A couple of bills of special importance, with my comments in italics:

• HB 139: Provides that any person who may lawfully possess a firearm in Virginia may carry it hidden from common observation. This is the “Constitutional Carry” bill that had to be pulled last year due to drafting errors. We need to go all out to support this bill and try to get it passed this year.
• HB 20 and SB 245: Provides that nothing in the Emergency Services and Disaster Law shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the possession, carrying, transportation, sale, or transfer of firearms. I’m not entirely certain how Virginia’s current disaster law effects firearms, largely because the current laws are a mess and the relevant effects depend on how a state of emergency is declared and who does the declaring. This bill is a good idea and should be supported.
• HB 1197: Creates a Class 3 misdemeanor for the offense of failing to report to law enforcement that a firearm a person owns or lawfully possesses has been lost or stolen. “Lost or Stolen” laws simply punish the victim of a crime if they fail to report it. This bill should be opposed.
• HB 364: Adds a definition of “firearms show vendor” and requires that a criminal history record information check be performed on the prospective transferee before the vendor may transfer firearms at a gun show. A “gun show loophole” bill that does nothing but inconvenience the law-abiding. This bill should be opposed.

And finally, one that is so bad it needs to be addressed separately from the rest:

SB 379: Creates a Class 2 misdemeanor for a person who is not a licensed dealer to sell, rent, trade, or transfer a firearm to any other person who is not a licensed dealer. The bill also creates a Class 2 misdemeanor for a person who is not a licensed dealer to buy, rent, trade, or transfer a firearm from any other person who is not a licensed dealer.

SB 379 (full text here) would ban all private transfers of firearms – any and all gun sales, trades, or gifts (other than gifts between immediate family members) would have to go through an FFL, with exceptions only for “temporary transfers” at shooting ranges, while hunting, or in the home in self-defense situations (but not for self-defense outside the home). This is the kind of statist crap that you see in states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, or Illinois, and is only one step shy of a full-on registration requirement. This bill was “passed by for the day” yesterday, meaning it’s still alive in the committee.

As much as I want as many of the pro-gun bills to succeed as possible, SB 379 is one that should be opposed at all costs, even if it means sacrificing all the others, including Constitutional Carry.

END OF LINE

[Thanks to VCDL for the information and sources!]

END OF LINE

Blacksburg police are seeking information on what’s being investigated as an armed robbery involving three “college-age” men.

The incident happened Sunday night, according to a police news release.

Officers responded to the Orchard Lane area at 6:25 p.m. after a report of an armed robbery and home invasion. It was reported that three men entered the victim’s home brandishing a weapon, took some items and fled, according to the release.

There’s not a lot of information in the story I ran across this morning, and I’m too busy at the moment to dig further for more. But I’ll take this short break to remind Hokies (and everyone else, really) to stay alert, lock your doors and be careful when answering them, and above all, CARRY YOUR GUNS! Even at home, have it either on you or easily and readily accessible. They only wanted property… this time. Their next intended victims might not be so fortunate.

END OF LINE

[Source: Roanoke Times article, retrieved 1/24/12]

How did I do?

I’m going to put in a break here so I don’t give away any spoilers, but I do have a couple of comments.

First, I want you to notice this one.

According to the quiz, that’s a cop. Take a closer look – is that a friggen’ rocket launcher strapped down next to him? WTF does a cop need a ruttin’ rocket launcher for?

There are clues as you go along. This should link to my results, if you want to follow along.

