Tuesday, August 31, 2004

CCCW or how to bestow on a segment of society something, without really giving them anything.

H.R. 218 or The Cops Carry Country Wide (CCCW) Bill

Update; Link fixed

What this is not about
Ok let's get this up front I don't hate Cops, I know cops, I work with cops and I was a cop.

This criticism is about H.R. 218 NOT the people it was intending to help.
There has been a lot written about the passage of this bill some of which is, 1) now that the cops got what they want they don't have to support the rest of us anymore, 2) it will help with homeland security efforts having all those cops out there carrying, 3) it will restore dignity to cops. There have been many other statements about 218 and I will leave all that to those that want to make them.

What it does
Essentially H.R. 218 allows (as defined by CCCW) qualified peace officers, either currently employed or retired to carry a firearm off duty anywhere in the country. The bill is essentially two parts and can be read in about three minutes.

What the two sections have in common
CCCW does not exempt Peace Officers from state laws in fact CCCW Cops must abide by the laws of the state they are in much the same as any citizen with a CCW. It does not allow out-of-state Peace officers to violate private property rights when there are no firearms signs posted. If a any state or subdivision bans firearms in certain public areas such as parks or establishments that serve alcohol, then-out-of state Peace officers are banned from carrying there as well. In essence the law apparently holds out-of-state Officers to the same standards as those written for the citizens concealed carry, in those states that have it.

Currently employed
Section one goes on to establish what a currently employed peace officer is and the identification requirements to be legal carrying in an other state.

Retired officers
The second section specifically addresses the definition of and the indentification of "Retired Police Officers". Essentially a "retired officer" must have left the department under honorable conditions after a fixed number of years. Exceptions are granted for officers forcibly retired for injuries in the line of duty. It also excempts any officer that was released from duty and/or subsequently found to be mentally unstable from eligibility under this law.

It requires "Retired Police Officers to be yearly current, (at their own expense) in the state of residency requirements for standards of training or qualification to carry a firearm and they are not prohibited by Federal law from owning a firearm.

Ready on the right? Ready on the left? Ready on the blogging line? CO-mence blogging
To my mind the biggest trap in this whole thing (CCCW) is that it requires officers to pay for yearly certification out of their own pocket. This would not be so bad if the now fixed income just had to shell out, say forty or fifty bucks to punch holes in some paper Saturday afternoon.

The Devil is in the details, as they say.
The Devil in all of this can be found in 926C section (c) paragraph (5) that reads; during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training or qualification to carry firearms.

Yearly qualification in most if not all departments is not limited to sending 50 or a 100 rounds down range once or twice a year. There is a lot of classroom use of force training written into the yearly qualification for some states.

It has been rumored that one state is in the thought process of complying with H.R. 218 and what they have determined so far is that it will require 80 hours of training billed to the retirees at a rate of 40 dollars per hour. That is 3200 dollars a year folks.

Whether those numbers are true or not is moot, the point is if a state wants to opt out all they have to do is make it so financially prohibitive that no retired Peace Officer could afford it.

Still the cheapest way
Officers in states that have CCW laws now are eligable for a state issued concealed carry license when they retire. In those states that don't have it, or do not now permit retired officers the right to carry (Nebraska), officers avail themselves of "non-resident" licenses from other states when they travel. For under 500 bucks ANY qualified individual can aquire carry licenses from two or three states that are recognized in more than 50 % of the states.

These licenses are gernerally good for four to five years and with the exception of being able to carry in NY, NJ, Cal, and Hawaii, they are far cheaper than 3200 dollars a year or 500 dollars a year for that matter.

On the face of it H.R. 218 sounds like a good law, but it truely rings hollow for those that it was suppose to really benefit; The valiant men and woman who laid it on the line day in and day out for 20 or more years, and survived to reap the retirement they earned.

H.R. 218 is just another governmental pat on the back with one hand while the other is in their back pocket trying to grab back some of that retirement check they so justly earned.

Sunday, August 29, 2004

Show me the "Assault Weapons" ...... what??? you mean there wasn't any???

The secret ATF report found that the 9mm semiautomatic pistol remained the weapon of choice for criminals here.

Oh really I thought it was those evil "assault weapons" that Sarah and the Million Commie Mommies are always talking about.

Gorenstein gives us two numbers 4,852 firearms siezed, 2,909 of them were traced.
He then proceeds to regale us with percentages without telling us which number he is referring too.

Ok I pick the big Number
Only 175 guns, or 3.6% were taken from people 17 and under? Wow, I thought ... didn't Sarah say that there was and epidemic of kids with guns?

1,051 were taken from people 18-24, whom at least in age, are legaly able to posess a handgun in most localities. So what does this statistic have to do with anything? Well for people with common sense nothing? It is only important when you realize that the horrible "children killed every year by guns death statistics" produced by the Brady Bunch and the Million Commie Mommies include children up to the age of 24.

Guns moved pretty quick from a legal purchase to a life of crime? Time-to-crime average range is 3 to 6.7 years!!! Why not just say 4.85 years? That is almost 5 years, most people don't keep a new car that long before they sell it off to a friend, family member or trade it in.

According to the report Nearly 1500 of the guns had no crime code or catagory, and all they can say is SOME of that number could have been found or turned in.

60% of the nearly 5000 guns were bought right there in Pennsylvania, but we just have to be told that less than 100 (388 total) guns came from each of the states of Georgia, Virginia, Florida and North Carolina. Not suprising since our society is much more mobile than previous generations, and people just don't leave all their posessions at the "old house" and start over again at the "new house". (Or if the author used 2,909 it would only be 58 (233 total) from each of the four other states listed.)

I have read this article over repeatedly and I have to ask WHERE ARE THE DREADED ASSAULT WEAPONS?
For the countless last years the Brady Bunch, the Million Commie Mommies and a multitude of other anti-gun groups have subjected us to a daily barrage about how mean evil and nasty those assault weapons are and how they need to be totally banned because they are the primary tool of the criminal element.

Now we have a story about 4,852 guns siezed in Philidephia last year and not one, single mention of any assault weapon seized.

What's up with that?
Somebody wouldn't be lying to us would they?

Finally someone who was on a boat with Kerry Speaks

Until now I have stayed away from the Kerry war record controversy, not because I haven't been interested, but because it generally doesn't fit the Nebraska niche I am trying to carve out for myself here.

My two previous posts specifically concerning John Kerry are;

Energizing his Base

I did not have swift boat relations with those veterans, Ms. Lewinsky.

I happened across a reletively new blog written by David Limbaugh, brother of either you love him or you hate syndicated talk show host Rush Limbaugh. David has a link to retired Navy Admiral Schachte and his comments concerning John Kerry.

Admiral Schachte, who had been ducking the press for months, broke his silence on the subject of John Kerry.

Schachte was on the boat and in command of it the night Kerry claims to have earned a Purple Heart. In his own words he discounts Kerrys version of events and should the matter to rest.

Friday, August 27, 2004

Senator Schimek denys her constituancy the means to be safe

This is the text of an e-mail that was forwarded to me. It was sent to that person by Senator Schimek. He should feel lucky, she will not respond to my e-mail.

Dear Mr. XXXX:
Thank you for sharing with me your insights on the Nebraska Concealed
Handgun Permit Act. I appreciate hearing from you.
My position on this issue has not changed; I continue to see more
potential harm than benefit from allowing the concealed weapon
permits in Nebraska. I have always believed there are better ways to
reduce violence.
Please don't hesitate to contact my office if you have further
questions or comments.
DiAnna R. Schimek

Senator Schimek, what potential more harm can there be if law-abiding peaceable citizens are carrying firearms?

Please tell us Senator. There is something like 46 out of our 50 states that recognize the citizens right to protect themselves. In the states that have enacted such laws crime has gone down.

Can we assume that you are referring to the criminals? They are the only ones who who need fear a citizen with a firearm.

Senator what better ways do you believe there is to reduce violence?

Station a policeman at the home of every single female in the state? Have the University hire enough officers to escort every female student to and from class and the dorm?

Police officers are rarely in the right place, at the right time to prevent or stop crimes against the person. Sadly in the majority of assault and rape cases all the police can do is take the report and investigate the crime, after the fact.

These crimes are devastating, on the victim, friends and family, and the effects are forever. A conviction can not un-rape or unassault one of your constituants Senator. Better the intended victim stop the crime than allow it to continue.

Senator your beliefs do a disservice to the women you represent. By denying them their God given right to defend themselves you are forcing them to be victims of crimes they could prevent themselves.

I have said it before and I will say it again here now:

People that believe in gun-control would rather see a woman raped, beaten and strangled with her own pantyhose in a dark alley, than to have her explain why she had no choice but to shoot her attacker.

Not a very nice message to send to your Mothers, wives, girlfriends, daughters or constituants is it DiAnna?

