Did the NICS push a killer into a deadlier attack?

This is the first time I've heard the federal NICS background check referred to as "a loop-hole." The Brady Campaign appears to be pushing for both federal and state background checks on long guns and handguns. They want to add medical records (mental health) to the approval process, and are lauding the Troy Police Department for denying a handgun license on subjective grounds -- which implies of course they feel a 'license' is warranted.

So what would happen if someone who supported the 2nd Amendment had written the article? How about "Gun control laws funnel killers to deadlier weapons." Or maybe this would just be a local news story, and this story would be national news: Man Uses Concealed Weapon To Stop Robber

-Dewey Ex Machina
NRA Endowed Lifetime Member

Denied handgun, alleged killer bought shotgun
Legal loophole apparently helped Mich. accountant carry out office shooting

LANSING, Mich. - Despite being denied a permit by police to buy a handgun last month, Anthony LaCalamita III had no trouble buying a shotgun a few weeks later.

Police say the accountant bought the 12-gauge shotgun Friday — the day after he was fired — and used it Monday to shoot three people at his former office in a Detroit suburb, killing a secretary and wounding two executives.

LaCalamita, 38, was able to buy the shotgun because Michigan, like all but four states, doesn’t require a permit to buy a shotgun or rifle. The state is one of only 12 states that require background checks for handgun buyers, but those buying shotguns or rifles need only pass an FBI criminal background check.

The discrepency is a legal loophole that needs to be closed, say gun control advocates like Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

“The bottom line is, we make it awfully easy in this country to get weapons,” Helmke said.

Only 15 states do their own background checks on long gun buyers, while 26 do their own checks on people buying handguns, according to the Brady Campaign.

Helmke said more states should do background checks because they have better access to criminal databases than federal authorities do and state checks are often more thorough.

No mental health check

Despite what his estranged wife’s attorney said is a history of depression and mental health problems, there was apparently nothing in LaCalamita’s FBI background check that prevented him from buying the shotgun. It’s left up to applicants to admit on their FBI background check form if they have psychological problems.

When LaCalamita requested a handgun permit last month from the Troy Police Department, the check was much more extensive.

Department spokesman Lt. Gerry Scherlinck said he couldn’t comment on why the department chief turned down LaCalamita’s request for a handgun permit. But he said the department looks at records that go beyond arrests or convictions.

“Theoretically, you could have a clear criminal history but still have contacts with law enforcement that would not rise to the level of an arrest or conviction,” Scherlinck said. A police chief “can use those contacts to deny a permit whether or not those involved arrests that might show up on a criminal history.”

LaCalamita was arraigned Wednesday on one count of first-degree murder, two counts of intent to commit murder, three counts of possessing a firearm in the commission of a felony, and one count of fleeing and eluding police. A not guilty plea was entered for LaCalamita by the judge.

Police say LaCalamita walked into his former office as employees were scrambling to beat the approaching federal tax deadline and opened fire with the shotgun.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

Starting a "Right to Carry Roadshow"

INTRODUCTION

I would like to put together a proposal for a CCW "Road Show" similar to the one organized by the New Jersey Coalition for Self-Defense and the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Ranges. This proposal would provide the required Florida paperwork to assist people in meeting the standards for the State of Florida to issue a CCW to a non-resident, and shepherd them through the process.

In discussing this, one of the questions that came up was if the California "Handgun Safety Certificate" (HSC) met Florida requirements for "training". The CA HSC is issued after taking a test from a certified instructor, and is a state requirement to purchase a handgun. Most stores that sell firearms have one or more of the sales people certified as an instructor.

COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA LAW

I would like to find out if the CA HSC meets the requirements defined for "training" under FL 790.06 (20)(h) "Demonstrates competence with a firearm by any one of the following". The CA HSC certificate may meet the criteria for any one or more of the following sub-sections:

1. Completion of any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or a similar agency of another state;

3. Completion of any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law enforcement, junior college, college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school, utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, or the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services;

7. Completion of any firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association certified firearms instructor;

DEFINITION OF THE CALIFORNIA HANDGUN SAFETY CERTIFICATE

The California statute that applies to the HSC is as follows:

12801. (a) As used in this article, the following definitions shall apply:...

(2) "DOJ Certified Instructor" or "certified instructor" means a person designated as a handgun safety instructor by the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 12804.
12804. (a) The department shall develop an instruction manual in English and in Spanish by October 1, 2002. The department shall make the instructional manual available to firearms dealers licensed pursuant to Section 12071, who shall make it available to the general public. Essential portions of the manual may be included in the pamphlet described in Section 12080...

