Front Sight, Press

That’s what 2008 is in the Chinese zodiac — the Year of the Rat. Encouraging , isn’t it?

Being the first sign of the Chinese zodiac, rats are leaders, pioneers and conquerors. They are charming, passionate, charismatic, practical and hardworking. Rat people are endowed with great leadership skills and are the most highly organized, meticulous, and systematic of the twelve signs. Intelligent and cunning at the same time, rats are highly ambitious and strong-willed people who are keen and unapologetic promoters of their own agendas, which often include money and power. They are energetic and versatile and can usually find their way around obstacles, and adapt to various environments easily. A rat’s natural charm and sharp demeanor make it an appealing friend for almost anyone, but rats are usually highly exclusive and selective when choosing friends and so often have only a few very close friends whom they trust.

Behind the smiles and charm, rats can be terribly obstinate and controlling, insisting on having things their way no matter what the cost. These people tend to have immense control of their emotions, which they may use as a tool to manipulate and exploit others, both emotionally and mentally. Rats are masters of mind games and can be very dangerous, calculative and downright cruel if the need arises. Quick-tempered and aggressive, they will not think twice about exacting revenge on those that hurt them in any way. Rats need to learn to relax sometimes, as they can be quite obsessed with detail, intolerant and strict, demanding order, obedience, and perfection.

Source: Wikepedia

I have a deep down bad feeling. Watching the Democratic Convention on its final night – I hate to admit it, but the Nuremberg rallies of 1934 were flashing before my eyes. Charismatics scare me, be they religious or political. Mostly, charismatic leaders bring us to grief, whether it’s Hitler, Napoleon, Lenin, Mohamed or even Jesus. I’m a Christian, but looking at it objectively, Jesus brought a world of pain to himself and those who followed after him. Barak Obama is not a celebrity. He’s not a "rock star." He’s a charismatic, and it scares me.

There’s a part of me that likes him, and there’s a part of me that is proud of my country that the promise of "all men are created equal" is embodied in the young black man accepting the nomination of the Democratic Party for the presidency of the United States. I disagree with almost all of his positions, but still, that’s kind of cool. I lived through the civil rights movement in the Old South, and I deeply believe that no one should face hatred and discrimination because of the pigment of their skin or because their last name sounds strange. So, I am pound of America, and of citizen Obama for what he has been able to accomplish in his life. But, he worries me. I see 80,000 people jammed into Mile High Stadium to pay homage to the new messiah, and it worries me.

I feel the swing of history’s great pendulum. I have felt it before. I felt it when it swung from Johnson to Nixon. I felt it when it swung from Carter to Reagan. I felt it when it swung from Bush to Clinton, and I’m feeling it again.

What do the Republicans have to offer as a counter? A septuagenarian fighter jock that they don’t even like. And what do the Republicans have to run on? Eight years of questionable leadership, fiscal irresponsibility, an ailing economy, two wars, one of which appears to be based on a mistake. I feel the great swing of the pendulum.

I don’t like charismatics.

Yes, Barak, this is a defining moment, and yes, you are riding the crest of that wave. And yes, most likely, you will be our next president. That doesn’t mean that what is happening tonight in Mile High Stadium is healthy.

But I have to hand it to you — it was a hell of a show. The trouble is that I don’t like charismatics. I don’t like altars built to false gods. I don’t like Nazi soldiers lined up as far as the eye can see. I don’t like Waterloo. I don’t like Calvary. I don’t like Red Square. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. I don’t need to do that again.

I go out under the night sky. I sit with one of my dogs and think about the Year of the Rat. "This is your pilot speaking. Fasten your seat belts. We’re heading into some turbulence."

As this election looms, we are in a struggle between capitalism and socialism attractively packaged as "change". With someone and their supporting party, talking of controls and "sacrifices", taxes, and coercions they would impose, what arbitrary powers they would enact, what "social remedies" they would hand out, without really telling us, the American people, what groups these gains would be expropriated. What they do imply, though with their vague promises of health care, and free education and free this and free that, is clear. That is, with the help of increased taxes and more from the pockets of the working classes, their power over a nation’s economy, any kind or degree of said power, rests on the basic principal of statism, the principal that the working man’s life belongs to the state.