Stop trying to molly coddle the criminals by making their job safer Senator, instead empower the women you were elected to serve to make their lives safer for themselves.

Thursday, August 26, 2004

Twice in one week ... Gee Chief could it be your fault?

KSDK News Channel 5 Reports on an early morning shootout involving Police Officers.

After the Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Concealed Carry Law was constitutional, officers of several large city departments reportedly approached businesses in their jurisdictions telling them they were required to put up NO GUN ALLOWED signs.

The visits were apparently at the behest of the various Chiefs of Police and the intent was to inform businesses that the law required them to put these NO GUN Allowed signs in their windows.

It is also rumored that the officers delivered the appropriate signs themselves and that they were printed at tax payers expense.

Present day
Twice in the last week police have been shot at because they were chasing stolen vehicles that had firearms left in them.

I know I am not the only one that can see a cause and effect here.
Chief Mokwa, when you provide, at taxpayer expense, NO GUNS ALLOWED signs and tell people they are required to post them, this means law abiding citizens with a valid concealed carry permit, must leave their firearms in their vehicles if they choose to do business there.

It should come as no suprise to you, of all people, how dangerous that situation could be.
I don't know if those firearms were left in those vehicles because a permit holder was obeying the law. Only you and your department know that. But this clearly illustrates the folly that your anti-gun paranoia can and does cause.

Your side lost when the Supreme Court made it's decision and now your pigheaded vindictiveness, could be costing your officers their safety and maybe their very lives.

Well it looks like I have been knocked down a peg or two....Not

Well it looks like I have told and right goodly and in a redneck sorta way too.

Over on today a person asked about open carry in the state of Nebraska.

Rather than wax eloquant in a post there I referred him to my blog where I have discussed the issue at length, inviting him to leave comments if he needed any follow up information.

The truth about Concealed Carry in Nebraska

A follow up and a challenge

Those posts are replete with links to the actual State Constitution and all applicable statutes.

It seems though that an individual that goes by the screen name "hayduke Lives" took exception to the fact that I said open carry is legal, generally trashed my blog and had some very impressive things to say about my style of writing: Gunscribe... Your Blog is by far the most unorganized piece of drivel that I have seen thus far concerning firearms. Did you get you literary skills from the Anti crowd?

UPDATE Since I posted this reply to hayduke Lives criticism of me on packing, his post has been removed by the moderator. I knew it would be, even though I had e-mailed the moderator to please leave it up.

Hayduke then goes on to say that: To answer the original posters question....No you may not open carry in Nebraska, Just as the database states. You will be arrested. You may not even carry in your vehicle. Locked and in the trunk, ammo separate is the only way to legally get a firearm through Nebraska

Just for your information hayduke Lives, a concealed carry law has not passed BECAUSE there are some members of the legislature that insist we don't need it because OPEN CARRY IS LEGAL.

Hayduke then asks us to TRUST HIM because he has travelled through Nebraska before: Trust me. I have traveled 42 of our 48 contiguous states and have been in contact with law enforcement from every state that I traveled through.(For my own protection)

Forgive me for laughing here hayduke, but I live here, I am familiar with the law and I am in contact with members of the Law Enforcement Community everyday. I even train with them at different times of the year. I know for a fact that OPEN CARRY is acceptable in the state of Nebraska with the exceptions I have previously noted for the cities of Omaha and Lincoln.

I may not be the next John Grisham or Tom Clancy, hayduke but I know the facts before I put them to paper (or Blog), that is something I cannot say for you.

Let me restate that just so you, a person that doesn not live here, can understand it OPEN CARRY IS LEGAL IN THE STATE OF NEBRASKA.

Open carry is professed to by every member of our State Government and its political subdivisions that I know.

Again, hayduke, as I said to you on my post at packing; Thank you for the compliments, I really do appreciate them.

My challenge still stands provide credible Constitutional directive, statute or case law that it is legal.

Movies you won't see in a theater near you .....Well maybe one of them you will

Ok break time!! I have been doing some pretty serious writing lately and so i thought I would get away from that for a little Humor.

If this idea turns out to be fairly popular I may turn it into a regular monthly item.

Here are some Movies that you won't see at your local box office anytime soon:

Billboy - Rated - XXX
A Cinematic adaptation of Bill Clintons political career. Billboy, the cigar smoking, party-hearty horny super hero of the liberal left, delights in escaping the restrictions of public service. Much to the delight of the audiance, and to the dismay of his political handlers, Billboy routinely escapes the trappings of political life and embarks on crusades of debauchery and womanizing.

McKerry's Navy - Rated - PG
Thirty Six years in the making, this comedy relief grossly exagerates the extrordinary accomplishments of Navy Lieutenant Junior Grade John Kerry's and his pet dog VC. The battlefield graphics are such that the viewer almost feels the sting of the rice grains when Kerry single handedly manned the twin fifty caliber machine gun, an M-79 grenade launcher and the helm of his Swift boat all at the same time. Filmed with entirely his own home video camera this comedy chronicles the entire 4 month tour in South East Asia.

The Runamuck Jury - PG
A big screen production about John Edwards rise from middle income obscurity, his years at law school and some of his more famous lawsuits. Sparing nothing about Edwards meteoric rise to the top of the creme de la creme of society this movie is filled with heart stopping ambulances chases and gut wrenching backroom deals. Ending with Edwards Democratic nomination for Vice President this film is sure to spawn a sequal.

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

Even the Federal Government admits it didn't work

In a previous post I wrote that both the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and the NIJ (National Institue of Justice)had concluded in separate studies that the so-called Assault Weapons Ban was not responsible for any measureable drop in crime.

Recently the Washington Times, hardly a paper that supports the second amendmant, reported on the findings of the NIJ.

Thanks to The Smallest Minority for the heads up on this one.

The Federal Governments own research agency
Excerpt: NIJ is the Justice Department's research, development and evaluation agency -- assigned the job of providing objective, independent, evidence-based information to the department through independent studies and other data collection activities.

What some of us knew the results would be all along
Excerpt: "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence," said the unreleased NIJ report, written by Christopher Koper, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Parts of "the ban" have been with us for 15 years and it still hasn't worked
Excerpt:It banned 18 models and variations by name, as well as revolving-cylinder shotguns, and prohibited flash hiders, folding rifle stocks and threaded barrels for attaching silencers. A number of the banned weapons were foreign semiautomatic rifles that have been barred from importation into the United States since 1989. The ban also prohibited most ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

How many states enacted concealed carry laws during that time?
Excerpt: According to recent surveys by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), firearms-related crime has declined to record levels. The violent crime rate has fallen 54 percent since 1993, and there were more than 980,000 fewer violent crimes in 2002 than in 2000.

Bush has done something Clinton did not do; enforce laws already on the books
Excerpt: But in the past three years, according to the BJS, federal gun prosecutions have increased by 68 percent, with the number of persons charged with federal firearms offenses rising by more than 22 percent in fiscal 2003, the largest single-year increase ever recorded.

It didn't work because criminals by and large don't use them anyway
Excerpt: The 102-page NIJ report .... the bill targeted a "relatively small number of weapons" based on features that had little to do with the weapons' operation. In 1994, when the ban was approved by Congress, 1.5 million privately owned assault weapons were thought to be in the United States. The report said assault weapons were used in 2 percent of gun crimes reported nationwide before enactment of the 1994 ban.

These firearms are like airplane crashes, they rarely occurr but when they do it makes news
Excerpt: It also said assault weapons and other guns equipped with large-capacity magazines accounted for a higher share of the guns used to kill police officers and in mass public shootings, although such incidents were "very rare."

They are not cheap and are very hard to hide.
Excerpt: The report said the relatively rare use of assault weapons in crimes was attributable to a number of factors: Most assault weapons are rifles, which are used much less often than handguns, a number of the weapons were barred from importation before the ban was enacted, and the weapons are expensive and difficult to conceal.

The shocking but true conclusions
The conclusions seem to be evident, the law did not accomplish what it was suppose to. Reason enough to let it die. It is also clear that the passage of concealed carry laws in numorous states had more of an effect than the so-called ban did on reducing crime. Coupled with the fact that the Bush adminstration has been enforcing some of the already 20,000 gun laws on the books. Something Clinton and Reno would not do.

Why Din't Clinton enforce those laws?
Some people believe that he wanted a certain level of gun crime to justify passage of even more restrictive laws culminating in an out right ban on firearms ownership.

Other Countries failures

Any modicum amount of research will reveal the total and complete failure that that measure (gun-banning) has had on the Countries of Great Britain and Australia. But that is fodder for another blog post.

I know a girl that's done more for your gun rights than you have

Who is she?
Where the Personal becomes the Political at our whim... is the motto of The Bitch Girls blog.

I can tell you these girls are strictly progun and proud of it. In her Tuesday Blog entry Bitter, doesn't pull any punches, when she writes about the attendance at a much advertised progun event that she attended.