(d) The department shall prescribe a minimum level of skill, knowledge and competency to be required of all handgun safety certificate instructors.

The instruction manual is available as a PDF from this site.

Please note: THERE IS NO CLASSROOM REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN A CA HSC. I do not know if this is meets Florida requirements or not.

In addition, anyone purchasing a handgun must demonstrate a knowledge of the safe handling of the firearm by demonstrating the manual of arms as coded in law under CA 12071. (b)(8)(D)(i).

Re: Addiction to Firearm Regulation

(I posted a comment at David Hardy's Of Arms and the Law on his post "Addiction to firearm regulation" and have reposted it both his piece and my response here.)

Just had a thought, based on the previous entry. In my experience, most legislation follows one of two courses: (1) after enactment, it endures without much change for decades. Its advocates got what they wanted; from there on they bring test cases to interpret or enforce it. National Environmental Protection Act, Administrative Procedure Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act would be laws of this type that we handled at Interior. Alternately, (2) the law is tinkered with in minor ways. The Endangered Species Act falls into this class, with the tinkering generally being aimed at loosening it.

Firearm regulations are entirely different. No matter how much is enacted, its political proponents insist that they must have more. As I noted in the previous post, even New York and Massachusetts politicians want more, more. If the laws are failing, it just proves they must be made nationwide, not that something is wrong with the approach.

Given this, can we fairly speak of an addiction to firearms regulation? The behavioral pattern matches the most severe chemical addictions. There is no such thing as enough. Whatever is obtained soon ceases to satisfy. In chemical addiction, because the body compensates by creating more natural depressants or stimulants, in legislation, because crime continues or rises).

The concept of "enough" does not even exist. I think Dave Kopel once pointed out to me that no antigun organization has ever laid out a real platform -- "this is what we want, and if we get it, we'll be satisfied and stop there."

The only parallel I can think of is Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which has really won all that they sought (.08, no drinking under 21, stiff sanctions, severe punishment for repeat offenders), but keeps coming for more action. Even there, most of their recent push is for more enforcement and stiffer sanctions, wanting roving checkpoints and license plate seizures -- they don't seem to be pushing for lowering the level still farther, or raising the drinking age to 25, or things like that.

What could we regard as symptoms of a legislative addiction? I'd suggest:

1. No level of regulation is "enough."
2. That a problem continues despite regulation does not prompt an examination of whether the regulation itself is ineffective, but only the claim that it is insufficient. Logically, there will be situations where the legislation is potentially effective, but insufficient. The key here is that the proponents of it are incapable of examining it in this light: the thought that it is ineffective is literally inconceivable. Evidence to the contrary is simply ignored. They MUST HAVE MORE.
3. As a consequence of 1 and 2, the proponents lack a true platform. They have at best a time-bound agenda of what they think they might get in the near future.
4. If the addiction cannot be fed well, anything will suffice, even if it has no real impact ("cop-killer bullets," "assault weapons").
5. The addiction must be fed, even in the face of suggestions that it is harmful. The loss of both houses to the GOP, liberal support despite harm to other liberal objectives such as civil liberties, the tendency of opponents to counter-legislate with stiffer penalties and even the death penalty, etc. These consequences, which would meet with proponents' strong objections if they came about in isolation, are acceptable costs if the addiction can be fed.

[Guy Smith adds, in a comment stopped for some reason by the spam filter:
I'm not sure it is an "addiction", but more like self reinforcing diagnosis.Contrast gun control logic with "medicine" as practiced by barber doctors of medieval times. If you were ill and went to the barber, they would let some blood. The loss of blood made you feel woozy, so to cure this condition they would ... let some more blood. The resulting drop in blood pressure would make you nauseous and lethargic, so the learned barber would ... let some more blood.Repeat until the patient dies from "vile vapors" or some other contrived explanation.The modern scenario is one where the unintended consequence -- emboldened criminals, street level violence, hot home invasions -- bring calls for yet more gun control ... repeat until we look like the
U.K.]

(My response:)

An addiction? Certainly not a physical one, no, not like to heroin or nicotine. An emotional or psychological one, perhaps, but substantially different from an addiction to gambling or pornography -- although alluding to an addiction to the "pornography of gun control" or to "gambling on victimization" has potential.