Obama talks about Change. Obama talks about freedom. Freedom in the political sense means freedom from government coercion. It does NOT mean freedom from an employer, from a landlord, freedom from the laws of supply and demand, or freedom from the laws of nature. Laws which do not guarantee prosperity to every man.

It means freedom from the coercive power of the state. Freedom to use your abilities the best you can to craft a life for yourself to the best of your ability. It means freedom to protect that which you have earned, from other people, in a manner that’s true to the Constitution that founded this country. It means freedom to own a weapon responsibly. Certainly if Obama and Biden have their way, I wouldn’t own a gun, making it even easier for someone to take what I have at the point of theirs, be it literal or figuratively.

Read the whole thing at Home on the Range

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Fairfax, VA- Today, the Village of Morton Grove agreed to a stipulated dismissal of a National Rifle Association lawsuit challenging the village’s gun ban. A new town ordinance recognizes the right to private handgun ownership, bringing an end to NRA’s lawsuit against the village. Morton Grove completely dismissed its ordinance banning handguns and agreed to not replace it with any direct regulation other than to adopt existing state laws.

“Today’s move is further vindication of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller ruling upholding the Second Amendment as an inherent, individual civil right for all law-abiding Americans,” declared Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “Morton Grove’s decision upholds state law and does not involve any registration nor regulation beyond that law.”

The repeal of Morton Grove’s handgun ban passed on July 15 by a 5-1 vote. NRA will continue to monitor the Village of Morton Grove regarding its ban on gun stores, as the gun store provision was not a provision in the current lawsuit.

NRA may pursue Section 1983 Civil Rights actions against other municipalities who have not been cooperative to date.

“Today is an important victory and a step in the right direction for the residents of Morton Grove and for the citizens of Illinois,” concluded Cox. “NRA will keep up the fight to make sure the Second Amendment is recognized and honored across the United States of America.”

Source: NRA-ILA

The classic definition is this:

“In its final form, the M1911 was a locked-breech, single-action semi-automatic pistol. It was chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge and had a magazine capacity of seven rounds. Its weight unloaded was 39 ounces; overall length was 8.25"; the height was 5.25". Sights were fixed, although the rear sight was housed in a dovetail slot that allowed it to be drifted either left or right for windage adjustments. The pistols were finished in blue and fitted with checked wood stocks. The design includes a manual safety, a grip safety and a slide stop.” – The Sight M1911

OK, that’s what it was in 1911 when the Army Ordnance board adopted it as the sidearm of the U.S. Armed Forces. It was a single-action .45 caliber semi-automatic with a 5” barrel. Life was simple then. In the mid-1920’s it went through some minor changes, mostly involving the trigger and beavertail, and became the M1911A1. All the while, Colt was producing a “Government Model” for commercial sales to civilians which closely matched the form of the G.I. gun. But, in 97 years of its life, the design has experience some “mission creep.” It has been built with 3”, 3.5”, 4”, 4.25”, 5”, and 6” barrels. 8, 10,14 and other capacity magazines have been built for it. It has been chambered in 9mm, .38 Super, .40 S&W, 10mm, 9×23mm, and other cartridges. Yet, the pistol remains a “1911”. What is it that remains consistent through all of the myriad variations?

In this observer’s humble opinion, the defining characteristic of the M1911 pistol is its action. That which does not change across all of the design permutations is the action which is single and the grip safety and the manual or thumb safety. If the pistol has these characteristics, it is a 1911. Without them, it is not. Here’s a diagram of the action:

For me, this “single-action” mechanism is what gives the 1911 pistol its uniquely wonderful trigger. The single-action mechanism is simple. It only has to do two things: release the hammer when the trigger is pulled, and capture it again when the rearward motion of the slide cocks it. The additional mechanism needed to pull the hammer back during the trigger pull in a double action pistol is not present in the single-action. This means it is simpler, smoother, and requires less motion to activate. It also makes it easier to work on.