1. The headset is really the big giveaway. That style doesn’t seem likely to be military. Cop.
2. Look at the colour of that helicopter. I don’t think there’s any military that uses that particular shade of green, especially in what looks like a metal flake paint. Cop.
3. The one closest to the camera is carrying what looks like a rocket launcher of some sort. Soldier.
4. This one’s a “gimme” for anyone who’s been paying attention – it’s a picture of the Jose Guerena murder. Murderers.Cops.
5. Pretty similar to #2, but this time the colour of the bird is right, and the people on the side are properly seated instead of standing on the skids. Soldier.
6. Matching uniforms, proper gear, and, in the background, you can see the points on the caps. Marines (Soldiers).
7. I missed this one, basing my choice on the black vest with plain OD green fatigues and lack of helmet, and called him a cop. Turns out he’s a soldier.
8. I called them cops based on the vehicles and the plain fatigues with different helmet covers. They’re actually soldiers (probably not American).
9. Another “gimme”. You can see the sheriff’s star on his shoulder patch. Cop.
10. The wall makes it kind of easy, and even though they’re wearing woodland camo vests with plain desert fatigues, they do match each other. Soldier.
11. Another one I missed. I went with soldier, but the plain black helmet on the second guy should have been a clue. Cop.
12. This is the one I pointed out above. There’s a friggen’ rocket launcher next to him, so of course I said soldier. It’s a bloody cop with that hardware.
13. The black helmet confused me, but the camo’ed rifle pushed me in the right direction. Soldier.
14. Look at those caps. Those are Marines.
15. I went with cops based on the mismatched uniforms. They’re actually soldiers.
16. Black helmets and vests with plain OD green fatigues, the radios, and just the general look of the whole outfit were the clue here (they’re at least uniform, though). Cops.
17. You can the the badge on the guy putting on makeup. Cops.
18. That looks like Army ACU pattern, the way they’re lined up looks like military, and the look on that guy’s face is definitely more military than cop. Soldier.
19. The uniforms are pretty military and uniform, but there are still a couple of black helmets there. But the black APC is a dead giveaway. Cops.
20. They blurred them out, but you can still tell that the nametags were embroidered in gold thread. Add that to the black vests and helmets, mismatched balaclavas, and the exposed bright white zip-tie cuffs, and it’s obvious they’re cops.
21. Hard to tell, until you realize there aren’t any big guns on that APC. Cop.

Other than the cop with the rocket launcher (seriously, a cop with a friggin’ rocket launcher? WTF?) the most disturbing part was how hard you had to look at most of those photos to tell the cops from the soldiers. The militarization of our police is almost completed, it seems.

END OF LINE

(h/t McThag)

The rice was cooked with lime juice and just a little bit of sugar for flavour. The venison was browned with butter in a skillet with fresh ground black pepper, minced garlic, curry powder, and ground ginger. Then I added half a can of Ro*Tel Milder Diced Tomatoes and Green Chilies, about 2-3 tablespoons of lime juice (I eyeballed the amount), and a little beef broth, and let it simmer a bit. Then I added a bit of flour (mixed in with a little more beef broth) and let that thicken the juices just a little bit before serving.

It turned out a little spicier than I thought, but still pretty good. It was an improvisational variant on one of Mom’s recipes. She pounds the venison thin with a meat tenderizer, doesn’t slice it up, and uses plain stewed tomatoes instead of the Ro*Tel. I’ll probably use plain stewed or chopped tomatoes myself the next time I do this. I think that will work out better with the other flavours, especially the venison.

END OF LINE

[2012-01-19: Edited to add the lime juice to the skillet, which I originally forgot to mention.]

END OF LINE

(h/t Tam)

If you cannot stand up for the rights of the individual, you cannot stand up for rights, period.

Truth. The Rights of the individual, and the interactions between them, are the very foundation of all Rights.

END OF LINE

Got it? Good. Let’s look at a couple of things.

Others, including RedeemedBoyd, have already pointed out how it was his situational awareness that allowed him to stop the attack before it even occurred, but I really want to emphasize one significant point: nothing the attackers did in preparation for this ambush appeared unusual or out of place for the location.

Think about that. Every piece of their setup looked innocuous, and nothing set of his alarms until they actually made their approach. Even then, it was only because he saw motion in his mirror from the corner of his eye that he was able to focus on their approach and see the warning signs in time to take the precaution of drawing his pistol. Had he not seen that motion, he might not have had time to notice that they were trying to hide what they were carrying. Had he not been paying attention to his surroundings, he might not have noticed them at all until they were right next to his windows, by which point he probably would not have gotten out of the encounter without at least two broken windows, and probably not without some kind of injury. He would have been trying to draw his pistol while somebody was either grabbing him or striking him with an ASP baton – and at the same time as the other attacker would likely have been trying to grab his daughter on the other side.