Sponsored by a progun group designed to meet and greet candidates, fewer than 10 people showed up at at least five of those were the politicians.

Bitter rightiously chastises her fellow gun owners; If gun owners can't come to 1 local free event to send a message for change, have we officially given up the fight? Why should the activists in the group keep fighting for the other lazy asses out there?

In My own experience, around Nebraska, I alway hear the phrase; " They'll never take take our guns away, the people won't let them."

What People?
NewsFlash: You are one of the people. What three things have you done to ensure your continued right to keep and bear arms?

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

Matt Connealy wants to start a gun collection ...Yours

As I have previously written Matt Connealy is no friend to gun owners, even if he has hunted on the family farm.

I am not going to mince words on this at all.
Nebraska hunters, Matt Connealy wants your gun and if you send him to Washington you are helping him take it.

Connealy own responses
In 1998 The Gun Owners of America asked Connealy if he would oppose legislation banning the manufacture, sale or possession of semi-automatic firearms.

Matt Connealy in 1998 told his constituancy that he did if fact oppose such legislation.

When asked that same question in 2002 Matt Connealy had changed his mind. As of two years ago Connealy is on record supporting legislation that would make semi-automatic firearms illegal.

What this means to Nebraska Hunters
The question did not ask about a particular type of semi-automatic firearm it just said semi-automatic, meaning ALL OF THEM.

Nebraska hunters pay attention here: That includes that Browning Sweet Sixteen passed down to you from Granddad. That includes the Remington Model 1100 that Pop still uses every year in the family duck blind. It also means that new Benneli 10 gauge you bought last year, for a thousand dollars, will have to be turned in and melted down.

Or how about that Remington Model 742 in 30-06 that has been in the family for a few years. Yup that too. Wait a minute does that include the Colt 1911 wall hanger that Gramps brought home from WW II or that German Luger he liberated from that Nazi Officer? Yes, especially those.

Oh and that Ruger 10/22 that you bought the kid last Christmas, box it up and carry it down to the police station now. Best break the kids heart now and get it over with.

Maybe some of you think I am being a touch facitious here. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. Wanna send Matt Connealy to Washington and find out?

Mr. Connealy goes to Washington

OK so you send Connealy to D.C. and he doesn't ban your semi-automatic firearms, pay close attention to this next one.

In 1998 Connealy was asked Do you oppose laws that would require that the police give permission prior to a person buying a firearm.

Connealy responded that he supported the idea that people would have to get permission from the police before they could buy a firearm.

Ok so your right, and I'm wrong, he doesn't ban Elmer Fudds favorite gun, if he gets his way on the police required permission legislation, he doesn't have to.

Since you would, if Connealy gets his way, have to go ask your local police chief or high sheriff for permission to buy a gun everytime you want one, how many do you think you'll get permission to purchase and what kind will they be?

Your just going to have to forget that slick little Remington Model 11-48 in 28 gauge you got your eye on, that is a semi-automatic firearm and you know how the top cop in your town feels about them.

But hey that old Stevens single barrel in 410, on that rack over there, is still a good gun... isn't it? And didn't the chief give Abe permission to aquire one of those in 20 gauge last week? Should be a rubberstamp on that one aye?

No, Hunters of Nebraska, I am not being facitious, I am stone cold serious. There are organizations and people in this country that want to take away our guns, every last one of them. Including that flintlock that has hung on your family mantle since your Great Great Granddad homesteaded the Nebraska prairies.

They want your duck gun, they want your pheasant gun and they want your deer rilfe and they are in a continuing process of getting them.

But who are THEY?
Are they Republicans? Yes, some of them, at least on outward appearances Chuck Hagel, and Doug Bereuter are among them.

Are they Democrats? Yes, by and large it is members of and/or people that support the Democratic party that want to, either outright ban private ownership of firearms, or create so much government red tape that it would be impractical or impossible to own a firearm in America..

The real Matt Connealy
Matt Connealy may shake your hand and tell you he is the salt of the earth, from an old Nebraska farm family, but by his own admission he doesn't want you to own guns for hunting, recreational shooting and especially not for personal protection or for the defense of your family.

In January of 2002 Matt Connealy voted with Ernie Chambers to deny you the right to carry a concealed firearm.

Consider that before you pull the lever for Matt Connealy in November.

A follow up and a challenge

I recently posted a dissertation that supports the contention held by a lot of Nebraskans that concealed carry is and always has been legal in the Cornhusker state.

I have a challenge for anybody that thinks they are up to it.

The background

Most elected and/or appointed Public Servants including Judges, Prosecutors, Chiefs of Police and High Sheriffs will to a man/woman declare, while citing Statute 28-1202, that concealed carry is illegal in the state of Nebraska. Very few, if any, will also admit that there is any situation where, as outlined in 28-1202, an "affirmative defense by a prudent person" would be acceptable to them. That is what 911 is for. Leave it to the professionals.


"Affirmative defense" means your guilty until you can prove your innocence. It is the same thing as Lincoln Police Chief Tom Casady locking up the bride after the wedding until she can prove, to a judge or jury, that she is not a bigamist. Or the High Sheriff locking up a voter at the polls until he can prove, to the same judge or jury, he hasn't voted twice in that election. That is what "affirmative defense" is all about. You have been deemed guilty and you have to go to court to prove that you are innocent.

A "prudent person" is a myth of law, a legal ghost if you will. Although we would all like to believe that we are prudent people, it is not for us to decide. Concerning Statute 28-1202, it is up to the court to determine whether you were acting as a "prudent person" would under the same circumstances. In a courtroom the defense can produce as many people that say they would do something, as the prosecutor can produce saying that they wouldn't. What it amounts to is the ambiguity of the judge or jury that day.

If the judge is anti-gun then there will NEVER be an acceptable case of an "affirmative defense" in that courtroom and the only "prudent people" are the ones that do not carry a gun and dial 911. In this case you have absolutely no recourse, no matter how good you believed your reason to be. See the big picture here?

Open Carry is Legal

Any number of Public Servants in the state of Nebraska readily claim that the state has no need for concealed carry, because open carry is and always has been legal. If someone feels the need to wear a sideaarm they are free to strap it on and go about their business. That is their mantra.

Principal v. Practice

This may be well and good except that the city of Omaha (since the 1988 Innitiative) has illegaly passed an ordinance that requires training and a government issued permission slip, to be purchased, in order to legaly carry a firearm openly within the city limits.

Several Officers in the Lincoln area including Lancaster County Deputy Sheriffs have stated that persons they find openly carrying a sidearm will be cited for "Disturbing the Peace". So it seems that open carry is legal in principal, but not in practice.

(Aside; I have been told that there does not even have to be a complaint. If you are openly carrying a sidearm, that is prima facia eveidence that you are disturbing someones peace and you will be cited and/or booked into jail and have your firearm confiscated.)

Can you say OHIO?

Is there a pattern here? Concealed carry is illegal! Affirmative Defense! Prudent Person! Open carry legal but punished! Let's say it all together now 1.. 2.. 3.. OHIO.

Facts in law

In order for something to be legal, or illegal for that matter, there must be a basis of fact in the law. Since the Constitution of the state of Nebraska was silent on the subject of firearms untl Initiative Measure No. 403 was enacted "by the people" in 1988, where is the basis in law for the Public Servants to proclaim that open carry is legal?

Until Statute 28-1202 was passed (1943 approx) even the State Statutes were silent on the issue of firearms. What Statute, prior to 1988 is the basis of fact in law for Public Servants to proclaim that open carry is legal?

The Challenge

Produce verifiable evidence in the form of Consitutional statement, Statute or case law where there is a basis of fact in law in the state of Nebraska proving that open carry is legal and that concealed carry is not.

Monday, August 23, 2004

They are "Normal Capcity" magazines

While my mind is on the subject, but then when isn't it, I feel compelled to comment on another aspect of the Klinton Gun "symbolism over substance" Law of 1994.

The Whining goes on

The is much wailing and knashing of the teeth over at the enclaves of the Brady Bunch and the Million Commie Mommies over the return of .... ahhhh dare I say it.... "High Capacity Magazines" on the 14th of September.

The truth

Here's the deal. The only "high capacity magazines" I know of are those that were specifically made to hold more rounds than the firearm was originally designed to hold.

Before 1994 most all of the Glocks, Smith & Wessons and other hand held semi-automatic firearms came from the factory WITH magazines that held more than 10 rounds. That is the NORMAL capacity for those firearms. "High Capacity Magazine" is a catch phrase coined by the firearms-challenged crowd to instill fear and coercion to their point of view.

The truth is that the Klinton enspired Do-gooders arbitrarily, yes you read that correctly, arbitrarily decided that 10 rounds was the safe maximum that the citizens of America could be trusted with. Actually I think it was the lowest number they felt they could get away with and still get their worthless, ineffective gun grabbing measure passed. Additionally they agreed to a "sunset" provision that would have the cease to exist, if it was not renewed.