The 1911 trigger is fast and accurate because the trigger pull is so very short. Some consider this a liability. It isn’t hard to set off a 1911. Law enforcement officers facing tense situations may choose to carry a gun with a heavier trigger, and I won’t fault them. A 1911 trigger properly tuned “breaks like a glass rod.” There is no long, crunchy trigger pull to get the pistol to finally break a shot. The trigger pull is very short and crisp. Mil-spec is 5.5-6 lbs. of pressure. Most 1911 shooters like their triggers tuned down to 3.5-4 lbs. Bullseye shooters will take them down to the 2 lb. range. That’s a little light for me, but I don’t shoot bullseye. My carry gun, a Kimber Pro Carry, has a 3.5 lb. trigger. Don’t make me nervous.

By inference, guns like the Ballister-Molina and the Para-Ordnance LDA are not 1911 pistols. They may be nice, solid guns, but they do not meet the definition of the the 1911. The Ballister-Molina lacks the grip safety. The Para-Ordnance LDA is a double action, not a single action, pistol. The 1911 trigger does not pivot; it moves straight back. The LDA trigger pivots on an axis and is more like a Glock trigger than it is like a 1911.

In the 97 years that it has reigned as the gold standard of fighting and competitive handguns, no one has come up with a better trigger than John M. Browning did on the M1911. It may make you nervous, and it may scare your administrators, but when it comes to hitting what you’re aiming at, and hitting it fast, the 1911 has no equals.

Gun ban lobby attorneys argue to keep Texas students defenseless

The Fort Worth (TX) Star-Telegram is reporting that attorneys for the gun ban lobby have the tiny school district of Harrold in their sights.

The Wichita Falls-area Texas school district recently made international news by announcing teachers with a state concealed carry permit and permission from the district would be allowed to carry handguns on campus.

But according to the story, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence are attempting to stretch a rule in the educational code to fit the new policy in Harrold, TX, thereby claiming school officials there may be violating state law.

Read the whole thing here at Buckeye Firearms Association

Two of my favorites are working on Ruger revolvers this weekend.

Phil at Gunners Journal has the Ruger GP100/SP101 Book of Knowledge This is good tech stuff for folks who want to tune their Ruger GP’s and SP’s. Phil is a retired LEO and knows his guns.

Brigid at Home on the Range has Rugers on the Range, a write up of her day at the range with some great revolvers, with emphasis on the Ruger Bisley Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum. The other thing that Brigid does that I love is that between her gun articles, she intersperses great articles and photos on food.

Check them out…

Really, there aren’t any, but what guns might survive a Democrat gun control apocalypse led by Obama-Biden. Let’s take a look.

Indulge me in a bit of nightmare-scenario futuring: The anti-gun ticket of Obama-Biden prevails in the fall of 2008 and dissatisfaction with the Republicans sweeps commanding liberal Democrat majorities into both house of Congress. The Second Amendment and your guns are now squarely in the crosshairs. Within the first two months in office, President Obama places an embargo on sales of all new semi-automatic pistols in the major cities by executive order. In the meantime, Vice President Biden is feverishly drafting the Assault Weapons Ban of 2009. This is a far more expansive ban than the Clinton-era law, prohibiting military-style rifles and their ammunition (particularly .223 and 7.62×39mm), magazines holding more than nine rounds (this number specifically targeting the millions of 10-round magazines produced during the Clinton era), semi-automatic pistols with capacities of over 9 rounds, rifles with detachable box magazines holding more than 4 rounds, shotguns with magazines holding more than 4 rounds, pistol grips and thumb-hole stocks on rifles, bayonet lugs and flash suppressors, etc., etc., etc… You get the idea. Let’s also assume, purely for the sake of discussion, that most gun owners are going to try to adapt to the Draconian new law rather than die in a hail of ATF gunfire trying to defend their AK-47. (The new Assault Weapons Ban would, of course, exempt law enforcement and they would still have all the assault rifles and high capacity pistols they wanted.) So, accepting these assumptions as the “givens”, what would be the guns that might still be available to those trying to stay within the law?

