The irrelevence of the Second Ammendment of the American Constitution

Posted on by
Reply

Occasionally I manage to obtain a copy of Guns & Ammo magazine. Not only is it unusual to find a copy of this magazine on a news stand or in a shop these days, it is unusual to find one so current. This was an April edition.

Reading through it there was a letter in the Reader Blowback section which struck me. Mr Jim Green commented upon how erroneous it was to gun owners to refer to “Second Amendment Rights”. In fact he went on to highlight an issue that I have mentioned in the past, although perhaps not as clearly and succinctly as Mr Green in his letter.

What he says is that the right to keep and bear arms is a an “unalienable God given, natural, fundamental”, established long before the Constitution was even a twinkle in Benjamin Franklin’s eye. Whilst I would argue the God given part, he is essentially right inasmuch as gun ownership and general use was established as part and parcel of normal life in North America as soon as the first settlers arrived.

In my previous post on Gun Rights in reference to the UK I have made mention of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and how it influenced the culture of gun ownership in the early settlements of North America. The Bill of Rights gave the right of weapon ownership to all under the English crown. However, that unalienable right became a conditional right under laws imposed by the British Parliament in the Firearms Act of 1920.

As Mr green states suggests, referring to the 2nd Amendment as the source for one’s right to keep and bear arms is simply acknowledging that your right stems from the law of the land. Laws that can and have been amended in the past and will no doubt be amended in the future also.

Is it possible that some future US government could change the constitution sufficiently to alter the 2nd amendment to a conditional right of ownership, like the British Parliament did? Food for thought perhaps bearing in mind the coming Presidential elections in November.

A tale of sorrow at DEA, ICE & Homeland Security.

Posted on by
Reply

Whilst I trust the integrity of my source on this, I have no way of checking the bona fides of this story. However, given the propensity for target driven results in law enforcement these days, over less tangible but non the less more equitable forms of an individuals performance, it was only a matter of time before something such as this happened.

The following therefore is what it is and reputed to be from a credible law enforcement source.

An attorney wrote this to a DEA agent buddy of his: “ICE came in 222nd out of 240 government agencies, as rated by each agency’s own respective employees. Not a week goes by in which I’m not asked by an ICE agent to represent him or her in my capacity as an attorney in a legitimate legal matter against the agency. And I’ve agreed to take some of these cases, as well as those by other Homeland Security federal agents. Morale is at an all-time low throughout. Agents can’t deport illegal aliens per Obama, and they can’t do much else in their nebulous roles.

ICE Deputy Special Agent in Charge for Los Angeles, Kevin Kozak, was initially shot by ICE Senior Supervisory Special Agent Zeke Garcia at ICE’s Long Beach office. Garcia was then shot and killed by ICE Assistant Special Agent in Charge Perry Woo. Garcia was in a “counseling session” with Kozak, reportedly over a disciplinary matter, and Woo was there as the witness, the typical procedure for such matters. Garcia shot Kozak four times and then was shot and killed by Woo.

It’s unusual that federal agents would feel sorry for the man who did the shooting (and was ultimately killed) and not for the man who was initially shot and lived. But, in this case, the man who was initially shot yesterday, ICE Los Angeles Deputy Special Agent in Charge Kevin Kozak, was part of the problem, not the solution. I condemn violence, I wish him well, and I hope he fully recovers. But while he certainly did not deserve to be shot, the many ICE agents I know have universally condemned this man and not a single one is surprised this happened. In fact, a retired federal agent I know who worked at ICE told me that everyone predicted that one of these days, Kozak was going to take a bullet by fed-up, abused employees. Other agents from all over the country have echoed the sentiment. I’m told that there have been years of complaints filed against Kozak for bad management and discrimination. Never once was anything done about it. And the fish rots from the head down, with the head being Obama appointee/ICE Chief John Moron Morton, who is flying to Los Angeles to “save the day” that can’t be saved and get face time for his faux-somberness.