The reality

Many of those firearms are (pre-1994) are still made today, but Federal requirements dictate that they be sold with the REDUCED CAPACITY MAGAZINES.

It has not been proven anywhere that such a law has stopped or even reduced crime. In fact studies by the CDC and NIJ refute that claim and have concluded that the restriction on magazine capacity has not helped in anyway to reduce crime. Obviously there are some people in the government, by refusing to let it come up for a renewal vote, that get it. They see it as the waste of taxpayers money it has been and seeing to it that it dies a quick death, if not quiet.

10 round magazines for any firearm are as readily available today as the normal capacity magazines were a decade ago.

Food for thought

Consider someone that is contemplating shooting up their workplace or commiting some other henious crime. If that individual has determined that he/she needs 60 rounds of ammunition to accoplish their dirty deed then they will have in their posession six 10 round reduced capacity magazines, instead of four normal capacity magazines.

The thought that a person would carry less rounds because of the magazine restriction, thus less people would be injured or killed is bogus on the very face of it. A person bent on destruction WILL carry as many rounds in as many magazines as they deem necessary to accoplish their goal. Sarah Brady, Chuck Schumer, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dianne Fienstien and Barbara Boxer don't get that. Maybe you do.

That a criminal envading his/her work space with more magazines, thus preventing more tragedy, because the shooter wouldn't carry as much ammunition or has to reload more, allowing the "victims" to subdue or apprehend the the shooter between reloads is assine. Any normal person can reload a new magazine in a few seconds or so.

If a shooting such as describe happens in a state where the people are illegaly denied by their Government or employers from owning and/or carrying firearms for self defense (Nebraska), a shooter with a single shot firearm will still create all the carnage he/she can. Ernie Chambers, Dianne Schimek, Tom Casady and Matt Conealy don't get that. Maybe you do.

Couple that with the fact that very few unarmed citizens will attempt to tackle anyone shooting a gun in their direction and you can see the assinine idiocy of the "symbolic feel good we tried to do something even if it didn't have substance anyway" magazine restriction in the first place. So many people just don't get it. Maybe you do.

I did not have swift boat relations with those Veterans, Ms. Lewinsky.

As in everything else in his life John F. Kerry is trying to have it both ways on the controvercy over his Southeast Asain service and the congressional tesimony he gave under oath upon his return "from the land of bad things".

Taking the tact that his critics at Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were not actually on "his boat", they didn't serve with him and cannot be a credible source for verification of his repeated gallantries. Kerry and/or his handlers, discount the fact that the boats usually operated in "packs" of three to six and that these people, "that didn't serve with him" were never more than yards away at any given time. Several other people recieved medals for heroism during the same incident based on "after action" reports written by John Kerry. Obviously they weren't there, before they were there.

Democratic spinmiesters and sympathetic political hacks are now claiming that Kerry did not specifically mean the people, that he claims didn't serve with him in the Swift Boats when he refered to the atrocities he witnessed, by himself and the people he served with.

Well tell us Senator Kerry who were you referring to? When Kerry said; "I participated in and/or witnessed these horrible events", who else could he possibly be referring to?

He can only mean the people in the Swift boat unit that, in his infinate wisdom, our rich uncle assigned LtJG Kerry to. There is no record of Kerry being assigned to any other unit during his "quarter tour", his fellow Swifties are the only people he could be talking about.

I didn't serve with them, before I served with them = "They can't comfirm my heroic exploits, because they didn't serve with me on my boat. They were serving with me when we committed atrocities as a unit when we did serve together on separate boats."

I served with them before I didn't serve with them = "I witnessed and participated in those atrocites when we served together, but they weren't there to verify my heroism, because they did not serve with me on my boat."

Either Kerry served with them or he didn't.

This whole thing is reminds me of an Al Gore comment; "I didn't know it was wrong and I deny doing it, and I promise I won't do it again, and besides there was no controlling legal authority when I did do it." (parphrased by me)

Sunday, August 22, 2004

Hammering home the point that gun control is not crime control

Thanks to Old Skool (got it right this time Matt) for bringing this to my attention.

During recent legislative sessions many of our more staunch anti-gun concealled carry Senators waxed eloquant about the dangers of more guns on the street. Concealed carry will put more guns in the hands of criminals on the streets, concealed carry WILL give honest, law abiding citizens an other tool to protect themselves. you know like a spare tire, first aid kit and a smoke detector.

Banning guns does NOT ban crime, when are the social eletists going to get that through their heads? Probably never because cutting crime is the excuse, "He/She who controls the guns controls the power is the real reason."

Here is a report on a suspected serial killer across the ocean in a land far, far away. Firearms owner ship has been effectively outlawed in Great Britain for a number of years, in which time their "crimes against persons" has sky-rocketed.

This article illustrates what happens when you ban guns; Criminals will still be criminals and they will find other things to use as tools of their deadly trade.

Question; Would this latest vitim still be alive if as a law abiding citizen she had been able to be in posession of a firearm?

We'll never know will we.

Saturday, August 21, 2004

Snub has Brokaw's panties in a knot

NBC's Tom Brokaw threw a snit fit after learning that he had not been chosen as a moderator for the presidential debates. Speaking publicly and in writen letters Tom takes exception to "being shutout" of the debates.

Brokaw took it personally.

Brown's remark "leaves the undeniable impression that you believe if we were moderators, we'd be preening, egocentric performers," the anchor wrote in a scorching letter to Brown. "I deeply resent that implication."

Well Tom, it's this way, considering your little temper tantrum, yes we believe you are a preening, egocentric performer.

More specifically a Dancing Bear for the "Two Johns under the Big Top Extravaganza".

Some would probaly say you were a clown, but no I'll stand by you on that, Circus clowns do not preen, act pompous, egocentric or arogant and lastly they do not talk.

But Tom you are hardly a moderator, but you are a peformer there is no disagreement there.

I realize this is not directly related to Nebraska, but hey we watch the debates too.

Friday, August 20, 2004

Your land is not your land to use orders Merwick

Lancaster County Commissioners sparred over land use at a County Board staff meeting.

Due to noise complaints from neighbors Lincoln, Nebraska's Building and Safety Department has ordered an owner of property outside of the city limits to stop riding motorcycles on his own land.

Dr. David Samani has been told by Building and Safety Director Mike Merwick that no only can the good Doctors friends not ride on the land, Dr. Samani and his children are forbidden from riding there as well.

How can the city of Lincoln extend their land management authority to property owners outside of the city limits proper?

In it's infinate wisdom the state legislature has given the city of Lincoln a 3 mile variance that allows them to regulate that far out of town.

Larry Hundkins is obviously sided with the property owners, when he expressed the idea that, under the current city zoning ordinances, Merwick could start "cracking down" on farmers running loud agriculture equipment or checking thier property with all-terrain vehicles.

Commissioner Ray Stevens has disagreed publicly with Hudkins on the subject. Commissioner Bernie Heier "took a powder" during the during the meeting, because he was to scared to speak to an issue that will potentionally end up in litigation.

When asked specific questions about a conversation with Dr. Samani, Merwick refused to answer hiding behind "advice from the county attorneys office."

From Merwicks authoritarian perspective the controversy is over, he has decreed that a property owner has absolutely no right to the enjoyment of his own land, and you can take that to court.

The truth about Concealed Carry in Nebraska

I have written on this subject in the past, but this will be the first time that I have assimilated this information in one place, at with one time, with the available links.


What the reader must understand first and fore most is the difference between powers and rights. The people, of a country, state, county or locality have rights and powers. Only a living breathing carbon life form lays claim to a right. The Government is an entity, an inanimate object, a system created by the people to be an umbrella of concepts and rules that they mutually agree to abide by and live under. In establishing a government the people grant certain powers, not to the government its self, but to the people they elect to run the system.

The people that run the government have the same rights as everyone else independent of their service to the people. They are not as they so often refer to themselves, government servants; they are servants of the people. In their service to the people, they have been, granted certain powers by the people to act on behalf of the people. The powers granted to them are detailed in a document commonly called a Constitution. It should be reminded that these are the only powers they can lay claim to. It is a violation of their oath of office and the trust of the people they serve for them to assume more power than they have been granted.