I think the Anti's position reflects commitment to their ideology rather than an 'addiction' to legislation. Their commitment reflects blindness from the thick veneer of ideology to an agenda they dare not verbalize, because to state it would be to destroy any hope of achieving it. In this case they have gone down the slippery slope from perspective to bias to prejudice to bigotry.

Call it the guilt of wealth, the fear of responsibility or the safety of surrender, it all leads to authoritarian government where the promise of safety is more valuable than the price of freedom.

The question for all of us is how much will we lose before we are willing to give up everything we have left to fight for what we believe in? What do THEY have to lose before they embrace the rights of self-defense through the responsibilities of firearms? What do WE have to lose before we accept total disarmament?

Ultimately, the side that gets the opponent to accept those goals first becomes the winner. The path for our side to their goals is shortest, because we give up a little more every year. They want to be subjugated, therefore our victory instead depends on them being abandoned and preyed upon until they are reduced by attrition. We need to keep our guns while at the same time they become segregated.

Preparing the Battlefield

LAObserved, a blog by Kevin Roderick that provides commentary on LA politics vis-a-vis the LA Times and media reporting, has posted an email sent out after a "delegation of progressives met with the top opinion editors at the L.A. Times to complain about the axing of Robert Scheer's column and push for more anti-war voices on the op-ed page."

For more information on their program strategy and agenda, please follow the link to the lengthy article: Anatomy of a left-wing cause.

The delegation consisted of Marcy Winograd (Pres., Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles), Wayne Williams (active in SoCal Grassroots), Brad Parker (VP, Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles), Carole Myers (active in SoCal Grassroots), and Bob Elias (Chicano Moratorium). The meeting was scheduled two weeks in advance. Tom Hayden's Op Ed piece "The Myth of the Super-Preditor" ran the day after the meeting. The next day, Huffington's "It's Dirty Tricks all over Again" ran. On Sunday, five days after the meeting, the LA Times ran "America Kidnapped Me," Khaled E-Msri's story of CIA torture.

The email is their "how-to" guide on to influence the LA Times's editors so that the Op Ed pages reflect their progressive opinions. With a few modifications, this strategy can be adapted to any cause, including RKBA issues. It is my hope that the members of this list review these suggestions and pursue a course of action through their MC's as unaffiliated individuals, or in conjunction with state leadership as a larger co-ordinated voice. Not to dump work on him, but I understand Paul would be the contact for anything other than unaffiliated individual opinion.

I am summarizing their recommendations contained in the email for the progressive's side of the argument below. Some specific links and recommended contacts may not be directly helpful to us.

They recommend the following course of action:

1) "Call Evonne Geller in Circulation at (xxx) xxx-xxxx and tell her you are [want to be] a "contingency re-subscriber for 3 months or until March 20th." If, for some reason, you have trouble reaching Evonne, re-subscribe by calling: (xxx-xxx-xxxx)." (NOTE: The email points out that by "canceling our subscriptions for a month and re-subscribing on a contingency basis, we exercise our influence as readers." -Jim)

2) "[Join] a well-organized Media Rapid Response group that evolved from SoCal Grassroots efforts, please feel free to contact Wayne Williams at xxx@xxx.net. When requesting membership, write the phrase "LA Times Watch" in the subject heading of your email." (NOTE: the LA Times Watch is probably not our friend, but may provide some fun reading for counter-intel purposes. -Jim)

3) "Commit to writing at least one letter a month, affirming or challenging LA Times content, paying special attention to columnists such as Max Boot and Jonah Goldberg who repeat the views of corporate-driven think tanks advancing a neo-con agenda. It will be our job to reveal misleading statements, lies and distortions and demand truth and accuracy. Support those progressive editorial and opinion articles that do uncover the truth, as Hayden, Huffington, Cockburn and Brooks did last week. To contact a writer or editor at the LA Times, you can email the person by writing their first name, followed by a period, then their last name @latimes.com Example: xxxx.xxxx@latimes.com (Opinion Page Editor)"

4) "We embrace an inside/outside strategy, whereby subscribers lobby from within and non-subscribers, withholding their subscriptions, exert pressure from without. Please let us know (pdlavote@aol.com) if you want to pursue an inside (subscribe) or outside (boycott) strategy."

5) "[S]tay involved in what the local media publishes and promotes."

6) "Let the editors ([Andres.Martinez@latimes.com and Nick.Goldberg@latimes.com]) know you are re-subscribing on a contingency basis; or that you are not re-subscribing until the LA Times hires a second nationally-recognized progressive weekly columnist."