ICE has already begun the spin, portraying the shooter as a nut. But he was not. ICE Agent Zeke Garcia, a Group Supervisor who oversaw a team of ICE agents, had a long career at ICE reportedly without a problem. He was a universally liked man who was bullied by Kozak and snapped. As one former ICE agent said, “What does it take for a great guy like this to snap like this? Answer: Kevin Kozak.” Garcia was originally with the INS and that was, reportedly part of why he was bullied in the old INS/Customs dispute, as the two agencies merged into ICE and ICE pretends to do immigration enforcement but actually does nothing.

**** UPDATE: One ICE agent who knew Garcia says the dispute was regarding Garcia being yanked around, being deliberately transferred by Kozak to an office that would add 90 minutes to his daily commute:

He was recently divorced and has a kid. After the divorce, they moved him from the Laguna office to Long Beach increasing his commute by 90 minutes and, then, were screwing with him and tried to discipline him. There are a lot of high strung guys in the agency, but Zeke was never one of them.

One ICE agent:

Kozak, who is an open INS hater, was going after yet another legacy INS supervisor and got shot. The Group Supervisor that shot him, Zeke Garcia was a great guy from what I knew of him. He was killed by ASAC [Assistant Special Agent in Charge] Perry Woo. What a continued mess that office is. Congress should investigate the whole merger and the continued assault of the legacy INS folks in HSI [Homeland Security Investigations, ICE's new branding].

Expect our agency to go dead last in that federal survey.

Another:

Kozak is a well know a**hole, from the John Chakwin school of management. None of the agents are surprised by this. ICE has the kind of management that pushes, and pushes and it was just a matter of time before they pushed a guy over the edge. What a f**ked up outfit.

And another:

Deputy SAIC Kevin Kozak….. One of the most despised and corrupt agents in the agency. ICE has already begun their coverup and attack against “the shooter” who was a very good and liked agent. I have personally overheard agents talk that someday Kozak would take a bullet…. That it was just a matter time time.

I have personally assisted agents with their formal written complaints against this pieces of s**t. Kozak has more mismanagement and discrimination complaints filed against him than probably any other supervisor in the agency, yet because of his connections in DC, the agency never does anything. Now they will surround the wagons around Kozak “the victim” and trash the name of ” the shooter”.

And finally another (sarcastically):

What a peachy agency ICE is!!!!

Again, I do not condone the violence against Mr. Kozak. But when an agent opens fire on another agent and shoots four times, apparently trying to kill, another agent, it’s not usual he gets sympathy and the victim is universally disdained. In fact, it’s usually the other way around.

That should tell you something about ICE. John Morton should have handed his resignation in last night. Or, rather, long before that.

NRA and Wayne La Pierre come to London.

Posted on by
Reply

Join the NRAThere is a TV Debate in London on Monday 5th March hosted by US NRA. This exciting event should not be missed. “Stand up and be counted for British shooting” notes Mike Yardley “The issue will be the creeping UN agenda on banning small arms … it affects all of us because they are confusing – perhaps deliberately – child soldiers with AKs in Africa and elsewhere with legitimate sportsman and women. The policy created by UN, though, as with EU, impacts on us shortly afterwards.Some of the stuff already on record is really worrying…”

To be held at

Apothecaries’ Hall
Black Friars Lane
London
EC4V 6EJ

Book your free place now. Starts 18:00 Refreshments served.

Contact
Mike Wells
SPORTSMAN’S ASSOCIATION
2 Clockhouse Place
London SW15 2EL
Landline 020 8789 1211
Mobile 07973 262133
Email sportsman.assn@me.com

Warning Shots and why they shouldn’t be used.

Posted on by
Reply

This is a controversial subject which crops up time and time again in the media. It is usually in response to the shooting, by Police, of an armed subject. Or as most recently in the case of Dennis Flemming, a man from New Hampshire USA, who returned home to find his house had been burgled. He found the Burglar climbing out of a neighbours window and fired a ‘warning shot’ from his pistol and into the ground. He then held the miscreant at gun point until Police arrived.