Revolvers: Hell, even Dianne Feinstein has a revolver. While often vilified as “Saturday Night Specials”, revolvers have not generally been on the gun controllers radar screens so far. Heller was able to get his revolver registered in Washington D.C., and the D.C. regulations could serve as a prototype for what the new administration would like to impose on the rest of the country. Revolvers have rendered exemplary service for nearly 200 years and will probably continue to do so through even the most Draconian assault weapons ban. Those purchased prior to Form 4473 are even that much better. (Damn, I wish I were joking.)

Semi-Automatic Pistols: Believe it or not, there are quite a few semi-auto pistols with magazine capacity below the 9 or 10 limit that would likely be imposed in a new AWB. The venerable M1911 uses 7 and 8 round magazines, and 10 round magazines are built for it should that be the break point. Many of the Kahr 9mm’s are single stack with a capacity of 7 rounds. Many of the smaller pocket autos like the Kel-Tec P32 use 6 or 7 round magazines. The historic S&W Model 39 uses an 8-round magazine. One 9mm that I like a lot that doesn’t get the attention it probably deserves is the H&K P7 which uses an 8-round magazine.

Shotguns: Singles, doubles, and over-unders have even survived the absurd gun laws in England. Here, there are so many pumps and semi-automatic shotguns that I doubt any sort of ban on them would ever be accepted, although extended magazines might be in jeopardy. So, the Remington 870, the Mossberg 590, and most of the hunting semi-autos should probably be safe, although I noticed that the Brady Campaign has recently launched another disinformation campaign about semi-automatic shotguns claiming that they can “fire three rounds at a time.” My personal favorite in this group is the Remington 870, but I like the Mossberg 590 also.

Lever Action Rifles: The first “real gun” that I ever owned was and is a Winchester Model 1894 in 30-30. Rapid firing for five rounds, and fairly quick to reload, this favorite of the Texas Rangers continues to be one of the most useful and effective rifles ever built. You can hunt with it or put a bad guy down at 150 yards if need be. While it is a truly devastating weapon, I have yet to hear a Model 94 referred to as an “assault rifle.” (This whole thing is about words, not guns.)

Bolt Action Rifles: This group would include the Remington Model 700, Winchester Model 70, Savage Model 110 and the Ruger Model 77. Don’t tell the gun grabbers this, but I’m a hell of a lot more dangerous with a bolt gun and good scope than with any “assault weapon.” Of course, the gun grabbers try to characterize these rifles as “sniper rifles” which they can be, but they remain the mainstay of American big game hunters and precision target shooters, so the sniper thing doesn’t really work because they don’t want to piss off “sportsmen and hunters” who they hope to lure into voting for them. One exception is the .50 caliber bolt guns like the Barrett. I would expect that somehow they will try to work the .50 caliber centerfire rifles into the new AWB.

Anything Prior to Form 4473: Any gun that is “off the paper” is worth its weight in gold. Don’t register it if you can avoid it. They can’t confiscate that which they don’t know to exist. If you live in a jurisdiction that requires the registration of all firearms, you’ll have to make your own choices, and I’m not advising anyone to break the law, but…

Closing Thoughts
Am I scaring you yet? With the choice of Joe Biden and the release of the new Democratic Party platform, the message is clear and unmistakable: the Democrats are launching a full-bore extremist gun control agenda that we will be fighting for years to come. We already knew where Obama was coming from, but the platform statement and the Biden nomination writes it in bold strokes. The lines are clearly drawn; the Democrats’ newfound respect for the right to keep and bear arms was merely a sham, a cynical diversionary tactic. The claims of Obama and Biden to respect the Second Amendment are lies. Lock and load. We may be looking at a long four years.

Another scary thought struck me: most of my favorite firearms can be found in the list enumerated above. Only a few are not found there. The AK is definitely out. The Springfield Armory XD-9 with its 16-round magazine is probably in trouble. Have I been unconsciously selecting guns that would survive a new AWB? Maybe. I’m a political animal, and like my dogs, I sniff the wind. But the reasons I like my 1911, my snubby, my Models 94 and 110 and the 870 pump are not based in politics or nightmares of the future. I like them because the work well for me and meet my needs.