History 1867 to 1875

Nebraska became the 37th state in 1867 and the current Constitution was adopted in 1875. At the time of its adoption the State Constitution was silent on the subject of the people to keep and bear arms. It did, as all constitutions must do, grant certain powers to the people entrusted with the operation of the state government. Nowhere in that document was the power to regulate firearms given. While some will claim it is within the inherent "police power" of the state to enact such regulations, Article CI-26 clearly states that all powers not herein granted remain with the people. This is important given that, there were several other states that enacted constitutions, before and after Nebraska, which saw the need to include language such as, or similar to; "The people have the right to keep and bear arms, but the state reserves the power to regulate the manner in which they are carried". It should also be noted that the Nebraska legislature, unlike the other 49 states, is comprised of one house called the Unicameral and all persons elected to this body are referred to as Senators

In the Interim 1876 to 1987

The Nebraska legislature over a period of years, as the population of the state increased, enacted statutes that established class sizes for the various cities, towns and villages. The legislature further “empowered” these entities to enact ordinances independent of legislative approval. For the larger population centers this was referred to as “Home Rule Authority”. Among the “powers” delegated, by statute, to the cities of appropriate class size was the “power to prevent and punish the carrying of concealed weapons”. Additionally, as near a year as this writer can determine, the legislature enacted Statute 28-1202 in 1943. This law made it a misdemeanor crime to carry a concealed weapon, with the caveat that “affirmative defense” (remember Ohio) was available to a prudent person.

(Aside 1: This law has been rumored to have been enacted for the “good ole boy network”, meaning that the Sheriffs knew all the “prudent persons” in their counties, and it enabled them to keep better tabs on “outsiders”)

Year 1988

Following the process specified by the Constitution a few dedicated individuals started the initiative process to amend the Constitution. Their efforts succeeded in placing, what has become known as, Initiative Measure No. 403 on the November ballot that year. It passed into law when a majority of the citizens of the State of Nebraska voted in favor of it. Initiative Measure No. 403 added the following to Article CI-1 of the Constitution; “and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.”

This is the first time in the history of the state of Nebraska that the mention of the right to keep and bears arms appeared in the Constitution. Not only did it not give any power to the state, it specifically told the State and it’s political subdivisions that they must keep hands off the subject. A number of the people that started this grassroots process have stated that their intent (in 1988) “was to make Nebraska the equivalent of Vermont, in that, the concealed or open carry of a firearm is not subject to licensure or permit as long as the person is not prohibited from owning one.”

(Aside 2: Since that initiative was passed the city of Omaha enacted an Ordinance that requires person to take training and apply for a permit to “Open Carry” within city limits).

(Aside 3: Since that initiative was passed the city of Lincoln enacted several Ordinances that bar or limit possession of firearms.)

Since then 1988 to present

There have only been four challenges to the language contained in Article CI-1 since 1988. One concerns a Death Penalty case where the Defendant asserted that the “right to life” clause forbade the State from executing him. A second case State v. LaChapelle dealt with the possession of a short-barreled shotgun. The other two were handed down combined into one decision by the High Court. These are State v. Comeau and State v. Rush. Comeau was charged with possessing an altered firearm (serial number ground off) and Rush was charged with “Being a felon in possession of a firearm”.

Obviously the death penalty case had nothing to do with the “Right to Keep and Bear arms”. In LaChapelle the court upheld the lower court verdict, stating that the “inherent police power’ of a state permitted it to ban certain types of firearms common to criminal use.

In Comeau the High Court upheld the conviction as legal. It is more of a property case than a “keep and bear arms” case anyway. By comparison being in possession of an automobile with altered numbers is the same thing. The Court also upheld the conviction against Rush, ruling that there is no right that is absolute and that barring certain “proven to be dangerous persons” from owning weapons is a reasonable restriction of a States “Inherent Police Power”.

(Aside 4: “Inherent police power” in the Comeau/Rush decision is defined as; “The police power is an attribute of state sovereignty, and, within the limitations of state and federal Constitutions, the state may, in its exercise, enact laws for the promotion of public safety, health, morals, and generally for the public welfare.”)

The Decision also contained language that gave limit to how far that “Inherent Police” power can go; “We stress, however, that the legitimate governmental purpose in regulating the right to bear arms cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle the exercise of this right where the governmental purpose can be more narrowly achieved.” Additionally stated in Comeau are the words; “To be sure, the state legislature cannot, in the name of the police power, enact laws which render nugatory our Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections.”

(Aside 5: Case law concerning Article CI-26 supports that contention in that the court ruled the following concerning Article CI-26: A state agency may not, by invoking the doctrine of police power, exercise powers not granted it by and inconsistent with provisions of the state Constitution. First Trust Co. of Lincoln v. Smith, 134 Neb. 84, 277 N.W. 762 (1938).)


States do have the “inherent police power to enact laws. The Courts have been very clear in that they have ruled that: There are limitations and legitimate government cannot enact laws that violate the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional protections. In essence the state violated the constitution when they conveyed power to regulate firearms to the sub-divisions under the home rule doctrine and specifically when they enacted Statute 28-1202. Even the “Home rule” amendment states that ordinances must be subject to the constitution. Not even under the color of the doctrine of police power did the Legislature have the authority or power to do so. That alone should render that statute and all ordinances null and void.

Concealed Carry Efforts,/p>

Every session for the last seven or eight years Senator Gene Tyson has introduced a Bill in the unicameral that would make concealed carry law. Senator Tyson’s Bill has always been legislation that pretty much mirrors what other states have enacted. As should be expected there are other Senators that are opposed to it and they generally succeed in attaching amendments that convolute the provisions of the bill.

Most notably among them is Senator Ernie Chambers of Omaha. Senator chambers opposes concealed carry entirely and has, even after getting several of his amendments attached to the bill, successfully filibustered the passage of it. It takes 25 votes in the Unicameral to send a law to the Governors desk for signature or veto. There has never been less than the required number of Senators that support Senator Tyson’s efforts. The problem has always been the 34 votes it takes to override a Senator Chambers Filibuster. It seems to be perpetually one vote shy in this regard.

There is another side to this story as well. Some of the individuals that were most responsible for Initiative Measure No. 403 testify before the legislature in opposition to the proposed law. Their position is that, concealed carry without permit or license is and always has been the law in Nebraska, especially since the people approved it at general election in 1988. Their contention is that neither the State nor any political sub-division has the power granted it by the people to create such laws.


It should be obvious to anyone understands law, the State of Nebraska and it’s Political Subdivisions have never had the power, even the inherent police power to regulate firearms. The Constitution remained silent on the “Right to Keep and Bear arms, with the exception of Article CI-26, until 1988.

That plainly indicates that the Legislature of the State of Nebraska acted without regard to the Constitution (Article CI-26), the will of the people and the power to do so when it enacted Statute 28-1202. That should render it unconstitutional. It should also render unconstitutional any and all sub-divisional ordinances that were passed under the color of home rule, in that the State cannot convey or grant to a sub-division a power that they themselves have not been granted.


Without mincing words, the contention is, and backed up by the Constitution and case law, that concealed carry has always been legal in the state of Nebraska without the requirement for license or permits the same as it has been in Vermont.

There are however prosecutors and judges in the state that are either not familiar with the concept of Constitutional law or simply chose to ignore it by continually prosecuting charges under 28-1202 or other local ordinances. If they are aware of these facts and still insist on prosecuting a concealed carry charge then they are in violation of their oath of office.

Thursday, August 19, 2004

A Klinton Kronicles chapter re-wrtten

I know this has been blogged to death and there is probably nothing here for those already in the know.

The definition

Firearms that are perceived to be "assault weapons" are for the most part gas operated and semi-automatic. To the un-initiated that definition also describes a rather large number of shotguns and rifles found in duck blinds and deer stands all over America. Hunters wake up I'm talking about your "Elmer Fudd gun".

The AWB is about to sunset.

First off lets get one thing straight; the so-called Assault Wepons Ban (AWB) did not ban anything of the sort. What it did was make certain "bolt-on" or "add-on" features against the law. The basic firearm that the anti's cringe and lose sleep over is still sold by large numbers everyday.

That is like saying we are banning fast cars by passing a law that says any Ford Mustang, Chevrolet Corvette and ____ (you fill in the blank) manufactured after 1994 cannot have a hood scoop, rear deck spoiler or a gas tank that holds more than 10 gallons.

They never left

It may come as a suprise to some, but almost every quality firearm that was available before the ban is still available from a licensed dealer today (10 years later and the ban is still in place). Ak-47's, AR-15's and SKS's are still being sold.

Why because they were NOT banned. (humor on) No you can't put a hood scoop, rear deck spoiler and a 20 gallon gas tank on them but they are still the same gun that is still (after 10 yrs) being sold everyday in gunshops and at gunshows all over the country. (humor off)

Have you got that? That is all that silly nonsense of a law did. Which is precisely nothing, except make the sybolism over substance crowd "feel good" about doing something.

The human factor

Secondly there is no such thing as an Assault Weapon. Assault is a human action.
Listen closely all you Brady-Bunchers and Million Commie Mommies out there: An inanimate object cannot perform human functions. You cannot ascribe human actions to a chunk of steel/plastic and wood.

The only thing a firearm can do by itsself is RUST. That is not harmful to anyone that keeps up on their tetnis boosters.