As well as the Burglar, Mr Flemming was also arrested on the basis of him being involved in ‘Reckless Conduct’. As I understand it Mr Flemming’s case is currently under consideration and is therefore subject to the rules of sub judice. I am not qualified to argue whether the power of arrest was appropriate in these circumstances and that is not subject of this article.

Warning shots have been traditionally fired by the armed services, usually the Navy, in order to dissuade an enemy from following a certain course of action.

Warning shots by an individual, be they a Police Officer or a civilian are an entirely different matter.

There are three reasons why I would never fire a warning shot. There are probably many more.

1. A warning shot can be miss interpreted by a suspect, as a reluctance on the part of the shooter to shoot at a human being. If the suspect is armed they may feel inclined to return fire. Inevitably this will often end up exacerbating the situation into a full blown confrontation. A confrontation where the situation could have more properly have been handled by the use of verbal commands, reinforced by the presence of a gun.

2. Where is that bullet going? If you fire it into the ground, as the gentleman did in this case, what happens if it ricochets? What if the bullet hit a rock beneath the surface of the ground and hit Mr Flemming and disabled him? Or what if the bullet had hit an innocent person standing nearby? When you discharge a gun anywhere other than on an appropriate range you have to be concerned for your back stop and where that bullet is going to end up.

3. What if by discharging a warning shot it is taken as an aggressive action, by an as yet unseen armed citizen, also responding to the same incident. Are they likely to return fire at you or mistakenly at the Burglar.

There is more to defending oneself and one’s home and family with a gun than just learning how to shoot it. You need to be intimately conversant with the law of your state as to where and when you can discharge your gun. Ignorance of the law is simply no excuse.

Gun Control. A UK perspective. Part Six; What went wrong.

Posted on by
Reply

We in the UK were blighted by apathy amongst our shooters. We couldn’t unite as shooters to fight the various gun bans we have faced. We became partisan, with each group only interested in it’s own single interest branch of shooting. The target rifle shooters weren’t bothered about losing semi automatic rifles because they didn’t use them. Similarly with pistol shooters. When it came to the pistol ban no one was bothered because they were too concerned with their own niche. An attack on one group should have been seen as an attack on shooters in general but it wasn’t. Since then there has been an effort to unite all of the groups under one organisation. An organisation similar to the American NRA that would fight for shooters rights across the board. That too has failed because no single group wants to relinquish it’s resources and funds to help another. Shooting n the UK is doomed and all because of apathy. I joined the American NRA over 6 years ago now because I decided that shooters needed to make a stand. I see the USA as the last great bastion of gun ownership and as such worthy of fighting to protect. I still try to do my bit, not only by joining the NRA but also by running an online blog and facebook page. It saddens me to hear of so many gun owners in the USA failing to realise their responsibilities. I joined the American NRA as a Brit to protect what we failed to do here in the UK. The very least you guys can do is join me and defend your own rights.

4000 on Facebook 9000 on Twitter: Thank you all.

Posted on by
Reply

When I started this blog and it’s associated Twitter and Facebook pages, I never realised the scope for reaching so many people existed. The USA, UK, Australia, India, Iraq, Jordan, Chile, Argentina, The Philippines are just some of the locations that these pages now reach. Over 4000 likes on Facebook.com/SightsNTrigger as well as over 9000 followers @sightsntrigger on the Twitter feed.

Thank you to everyone who has participated so far, just keep pushing the message for responsible gun ownership and keep telling your friends.

Blackburn Rifle & Pistol Club Celebrate 30 years at Audley Hall Mill

Posted on by
Reply

In 1982 the senior members of Blackburn Rifle & Pistol Club, who had been shooting for several years at the Territorial Army Range on Canterbury Street in Blackburn, purchased a large proportion of the former Audley Hall Mill on Dickens Street in Central Blackburn.