Finally, I’m a survivor. Job One is to insure the survival of my family and myself. Part of that equation is firearms that will defend us from the evil in world. I want to survive legally too, and the question inevitably arises, at what point do overreaching gun laws come in conflict with the requirements of self defense, and in doing so, force us to acts of civil disobedience – ignoring and violating unjust and unconstitutional federal regulations? This is not an easy question to answer, and I’m working on it, but I can’t say I have it completely worked out yet. It’s easy to make proud boasts in the abstract, but when you have worked all your life to build a family, a home, and a career, reasonable people have to weigh the risks. I suppose each person has their own tipping point. In some ways, I hope I don’t ever have to find mine.

There is one way to avoid the nightmare scenario, and that is to work very hard to defeat the gun control extremists, in the Democratic Party and beyond (Paul Helmke is a Republican). If the Obama-Biden ticket does prevail, we have to be willing to fight their legislative agenda until it is crushed.

If Barak Obama could have picked a running mate more hostile to gun owners than Joe Biden, I can’t think of who it might be. Picking a consummate Washington insider who brags about “writing” the Assault Weapons Ban looks more like the same old elitist East Coast crap than “change you can believe in.” I never have favored Obama, but I really thought he was smarter than this. Biden is a snide loose cannon, and can only damage the Obama candidacy.

Quotes:

“I’m the guy that originally wrote the assault weapons ban that became law. Then we got defeated. Then Diane Feinstein sent to town on it and did a great job. Look, we should be working with law enforcement right now to make sure we protect people against people who are not capable of knowing what to do with a gun because they are either mentally imbalanced and/or because they have a criminal record.” – Joe Biden,  Video here.

Source: Glassbooth.org

"I think it [gun control] can be a liability. For example, i oppose registration. I oppose a lot of the — there is a Second Amendment and it’s real. The question is, though, there are certain things that I have strongly supported: eliminating cop killer bullets, assault weapons, the dealing with the ability to have multiple rounds in a gun, a semiautomatic, 20, 25, 17, 18 rounds. I don’t view that as any infringement on the Second Amendment, and i know in my state, which is a big gun owner state, there is a general acceptance by hunters and sportsmen for those limitations. But you have others in our party who believe very strongly that if they could they’d legislate no hand guns under any circumstances. They’d legislate restrictions and registration, which i do not support. So I think there is a logical balanced approach to take with regard to dealing with guns and gun ownership. But I — but I don’t think — I don’t agree with some in my party who are very, very strict on gun control issues relating to whether or not there’s a Second Amendment, whether the Second Amendment applies to individuals. I think it does.”

Source: Iowa Press

From the NRA:

NRA has been tracking the U.N.`s gun-ban activities for well over a decade, and thanks to the Bush administration`s appointees to the U.N., the U.S. position on any global gun-ban treaty has been consistent and uncompromising: Hands off the Second Amendment rights of American citizens!

However, all that could change, now that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee–which approves or rejects our U.N. representatives and assesses international treaties for possible ratification–is chaired by anti-gun U.S. Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware.

Like Schumer, Biden is rated "F" by the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) for his countless votes against firearm freedom. Like Schumer, Biden voted to expose the lawful firearm industry to crippling lawsuits; to extend and expand the Clinton gun bans; to allow a ban on most hunting-rifle ammunition; and to deny the free-speech rights of groups like the NRA during elections.

Now, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden can use his power to sabotage pro-freedom nominees for U.N. ambassador–as he did with Second Amendment defender John Bolton–and bully fellow senators into accepting whatever gun-ban treaty the U.N. concocts in the name of fighting international terrorism.

Biden is sure to have a committed ally in California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who may chair the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security.
Source: NRA

Joe Biden’s Positions on Gun Control and Gun Rights

Keep assault weapons ban; close gun show loophole

Q: How many of you, in your adult lifetime, have had a gun in the house?

[Show of hands]: Senator Gravel, Senator Biden, Senator Dodd, Governor Richardson, Congressman Kucinich.