Another question to ask, and the answer to this one is pretty chilling: What was their objective? This seems to be an odd and ineffective setup for a simple robbery. If it was a carjacking, they probably wouldn’t have been as ready to break the windows – I don’t know what part of the country he’s in, but this is still January, and even if it is unseasonably warm there it’s still probably cool enough that driving without windows would be unpleasant. Also, whether it was a carjacking or simple theft to strip and sell the car, the getaway car seems to be extraneous – they could drive the stolen car just as easily.

The biggest conclusion that looms in my mind is that this was intended as a physical assault, perhaps as part of an initiation. And that could have been very bad news. Hopefully, if that were the case, they would have left his daughter alone. Hopefully.

Fortunately, RedeemedBoyd had three things working in his favour. 1) He was aware of his surroundings, 2) He was armed, and 3) He kept the presence of mind to react appropriately and prepare as soon as he recognized the possibility of danger.

The final thing to take from this is that the attackers were cowards. As soon as they realized their intended prey was armed, they panicked and ran like scared little jackrabbits with a pack of hounds after them. No attempts to bluster or intimidate, or even to carry out their attack at all. They just ran.

Remember that. Most violent predators are cowards. They deliberately choose the weak, helpless, or unaware – those who are least likely to be able to fight back effectively – as their victims, and they frequently run when confronted. But it’s also very important to remember that they don’t always run. Don’t expect your gun to be a magic talisman that frightens away your attackers as soon as it is drawn without you ever having to pull the trigger. Be prepared to shoot if you have to.

And always carry your gun. It’s a lighter burden than regret.

END OF LINE

• One assertion of facts by the aforementioned Andy Goddard (that “After “1 handgun a month” was introduced, a study showed that the number of guns found in other states and traced back to original purchase in VA decreased”) with no identification of or link to the study in question supporting his claim;
• One appeal to emotion with no factual or logical assertions whatsoever; and
• One statement that “people in VA who claim their needs for safety require them to purchase multiple handguns per month are just doing so to turn around and sell them illegally online,” linking to a news story about a “study” by Mayors Against Illegal Guns claiming people sold guns to them when they claimed they couldn’t pass a background check, which doesn’t provide any actual evidence to support the statement and is irrelevant to the question at hand.

So, out of three responses in four hours, not one has provided any actual evidence that “one gun a month” restrictions are effective in reducing straw purchases. Not even the one from the Chairman of the Board of an organization dedicated to gun control!

Update: Oooh! Andy Goddard has jumped in! This ought to get entertaining!

Our local paper, The Roanoke Times, recently started an editorial feature called “Point / Counterpoint”, where they ask a question and have two people on opposite sides of the issue write a short piece on the topic. Each person is then given the opportunity to read the other’s column and write a rebuttal. Both the columns and rebuttals are posted at the paper’s Round Table Blog and opened for comments.

This week’s topic is Virginia’s One Gun a Month law, and the push to repeal it. The points made by both sides are pretty standard, and there are no comments posted as of 0915 this morning, but here’s what I said.

Those who oppose repealing the “one gun a month” restriction advocate continuing a restriction on the behaviour of the law abiding with no evidence to support their assertion that such a restriction accomplishes its stated purpose.

Let me repeat that. Despite it being in effect for nearly 20 years, and having the ability to compare data over that time period to other states that do not have such a restriction, supporters of “one gun a month” cannot present any evidence that it works.

If you want to continue to restrict my actions in an effort to reduce crime, show me evidence that the restriction actually reduces crime. Otherwise, step aside and allow the restriction to be ended.

And that about sums it up, for any law. If it restricts the freedom of the people, it can only be justified if it can be shown to actually accomplish its stated purpose*. Otherwise, it’s nothing more than authoritarian oppression.

END OF LINE

* Among other requirements. But this is one of the absolute requirements.