An Open Letter of Apology to the Good Folk of Illinois From a Hoosier 66

An Open Letter of Apology to the Good Folk of Illinois From a Hoosier

This has weighed heavily on my heart for years and now I finally must get it out into the open. As your direct neighbor to the east I must apologize for Indiana's part in helping to dramatically increase the incidents of crime in Illinois.

You see, for many years my state of Indiana has allowed law-abiding residents to carry concealed handguns, and criminals know it is a bad idea to attack a Hoosier.

Nothing says "no" to those intent upon doing harm to a citizen quite like a bullet hole in their chest.

Because of that, Hoosier criminals are quite aware that it is much safer to do their evil deeds in places where people like Chicago Mayor Daly, Gov. Blagojevich, and Sen. Obama prefer residents to be completely helpless.

This encourages our rapists, muggers, mass killers, thugs, white-sheeted bigots, terrorists, gay bashers and anti-Semites to leave Indiana and move to Illinois, one of the few states left where the "defenseless lambs" theory of self-defense still exists. The mass exodus of our criminals helps ensure the continued well-being of Indiana residents -- even those who choose not to carry a handgun.

It might not be of much comfort to you folk who will be victimized by these transplanted predators, but Illinoisians can find solace in knowing that we appreciate your willingness to make yourselves available as easier targets of opportunity.

If it saves just one Hoosier life, it is worth it.

Crime file news- Penn & teller tell it

http://www.crimefilenews.com/2008/03/penn-teller-say-gun-control-is-bullst.html


http://cdn.liveleak.com/FLVPlayer.swf?xml=http://www.liveleak.com/play_flash_xml.php%3ftoken=409_1176853869%2526embed=1

False media story

Monday, March 17, 2008

Los Angeles Times Runs Fake Photo As A Pro-gun Ban Propaganda Machine

In today’s L.A. Times they ran this inflammatory photo with a story about the D.C vs Heller case being argued before the United States Supreme Court. The photograph is a fake! The “illegal handgun” is no more than a toy.


The picture was credited to Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press. The caption is as follows: “A 14-year old who asked not to be named had this illegal handgun on him in southeast Washington on Tuesday, March 11, 2008. Under a 31-year-old law in the nation's capital, ownership of handguns is barred for nearly everyone except law enforcement. The ban is up for review in the Supreme Court.”

The picture is of a German made RTS tear gas delivery device that uses a small amount of gunpowder to deliver CN powder to an attacker. The gun and several like it were manufactured in the early 1960’s in Germany. These guns were no longer made or sold when aerosol spray cans were found to be far superior tear gas delivery system to these tear gas pistols.

The RTS was never considered a firearm by ATF It was freely imported, unrestricted and sold by mail and available in American novelty shops. Needless to say nobody made or sold the ammunition for this obsolete gun in several decades.

The RTS was far less capable of converting to fire ammunition then a ball point pen.

The whole L.A. Times Story can be found here.

From crime file news...............................

The Supreme Court DC Gun Ban Arguments Were A lot Of Hot Air

The lawyers stepped up to make their arguments over One hour and 37 minutes. The Justices as always took the wind out of the lawyer’s sails by interrupting them with questions and stealing time from their arguments. We can only hope the justices are really reading the mountains of briefs filed in the case.

The pro-gun rights plaintiff’s lawyer arguments contained a message that the Second Amendment somehow meant the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be UNREASONABLY infringed. The pro-gun rights argument was far behind the tone of the published opinion of the DC Court of Appeals that upheld our Second Amendment rights.

As usual we really can’t draw conclusions as to the court’s direction based on today’s session. We have to rely on the usual benchmarks and hope we have a five to four split on the predictable political leanings of the justices themselves.

I can only see an opinion that says the Second Amendment is and individual right. I don’t see the court suggesting that the right is somehow limiting through 25,000 gun laws that are on our law books. Keeping and bearing of arms by the people is either a right or it is not.

Over the next three months we will hear the court speak.

Daley warns of 'Pandora's box'

—Michael Martinez

March 19, 2008

LOS ANGELES — If the Supreme Court strikes down the ability of municipalities like the District of Columbia to regulate guns, Chicago and other cities with handgun bans would see a return of gun stores and an upswing in crime, Mayor Richard Daley said Tuesday.

"That would open a Pandora's box," he said following a news conference with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to promote federal legislation requiring microstamped identifiers on cartridges fired from semiautomatic handguns.

—Michael Martin

Supreme Court considers 'right to bear arms'

Landmark case on D.C. ban expected to have major ramifications

WASHINGTON - In a landmark hearing on gun ownership, the Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns.

The justices were aware of the historic nature of their undertaking, engaging in an extended 98-minute session of questions and answers that could yield the first definition of the meaning of the Second Amendment in its 216 years.

A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives “a general right to bear arms.”

Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals’ gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home.

“What is reasonable about a ban on possession” of handguns? Roberts asked at one point.

Justice Samuel Alito, who like Roberts was appointed by President Bush, cited another provision requiring rifles or shotguns be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock, and said it did not seem as if they could be used as such for the self-defense of one’s home.

The court’s four liberals seemed most sympathetic to the law during the arguments. Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the District’s public safety concerns could be relevant in evaluating its 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.

“Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say ‘No handguns here?’” Breyer said.

Bush administration sides with partial bans
Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right, but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should allow for reasonable restrictions that allow banning certain types of weapons, including existing federal laws.

He did not take a position on the District law.

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

The 27 words and three enigmatic commas of the Second Amendment have been analyzed again and again by legal scholars, but hardly at all by the Supreme Court.

The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The court's ruling, expected by the end of June, could have a far-reaching impact on gun-control laws in the United States and could become an issue in the November election.