Twisted logic exposed

If we ascribe to the anti-gun logic that there is such a thing as an assault weapon then, knives, hammers, screwdrivers, armchairs and automobiles would have to be included as they have all been documented to have been used in assaults.

Wasted tax dollars

So why shouldn't it sunset, it never did anything anyway, studies by both the CDC and the NIJ concluded that it di nothing to reduce crime. It is a waste of taxpayers money to have a law on the books that does not work.

Reduced Crime

Yes crime has gone down in the last 10 years and a lot of other factors are responsible for that. The number of Peace Officers on the streets is greater, crime fighting technology has increased a thousand fold and (Commie Mommies and Brady bunchers hold your ears) a alrge number of states have passed concealed carry laws.

I can hear your wailing and knashing of the teeth now, but that is the truth. And concealed carry has made you safer whether you want to admit it or not. The logic is simple and spoken to by the criminals themselves. They want easy, un-armed and defenseless targets, in states where CCW is legal crime has dropped because the thugs can no longer be assured that they intended target is un-armed and defenseless.

Do you understand that? Rapists, robbers and murders are no longer sure that they have easy prey and you will never know if one of these types passed on committing a crime against you, because he/she could not determine whether you were armed or not.

Are you alive today because..?

It could very well be that the CCW law in your state saved you from a vicious, robbery rape and or beating and you don't even know it.

Another Fortenberry v Connealy Differense

I had actually been contemplating doing a piece on this, that appeared in the Lincoln Journal Star yesterday. Fortenberryfan has beat me to it, and since there is not much more I can say about it I will just link to his. Thanks Fan.


Wednesday, August 18, 2004

Thank you Readers

I have only been at this blogging thing for a few short aweeks and I just now see that I have 1000 hits. Thank you all. I just hope I have given you some interesting food for thougt. Thanks again Gun

It ain't Rocket Science It's pure dumb Luck

First off This time it worked

The Nebraska State Patrol used the National Ballistics Information Network to solve a cold case, by matching catridge cases rcovered from an October 2002 drive-by shooting to cases test fired from a firearm confiscated from a Lincoln man in January.

I'm glad it works

I really am glad it works. I have no idea how many thousands of dollars this program costs, but hey in the last year and a half it has solved ONE crime.

How many crimes has it not solved is the question.

We will never know how many multiple entries belonging to other guns, that NIBIN/IBIS couldn't match. Are there some? I'd bet my bottom dollar on it.

Understanding "Ballistic Fingerprinting"

First of all it is not "ballistic fingerprinting" this is a media catch phrase or buzz-word if you will. People know what fingerprinting is and understand that everyones is unique and it never changes. So when they are told the term "ballistic fingerprinting" by the media that doen't know any better anyway they are led to believe that "Oh Yea this is a good idea".

Pay Attention here class this might be on a quiz

There ain't no such thing as "ballistic fingerprinting". Did you get that, do I need to say it again? There ain't no such thing as "ballistic fingerprinting". Firearms are manufactured by machines from porous metals, and Yes these machines leave distinct marks on the firearms. But and this is a REALLY BIG BUT, those marks, unlike your fingerprints, CHANGE OVER TIME.

Ok everyone still with me here? The process of the brass cartridge cases moving against the porous metal of the firearm (during loading, unloading and firing) causes those original sharp and detailed machine marks to wear away or become obliterated. Fired bullets cause the same changes to occur in the barrel as well. What that tells us is that a fired cartridge case that was fired when a gun was brand new CANNOT nor will it be matched to that same gun after a number of rounds have been fired through it. Now all you, anti-gun cry babies from the Brady Bunch and the Million Commie Mommies can quit whining about it. It is not going to happen.

Let me put this another way, guns are like the river bank you used to hang out on as a kid when you were skinny dipping. Remember the trees, especially the one with the rope and tire? Ok now remember the flood, the one that wiped out that stand of trees that one spring? Do you remember how it change the whole area? Never was the same again was it? Are you getting the picture now? Cartridge cases and bullets do the same things to a gun, everytime it is fired it changes it just slightly. Those slight changes add up over time.

How did the Nebraska State Patrol get a hit this time? To quote two-face from one of the Batman flicks: "It's dirt simple my boy", the gun was either never fired or fired very very few times in the 14 months between the time of the drive-by and when it was recovered. It had not been fired or not fired enough to change the machine marks on the gun.

I have a collectors firearm arm that I have not shot in 10 years. If you had a spent cartridge case from the last time I fired that gun I have no dought it could be matched to the very next case I shot from it. Conversely I have another firearm that I generally shoot at least 200 rounds a month through. You could have a spent case I fired from that gun last month and I'll bet you good hard earned yankee dollars that you can't match it to that gun today.

It ain't rocket science class, it's not even close.

To Compensate or not to Compensate?

A friend sent me this from John Farnam That I thought would be of interest. Since I have infrequent e-mail cantact with John and he HAS given me written permission to republish his missives, as he puts it, "Spread the sunshine around", I will share this one with you.(Bold highlights are my own)>

From John Farnam: 16 Aug 04

On compensated" pistols, from a friend in SA:

I presented an Instructor's Course in Eastern Cape this past weekend. We
had one Taurus PT945 (integrally compensated). It made it through all of two
hundred rounds before malfunctioning so badly that its owner had to replace it
with another gun. When we pulled it off the line, it was a gummy, sooty

Its owner also discovered, to his displeasure, that the compensator made it
extremely painful to shoot this gun from close-retention and insufferable to shoot in the dark.

Lesson: "Compensators and barrel cuts have no legitimate place on serious pistols. Such guns need to be labeled, "for unimportant purposes only."


Tuesday, August 17, 2004

Domestic Assualt Conviction and owning a firearm.

Title 18 part I Chapter 44 Sec. 921 Par (33)

Despite what you have been told about not being able to own a firearm, after being convicted of a crime that is defined as "Domestic Assault" Title 18, the U.S. Code that governs that specific act in regards to posessing a firearm is pretty clear on the subject.

Unless there are state specific laws that apply, a person can, under certain conditions, have been convicted of a crime of "Domestic assault and still legally own a firearm.

Relevant portion of Title 18 as it applies to eceptions;

Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the term ''misdemeanor crime of domestic violence'' means an offense that - is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law

A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless - the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case and; in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either the case was tried by a jury, or the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.

If a person was represented by a lawyer then they are considered to be convicted, like wise if the accused knowingly and intellegently waives the right to councel and or trial by jury.

Case law already exists on this matter and can be found in the 9th Circuit Court Opinion on USA v Akins. There are other cases, but this seems to be the most comprehensive one for determining what does or does not constitute a knowingly and intellegent waiver of the right to counsel.

The short of Akins is this; He was convicted of domestic assault, after he signed a waiver to right of counsel. Some years later he was arrested for posessing a firearm. The lower court found him guilty. Akins appealed on the grounds that he did not knowingly and intellegently waive his right to counsel. The 9th Circuit Court agreed with him and reversed his conviction

The moral to this story is; That if you or someone you know was fastracked (read Railroaded) through the system because it was a "petty misdemeanor" and you were not properly informed of your rights and you did not willfully or knowledgeably waive them, then you can still own a firearm.

Monday, August 16, 2004

Quick Notes

Yup I'm on the right

Chances are that, if you have been reading my blog, you have concluded that I lean to the right in a real big way and that I tend to favor the Republicans over the Democrats.

Guilty ... but with explanation your Honnor!!

I don't let my right leaning ways stop me from tearing into any Republicans when I feel they deserve it. Conversely I am just as quick to note it when a Democrat steps up to the plate and hits a homerun in my ballpark.

A Democrat I could learn to like

Although I didn't vote for him, earlier this year I had the occassion to call the office of Senator Ben Nelson (D-Ne) to thank him for the way he voted on a specific issue. Immediatdly hanging up from that phone call I contacted the office of Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Ne) to express my displeasure in his not supporting a request by our Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush (R-Tx).

I ... am not alone

As as been made plain here I am supporting Jeff Fortenberry for Congress. I am also glad to see that I am not the only one blogging it up for "Fort". The Fortenberryfan blog has only a few entries to date but they are informative and up to date. If you support "Fort" give it a looksee and bookmark it..... I have!!!! P.S. A little bird told me they have it bookmarked down at the support "Fort" headquarters too. So keep on keeping on "Fortfan".

Sunday, August 15, 2004

Chuckie goes to the Whitehouse (another sequel)

Family and friends know that I have been saying for months that Swnator Chuck Hagel (R-Ne) was being groomed, or was grooming himself for The Presidency.

"Where there is smoke there is fire."

Chuckie as reported in one of my previous entries has accepted an invitation by Former Senator/Governor Bob Kerrey (D-Ne) to co-host a bash for Presidential hopeful Senator John Kerry (D-ma) in the "Big Apple" around the time of the Republican Convention. While his fellow Republicans are working hard to insure the re-election of President Bush, Chuck Hagel will be wining, dining and smoozing with with the Democrats.