7) The delegates "provided a list and sample columns of recommended journalists: Robert Scheer, Arianna Huffington, Bill Press, Jim Hightower, Frank Rich, Seymour Hersh, Paul Krugman, William Rivers Pitt, Tom Hartman, Naomi Klein, Norman Solomon, Marjorie Cohn, Andrew Greeley, and a dozen more, later talking up Tom Hayden and the need for a strong anti-war voice on the Opinion page." (NOTE: They later go on to say that the LA Times has a policy of not running syndicated writers, unless the writer originated with the Times, and that Huffington had been dropped by a former editor who became peeved when she ran for Governor. -Jim)

Among some notable comments from the email, Max Boot was equated with Hitler, "6,000 readers emailed and faxed the LA Times to protest Scheer's firing," and "two-hundred of us demonstrated in front of the LA Times building" in a co-ordinated media photo op.

CONTACTS:

LA Times Circulation Dept.: Evonne.Geller@latimes.com (800) 252-9141
LA Times Editorial Dept. Editor: Andres.Martinez@latimes.com
LA Times Op Ed Editor: Nick.Goldberg@latimes.com

The Los Angeles Times welcomes expressions of all views. Letters should be brief and become the property of The Times. They may be edited and republished in any format. They must include valid mailing address and telephone number. Pseudonyms and initials will not be used. Letters should be in plain text and not include attachments.
letters@latimes.com

The Times welcomes manuscripts for possible publication. Each commentary must be exclusive to The Times. Unpublished manuscripts will not be returned. For a recorded explanation of Op-Ed requirements, please call (213) 237-2121. Articles may be sent to oped@latimes.com (not as an attachment) or faxed to (213) 237-7968.

How the Brady Campaign Uses the Internet to Raise Funds

I have reformatted the following text in an effort to make the salient points more accessable.

Maximizing ROI in an Integrated Context

In the fall of 2003, the Brady Campaign grew its email list from an original 38,000 to 175,000 via an innovative micro-site that was followed by petition campaigns that focused on urgent federal legislation. A vast majority of these constituents were non-donors. Throughout two legislative battles in 2004, the Brady Campaign sent a series of appeals that included:
- A link to contacting Congress,
- A “tell-a-friend” option, and
- A strong ask for funds that often included examples of specific print or TV ads.

Typical responses ranged from 0.19 - 0.37 percent and average gifts ranged from $24 to $46. This compares to typical email acquisition response rates of 0.1 percent [2-4x better. -Ed.].

New donors via the Internet grew from 311 in 2002 to 3,244 [10.4x better. -Ed.] in 2004. The Brady Campaign acquired these new donors at a very positive ROI since sending an email appeal does not have any marginal costs once the software is in place.

The organization decided to test other channels to drive incremental conversion of these online sourced constituents to donors. Having collected postal mailing addresses for about 23 percent of its email list, the Brady Campaign sent a direct mail solicitation to online non-donors asking them to join.

The result was a 1.26 percent response rate. This response rate was 11 percent higher than the overall mailing response rate of 1.11 percent to the group’s standard direct mail rental lists.

The average gift from email constituents in response to the direct mail appeal was 19 percent higher ($24.22), compared to their overall mailing average gift of $20.52.

The key acquisition metric, the net cost per acquired donor for the email list, was $6.22 compared with $15.71 for the overall mailing.

The Brady Campaign also contacted non-donors on the email list via phone. It matched about 20,000 records of e-constituents who had taken at least one advocacy action.

Telemarketing drove a 21 percent pledge rate with an average gift of $27.38.

About the Author: Vinay Bhagat founded and heads strategy for Convio, Inc., a provider of on-demand software and services to help nonprofit organizations use the Internet to become more effective at fundraising, mobilizing support and managing constituent relationships. For more information, please visit www.convio.com. This article first appeared in the the March edition of FundRaising Success magazine.

A heart-to-heart talk

A heart-to-heart talk:

"Thank you Major Bloomberg."

His quote from a story kicked me into action.

"Illegal guns are hurting innocent people across America, whether you are east of the Mississippi or north or south of the Mason-Dixon line," Bloomberg said yesterday.

Well I marched my unregistered guns out and gave them a good talking to. It seems that most of them knew they should not go out after dark or let themselves be found on the street. Except my Mossberg. He smelled of cheap booze and refused to look me in the eye. His "Whatever dude!" comments started to get on my nerves. I'm so worried he will end up in a life of crime and other sorry deeds.

What is a dad to do?