Q: Sen. Biden, what could the federal government have done to save those kids at Virginia Tech?

A: What they could have done is three things.

1. In the so-called Biden crime bill, we put 100,000 cops on the street. I’ve worked with law enforcement for the past 30 years, with armor-piercing bullets, waiting periods, etc. But the one thing that’s clear: We should not have let the assault weapons ban lapse.
2. We should close this so-called gun show loophole, so you can’t go into a gun show and buy a gun that you couldn’t buy walking into a gun shop.
3. We have let the country down in the way in which we have not focused on mental illness. We should know that your kid is safe at college. If teachers determine that a child is a danger, the school should be able to take them off the campus.

Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:

• Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
• Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
• Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
• Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
• Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices

Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005

Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence.

Vote to pass a bill that would block certain civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms and ammunition, mainly those lawsuits aimed at making them liable for gun violence. In this bill, trade groups would also be protected The bill would call for the dismissal of pending lawsuits against the gun industry. The exception would be lawsuits regarding a defect in a weapon or ammunition. It also would provide a 10-year reauthorization of the assault weapons ban which is set to expire in September 2004. The bill would increase the penalties for gun-related violent or drug trafficking crimes which have not resulted in death, to a minimum of 15 years imprisonment. The bill calls for criminal background checks on all firearm transactions at gun shows where at least 75 guns are sold. Exemptions would be made available for dealers selling guns from their homes as well as members-only gun swaps and meets carried out by nonprofit hunting clubs.

Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S.1805/H.R.1036 ; vote number 2004-30 on Mar 2, 2004

Voted YES on background checks at gun shows.

Require background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)50; N)50; VP decided YES

Reference: Lautenberg Amdt #362; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-134 on May 20, 1999

Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations.

The Hatch amdt would increase mandatory penalties for the illegal transfer or use of firearms, fund additional drug case prosecutors, and require background check on purchasers at gun shows. [A YES vote supports stricter penalties].
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)48; N)47; NV)5

Reference: Hatch Amendment #344; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-118 on May 14, 1999

Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows.

Vote to table or kill a motion to require that all gun sales at gun shows be completed by federally licensed gun dealers. Also requires background checks to be completed on buyers and requires gun show promoters to register with the Treasury.

Reference: Bill S.254 ; vote number 1999-111 on May 11, 1999

Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks.

Vote to table [kill] an amendment to make it unlawful for gun dealers to sell handguns without providing trigger locks. Violation of the law would result in civil penalties, such as suspension or revocation of the dealer’s license, or a fine.

Reference: Bill S 2260 ; vote number 1998-216 on Jul 21, 1998

Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.

Biden scores F by NRA on pro-gun rights policies

Source: On the Issues

See Also:

Joe Biden, Guns a-Blazin’

Barak Obama on Gun control

Barak Obama’s Attitude Toward Armed Self-Defense

2008ElectionsProCon

The Smirk from Delaware & the Second Amendment

Funeral Picketing Ban Upheld by Sixth Circuit:

Today’s Phelps-Roper v. Strickland upholds a ban on "’picketing’ or ‘other protest activities,’ within 300 feet of the funeral or burial service, from one hour before until one hour after the funeral or burial service." ("Other protest activities" is defined as "any action that is disruptive or undertaken to disrupt or disturb a funeral or burial service or a funeral procession.")

The court concludes that the ban is content-neutral, serves the important government interest in "protect[ing] the citizens of Ohio from disruption during the events associated with a funeral or burial service," including disruption in the sense of "unwanted communication that implicates … privacy interests" of a "captive audience." And:

Individuals mourning the loss of a loved one share a privacy right similar to individuals in their homes or individuals entering a medical facility. Indeed, the Supreme Court has already recognized the privacy right of individuals to control the body and death images of deceased family members sufficient to prevent their disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. See Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004). In Favish, the Supreme Court held that an individual’s request for death scene photographs of a public official were protected from disclosure under Exemption 7(C) of the Act “when the family [of the decedent] objects to the release of photographs showing the condition of the body at the scene of death.” Id. at 160. The Court based its holding on cultural traditions and common law protections….