Hagel told the press that he has three options. I maintain he has a fourth, that being run for President as a Democrat, being he acts and votes like one most of the time anyway.

In Sundays edition of the Lincoln Journal Star Hagel told reporters that; "You get into politics because you want to accomplish things," Hagel said. "That means you have to have influence. Visibility in politics helps develop influence."

Well pardon me all to Nebraska Chuckie, but I thought a person got into politics to serve the people, not soley to futher ones own agendas.

Hagel went on to say that "I don't think we planned well. I don't think we prepared well. I don't think we understood what we were getting into."

Personally I think it was planned well, how many of the extremists, that consider the United States an enemy, have been drawn into the battles in Iraq? The U.S. presence in Iraq is drawing them out of hiding from all the other countries that support terrorism. We are facing most of them at one time, in one place with the best trained Military this World has ever seen.

I think we were as prepared as we could be considering the eviseration done to our defense capabilities by the previous adminstration. An administration who's idea of fighting a war was to arrest them, take them to court and let them participate in a diversion program if they promised not to do it again. That is a lawyers mentality, fighting bullets and bombs with stacks of legal paperwork. When a military type regime has sworn to kill everyone of us to the last man, you send in the best trained fighting force you have and kill people and break things until there is nothing left. I'll never understand why lawyers can't figure this out.

I think the Administration understood full well what we were getting into. We are drawing them into battle on their own home turf (not Hometown USA) like moths to a flame. They (the terrorists) just can't resist the opportunity to "go kill Americans". They threw down the gauntlet on September 11th and decreed that the streets of Hometown USA would run red with American blood. They started the war and the Administration understands that we either take the fight to them in their lands or it will have to be fought here at home and many more American men,women and children would suffer the same fate as those in the Twin Towers did. How hard is that to understand?

Chuckie really does have four choices, He can run as a RINO for the Whitehouse, He can run for re-election as a Senator, he can switch parties and run for the Whitehouse or to use his own words "I can get out of Politics".

If advice from your constituency means anything to you Chuckie, Get out of politics at the end of your current term and resign as Chairman of the Nebraska George Bush re-election Campaign now. The President deserves a Campaign spokesman that has his whole heart in the job, not someone that will spend a good deal of time during the Convention smoozing and cutting up with the opposition.

Saturday, August 14, 2004

Another movie Sequel: Thelma and Louise Kick it up a Notch

Since I have been on a movie jag I just couldn't resist this one.

Although this is not Nebraska related it is a tragic story for the young Marine at the center of it. His lesbian wife and her lover make repeated attempts to kill him for the insurance money. One can only imagine how he feels.

Thanks to Matt over at stopthebleating for bringing it to my attention.

Friday, August 13, 2004

Chuckie takes a bride (a rated-R for RINO horror thriller comes to life)

I am absolutely livid over this, and I mean livid. Although I guess I should have expected it from that RINO anyway, even if he is the Nebraska Chairman for the Re-elect George Bush Campaign.

I was going to wait a few days before I posted this but I am just too livid to let it go.

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Ne) has agreed to consort with the enemy. But then this shouldn't suprise anyone, especially me, because Hagel has been an "agent provocateur" for the Democrats almost since the day he took office any way.

Some months back The President asked that the legislature send him a "clean bill" on the Gun maker lawsuit exemption legislation. "Republican" Chuck Hagel voted to attach the AWB to it as an amendment, thusly stabbing the President in the back.

Then what does the esteemed Senator do? Two weeks later he is on the KLIN morning show with then host Steve Lundy, crying and whining because he couldn't get the President to support him on anything.

Hey Chuckie ever heard the old axiom "one hand washes the other"? Or "dance with the one that brung yuh?" You shiv the "Big Guy" from behind right in the short ribs (or was it a kick to the crotch?)(No I don't think you could have looked him in the eye and dissed him like that it was a kidney shot) and then you have the oversized solid gold cajones to expect him to do you a favor in return? Must be some good cornsilk they got back on the farm Chuckie.

Well Chuckie while your up there in the "Big Apple" smoozing with the two Johns and a Bob why don't you just be honest with us and and make it official by switching parties. You haven't been much of a Republican anyway. Oh yea and by the way, a bunch of us are glad to see your RINO co-hort-in-crime in the House (Bereuter) going too. Is he invited to this "hold hands and sing Kum-bi-ya reminicent of the 60's style love in" too? Has Hanoi Jane and Linda Rondstant returned their RSVP's yet?

As a side note it perplexes me that Bob Kerrey ex Democrat Senator/Governor from Nebraska (Hagels co-host for this demo cuddle party) and true American hero stands by John Kerry like a solid old oak tree.

For those that don't know it Bob Kerrey is a true American Hero. He is a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honnor. He earned his though. But then while Governor he had Linda (vote for kerry) Rondstant shacking with him in the Gov's crib when he was in charge of the state.

It looked like pizza

The following was also reported in the Lincoln Journal Star on Friday. (Nebraska) It is not available at their on-line version for a link, so as a Journalist I will publish my own version here

Lincoln Police Officer Katherine Finnell stated that a citation was issued to 27 year old Lincoln resident Stephen Fitts for discharging a firearm within the city limits. Details remain sketchy, Finnel said that Fitts had been in posession of a 357 caliber revolver that was holstered on the waistband of his pants. Fitts reported to police that, he was sitting on a friends couch and the trigger of the firearm apparently caught on something, possibly his jacket, causing it to fire. Fitts, Police reports state, "Looked at the couch and saw what I thought was a piece of pizza." That's when he realized he had "Blown away a chunk of his own backside."

Fitts was taken to BryanLGH Medical Center West where he was treated for his injury. The bullet went through his left hip and into the couch. No other details were forthcoming concerning the incident

What the Supreme Court really said in U.S. v. Miller

The Miller case, decided in 1939, long after the first World War and mere months before the second, has been the poster child for the removal of military type firearms from the hands of the general populace.

How anyone can deduce that from Miller is beyond me. I suppose if one only bases their argument on the October 1938 brief filed by Messers; Jackson, McMahon, Barron, Strine, Kneip and Smith they may have a weak arguement.

Going to great depth to cite English Common Law the Messers contridict themselves on several points. The most important being that the second amendmant applies only to idividual posession of military weapons for the common defense, then go on to assert that these same weapons are evil incarnate and machineguns, bowie knives and brass knuckles are the tools of gangsters and have no place in the hands of private citizens.

I find it hard to believe that as educated as these attorneys are suppose to be they had no knowledge of trench warefare where short barreled shotguns, machineguns, and knuckle dusters proved to be a decisive weapons used by the military of both sides in the previous war and certainly so in the one the Horizon

The italicized excerpts all come from the most comprehensive compelation of U.S. v. Miller that I have found.

The Opinion of the Court however barely aknowledges those and points to it's own historical references instead:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Nobody presented evidence that this could be considered a useful tool for the militia and the court was not asked to make that determination. What hey said then is simply; If you had told us this was a military firearm we would have concurred with the lower courts dismissal.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

The High Court infers that it is an individual right when it refers to those, "called showing up with arms the provided for themselves and of a common type for the time." The Founding fathers were very educated visionaries, that knew technology would advance. Common use of the time transcends the years. An Ar-15 is as common of this time as the Brown Bess was at the time that was written.

By an Act passed April 4, 1786 the New York Legislature directed: ........... That every Citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; . . ."

Since every adult male was considered to be a member of the militia, enrolled would mean, a male coming of age, or one recently located in that community. Note that in addition to the firearm it required a ration of ammunition as well. These are things the Government requierd the able bodied citizens to posess as one of the duties of citizenry. How much more plain can that be made?

The fact that Miller died kept the lower court from rehearing evidence that the short-barreled shotgun was in fact a proper firearm of the Militia and deciding so.

Thursday, August 12, 2004

Are Law Enforcememnt agencies required to protect you?

We are told that we don't need to own firearms anymore for self protection, because we have the most modern well eqipped police forces in the world to do that for us. If Only that were true.

This commentary IS NOT a degradation of the fine men and women in blue that put their lives on the line everyday they report for work. I do not know a cop that would not "put it on the line" to help a citizen they know needs help.

This is a dissertation on the falacy used by the anti-gun crowd and certain elected or appointed public officials. We are told that we have no need for firearms because the police are there to protect us. But then when a fine upstanding taxpaying member of the community is ravage by lawless demons and files a lawsuit for failure to protect, the "powers that be" including the Chiefs of Police hide behind a Government inmunity clause.

Courts all over this country have held police departments harmless for failing and or refusing to protect individual citizens.

NEWSFLASH:Police agencies exsist ONLY to protect the public as a whole and NOT YOU as an individual.

I dare say that a large portion of police department budgets are approved because the Chief elaborates how those funds are needed to answer all of the calls and protect the citizens of the community.