Former Club Secretary and trustee Walter Holmes recently passed on some early pictures of the interior of Unit 5a in its ‘as purchased’ condition. It was a vast area of former weaving mill under a North Light Truss roof, the only obstructions being the Victorian cast iron columns supporting the roof. In one picture can be seen Bert Brogden, standing by the concertina folding door at the unit entrance, looking across the massive space. In the far back corner can be see the back stairs which lead up to Pringle Street. These stairs are now safely behind the block work wall and 20mm of steel backstop of “B” Range. Nowadays the former weaving mill is home to seven indoor ranges, a social club room, club shop and an indoor car park.

Reproduced by permission January 2012 edition of EPSILON An occasional newsletter for members and supporters of Blackburn Rifle & Pistol Club

Julie Goloski-Golob

Posted on by
Reply

Julie is a team Smith & Wesson and team Safariland shooter from Montana. She has a new book out simply called “Shoot” and is available from Amazon.com worldwide, along with other decent book stores.

Get your copy while you can, it’s bound to be a best seller.

Check out Julie’s web site at www.juliegolob.com

Gun Control. A UK perspective. Part Five.

Posted on by
4

In 1997 the country was heading towards a general election. Prime Minister John Major’s Conservative government was largely disliked. He surpassed the recommendations of the Cullen enquiry and a knee jerk decision was made to ban all cartridge firing handguns, other than single shot .22lr pistols. Black Powder guns and guns produced prior to 1917 would remain legal. Major did this to curry favour amongst a population that was tired of 18 years of Conservative government. It didn’t work and later in 1997 Tony Blair’s New Labour socialist party, came to power. Blair became Prime Minister and went one step further than Major and banned .22lr pistols too. This effectively ended competitive target pistol shooting in the UK except for air and black powder pistols.

It’s ironic that today I have to travel abroad to indulge my shooting activity, other than with my target air pistol. So do any Olympic event competitors. A friend of mine and winner of 8 Commonwealth Games Gold medals in Pistol shooting had to train in Switzerland to shoot for his country. I last shot a pistol in a country that prior to 1989 and the fall of communism, would have been proud to have had such restrictive firearms bans amongst its population. Perhaps the Free West isn’t so free as we would think?

As I write this, preparations are being made for the 2012 Summer Olympics in London. It is said that each sport will receive a legacy following the Olympics of improved facilities. It is difficulty to see at this time what legacy there will be for shooting. The shooting events will take place in a purposely built in the grounds of Woolwich’s Royal Artillery Barracks and I am led to understand that the targeting and scoring system has been rented.

Although traditional cartridge firing pistols were banned, with the exceptions listed, certain other pistols were allowed so long as they have a barrel at least 300mm long and a total overall length exceeding 600mm. Where on earth do you find a Pistol with an overall length of 600mm? Well, Morini and Pardini introduced a “Longarm” single shot pistol in .22lr built to this configuration. At least this allowed some target shooting events to continue as in the free pistol 50 metre event. Other innovations began to arise with long barrelled revolvers appearing on the market in .357 magnum and eventually a .22 semi auto “Longarm” based upon the Browning Buckmark.

For some of us the damage had been done. Some gave up shooting altogether and others, like myself, reverted to air pistol shooting or shooting overseas. Practical Pistol continued in a form, initially using Co2 powered pistols and ultimately using airsoft pistols with traditional magazine changing and full semi auto functioning.

The argument of using guns for defence in the UK has never really been at issue. As mentioned in this article earlier. The acquisition of firearms for defence has not been allowed since 1937 Since the 1997 ban there is no doubt that gun crime has increased. The pistols and rifles that have been used in crime have certainly not originated from legitimate shooters. This is one argument that was put forward by the anti gunners, in their claim for tighter controls. That claim can now be resolutely refuted. Although there is no doubt that gun crime is on the rise, particularly in our major cities, it is still comparatively rare in comparison to other countries.

In the next and final part I shall look at what went wrong with shooting in the UK and why.