Read the rest at the Volokh Conspiracy

Phelps and his gang of zombies can rot in Hell…

This strikes me as an extremely ham-handed way of going about a crime investigation. Does anyone really think a murderer is going to voluntarily bring in his gun for testing? What about the gun owners who refuse on principle to hand their guns over to authorities? Will they automatically go on a list for surveillance and harassment? Does the OSBI have any idea of how many .40 caliber Glocks are out there?

From WND:

Police tell owners: ‘We’re inspecting your guns’
Investigators searching community for firearm used in murder

Oklahoma police investigating the shooting deaths of two girls have told area residents with guns to bring them in for a test to determine whether they were used in the attack, sparking concern among those who own guns for hunting and self-defense.

According to reports in the Tulsa World the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation sent letters to members of the community who were registered as owning .40-caliber handguns suggesting they voluntarily bring in their gun or guns for a test.

The individuals who were "invited" to bring their guns in but didn’t now will be included in the ongoing investigation, as well as people who were identified by former owners as having purchased that type of weapon recently, authorities said.

And what if we say no?

"We’ll be checking on them," Jessica Brown, a spokeswoman for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, told the newspaper…

…Authorities said they sent out about 60 letters, and about 40 gun owners voluntarily brought in their weapons to the Okfuskee County Courthouse at Okemah for testing over the weekend.

Brown said those weapons were taken by investigators and test-fired, and the results of those tests now are being evaluated. She said nearly half a dozen former gun owners contacted authorities to identify new owners, and another 15 gun owners did not show up.

Responses from Oklahoma gun owners to the Big Brother tactics of the OSBI:

Those who participated in a forum on the newspaper web site expressed sympathy for the victims and their families, but worried about the maneuver of inspecting privately owned guns without a search warrant or probable cause.

"This is a really sad story. My heart goes out to the families involved," said one participant. "For some reason, though, it bothers me that 60 gun owners were asked to ‘voluntarily’ relinquish their legally-owned firearms."

Wrote a second, "Since when does Oklahoma have handgun registration? … I seriously hope they catch the vermin responsible for this, but I’m disturbed by the implication that Oklahoma, one of the most free states in the USA, has handgun registration."

Another, identified only as ok sooner and who reported spending time in law enforcement, added, "I would never ‘voluntarily submit their weapons for testing.’ Get a warrant."

"I’m with ok sooner," said a fourth. "I wouldn’t voluntarily submit my firearms to law enforcement without a warrant, either. This is really starting to bother me. Why ask 60 citizens to do this? Or maybe they’re waiting for somebody to refuse to submit ‘voluntarily’ whereupon they do get a warrant."

On the forums page for the Oklahoma Shooters Association, the readers were even more alarmed.

"Why don’t they just test fire all the .40 cal handguns in Oklahoma? Yeah, that’s the ticket," said one person. "I hate to perhaps sound callous about the tragedy, that’s not my intent at all, but this is some of the goofiest stuff I’ve ever heard of."

"What the OSBI stupidly did was ensure that, if the real murderer still has the murder weapon and got one of these letters, he will now WITHOUT DOUBT destroy it POST HASTE," said another.

"Human beings can only interact with one another through two methods: reason or force. If at any point, either party chooses force, the other must either submit or respond with force," warned another participant. "I prefer reason. But I am ready to respond with force. Submission is not an option."

Source: World Net Daily

I hope they get the monster who did this crime. I can’t even come up with words to describe the evil and depravity of what the murderer did. At the same time, I’m reminded that ATF did similar “visits” to owners of AR-15’s during the “Beltway Sniper” rampage. They went to gun shops and got lists of everyone who had bought an AR in the area and harassed quite a few of the owners for no reason, no probable cause, and the effort had no effect on the apprehension of the killers who hadn’t bought their rifle in the area. As a crime investigation technique, this just doesn’t work. It is a waste of law enforcement manpower and a harassment of lawful gun owners. It’s just dumb. It is also an excellent illustration of how the de facto registration of the BATF Form 4473 can be abused and misused. What will be their excuse next time? Terrorism? Homeland (in)Security?