Again I will state that I do not know a single cop on the street that wouldn't respond to someone that is in need. But they have to know of the need first. Unless they see it with their own eyes or it is adaquately relayed to them they can not know. I am not blaming them.

This dissertation addresses the two-faced, double speaking anti-gun agenda driven politicians and police chiefs that talk out of both sides of their mouths. "No you do not need, nor can you own a gun because I and my department are there to protect you. Oh and by the way I am under no obligation to protect you anyway, so don't even think about suing me if I don't."

Mayor Colleen Seng, Chief Tom Cassidy, Candidates Matt Connealy and Todd Paddock, Representitives Ernie Chambers and DiAnna Schimek are you reading this.

We know the truth

You do not have a right to travel

There is a recent thread on that really caught my attention concerning the right to travel I won't bore you with a rehash as it is covered quite well over there from a rather socialists point of view. The short of it being, that driving is not a right or a necessity to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that you need permission to travel because the State and Federal Governments own the roads.

Wednesday, August 11, 2004

Who is Larry Hudkins??

Larry Hudkins is a country farmer/rancher that has lived in Lancaster county for a lot of years.

Larry Hudkins holds a seat on the Lancaster County Board of Commissionors and is up for re-election this fall.

Larry has actually spent years working the land and raising cattle. He is uniquely familiar with the eviromental issues that effect Lancaster county. Unlike his opponent Larry still gets his hands dirty handling cattle and working the land.

Hudkins opponent (Todd Paddock) in this county race is a relative newcomer to Lancaster county and is an unabashed eviromental crusader. Now after years of travelling America, as a professional student, theroizing about how things are suppose to work in the classroom, He has come to Nebraska to show us Country Bumpkins how it should be done.

I am offended by that. Who would you rather have at the helm, an experienced productive working member of the community or an galavanting un-employed teacher and software designer?

Lancaster County is a work in progress and a few hundred thousand people live here. Lancaster County is not a lab experiment for some crusading eviromentalist that needs a job.

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

My Apologies and take your best shot

I did not realize that the comments section was restricted. I have corrected that problem and they should now be open. Again I apologize and say take your best shot.

Monday, August 09, 2004

Liberal Academia strikes again

With much thanks to a Lincoln Journal Star reporter who was kind enough to e-mail information on Todd Paddock.

Cut & Pasted from the E-mail; Paddock accumulated academic degrees in various locales.
He earned his undergraduate degree at the University of Michigan, a master's in communication at Cornell University, a doctorate in sociology at Indiana University.
He got a taste of Silicon Valley between two revolutions in technology - that of the personal-computer revolution and, later, the Internet - writing software manuals for IBM. Paddock left for Philadelphia to write about environmental issues for the Academy of Natural Sciences, then began his post-graduate journey.
After getting his degrees, Paddock landed a job at Nebraska Wesleyan.
"It wasn't a good fit," Paddock said of the job there, which ended last May. The university, he said, didn't renew his contract.

There you have it readers Todd Paddock spent years as a professional student bouncing around the country before the winds of enviromental activism and a liberal education blew him into a position at Nebraska Wesleyan, where he was subsequently, for unknown reasons, fired.

Todd Paddack has no apparent ties to the community, has only been here a very short time, which should make one wonder how long he intends to remain here.

Apparently Todd has had enough of academia, or maybe more appropriately academia has had enough of him. Now he wants to foray into the local politics of a farm community where he can try to impliment all the things he theorized about in the classroom.

Sounds a little like Hillary doesn't it?

Who is Todd Paddock ???????

Todd Paddock (D) coming from seemingly out of the blue, filed to have his name placed on the Democratic primary ballot mere monments before the filing deadline.

He is challenging Larry Hudkins (R) in the race for the Lancaster County District 2 Commissioners seat, Currently held by Hudkins.

But who is Todd Paddock?

I did an internet search and found a few articles of no consequence authored by Paddock while he was in academia.

Even the Lancaster County Democratic web site has virtually no information on Mr. Paddock. I called the Lancaster County Democratic office for more information and all they could me was that Todd Paddock is an envirmentalist.

Another source told me that the Weslyan University would not or did not renew his contract. I have yet been unable to confirm or deny any information on the why's of this.

That's it folks, that's all there is out there on Todd Paddock (D) candidate for Lancaster County Commissioner.

Sunday, August 08, 2004

Connealy's postions (or lack thereof) on the issues subtitled: Why Matt won't get my vote.

Democrat Matt Conneally's positions on the issues differ quite substantially From his opponent. Taking the same tact as John kerry, Connealy is passing himself off as a "hey I'm a regular hardworking American just like you". In truth Connealy is much more closer to being a regular American than Kerry will ever be again.

That does not belay the fact that Matt is a "dyed in the wool liberal", and his positions reflect that.

Concerning the budget deficit Connealy blames Washington's fiscal irresponsibility for the 500 billion dollar deficit. Yet on defense spending he wants us to believe he is a Hawk and wants to spend more in that area. "Hey Matt did you ever stop to think that, if your buddy Bill Clinton had not evisorated the Defense Department on his watch that we might not be 500 billion in the tank today? Or if Slick Willie had actually stood up to some of these people in the past maybe we would not have had a September 11th as we now remember it?)

Taking another cue from Commander Kerry, it seems that Connealy is satisfied to sit back and wait for another attack on American soil. He fully supports spending money to train our Cops, firefighters and EMT to respond to another crisis. I think they should be trained as well, but if we bring our gallant men and women home from the front (see his positon on the war in Iraq) then we will certainly be attacked here again. Matt wants our soldiers home as soon as we can get them here. This defensive attitude will only lead to more American lives lost on the streets of Hometown USA.

Connealy is calling for middle income tax breaks, but only for healthcare and tuition payments. What kind of deal is that???? Matt listen to me, Tax breaks stimulate the economy just look at the growth the democratic party is pretending doesn't exist and why only for healthcare and tuition payments???? Why not in their take home pay??

Oh Oh I know let me answer this one Matt.. It is mostly a feel good idea that won't make a hill of beans difference to anyone it is purported to help. Since the upper 10 percent of the American population pays over 90% of all the taxes letting the middle class have a few dollars of their money back for the Doctors office and Juniors College fund is a good way to buy votes without really getting up off of some serious dollars that you want to dole back out because you know better how it should be spent on us than we do.

One last thing, Matt have you ever heard of the Second Amendmant?? I have to ask since it is an election year issue and there is nothing on your web site about it. In fairness it does say that you hunt, but what is your stand on the issue??

Oh wait I can answer this one too Matt.. How's this? There is nothing on your site about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms because you toe the party line on this one. You know it is a losing issue (just ask your buddy down there in Missouri, One Term Bob Holden I think they call him. Poor fella, sitting Governor and he couldn't even make it by the primary) but you still want American citizens defenseless in the face of increasing crime and terrorism.

Matt I have to say that your web site is as telling for the things it doesn't say, as it is for the things it does.

The communist party has endorsed John Kerry for President. John Kerry is a Democrat. You are a Democrat, do you accept the support of your party by the Communist party Matt????

Fortenberry's positions on the more important issues of this election

I just can't resist writing another blog about Jeff Fortenberry. I have met the man and had him look me right in the eye and say things I never thought I'd here from a politician. Good things, things I wanted to here.

Jeff's positions on the issues facing us today practically mirror my own.

Taxes are a fact of life, and Jeff understands how President Bush's tax cuts have helped our economy and believes those cuts should be made permanant.

He also knows "it's the economy stupid" and has some very good ideas to make it stronger than it is getting everyday.

Fortenberry supports the war on terror led by Mr. Bush and understands why he took us to war in a foriegn land. (If the streets are going to run red with blood, then let it be terrorist blood in a far away land and not American blood on the streets of hometown USA.) {inside parenthisies are my thoughts not Jeffs}

For a long time a lot of us Americans have wanted something done about our borders, and have been disgusted with the lack of aknowledgement that somethings needs to be done. Jeff wants to do something as well.

Marriage is a union of one man and one woman. Having been married (this month) for 28 years to my first and only wife I understand this. So Does jeff Fortenberry. This does not make us homophobes, as we don't care what anyone else does in the privacy of their bedroom, Just don't call it marriage if it isn't one man and one woman.

On the second amendmant his website makes it pretty plain. "I will agressively defend our right to keep and bear arms, to hunt and to protect ourselves with firearms."

Judicial activism (or legislating from the bench) appears to be a pet peeve of Fortenberrys as it is one of mine. He wants that kind of judge off the bench as bad as I do.

Check out his web page (I have linked it to this article) and see for your self where Jeff Fortenberry stands on the issues. For everyone that reads this in the First Congressional District Jeff needs you vote on November second. For everyone else a short E-Mail noting your support would go along way toward keeping the moral and momentum going in the Fortenberry for Congress camp.