Psychologist: Psychological Tests Can't Predict Rogue Pilots...

In the aftermath of the GermanWings crash, the reliability of psychological testing is downplayed. Said Dr. Erin Bowen, a behavioral psychologist, in an interview conducted for the Today Show,

"The idea nowadays that a full psychological workup would somehow clue you in to which pilots are going to do things like this, it's fiction."

Yet the Brady and Bloomberg anti-firearms groups continue to insist that psychological evaluations are the magic bullet (forgive the pun) that should determine who should or should not own a firearm. If they can't predict which lawfully-licensed pilots are going to take down an aircraft, then they certainly can't predict which firearms owners are likely to commit crimes with lawfully-owned firearms.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Thank you, Dr. Bowen, for stating what so many of us have known for so long.

Michigan House Commerce Committee Members: NO on H.B. 5189

The MI House Commerce Committee will be hearing testimony this morning regarding HB 5189, the Jessica Heeringa law, which requires 24 hour gas stations to install costly surveillance equipment and maintain a minimum of 2 employees during overnight hours. 

I sent the following email to all of the Republican members of this committee this morning (their contact information can be found here: http://house.michigan.gov/MHRPublic/CommitteeInfo.aspx?comkey=222): 

Rep. Foster, 

I write to you today to encourage the commerce committee NOT to support HB 5189. While the goal of this bill is laudable, it has almost no chance of accomplishing what it sets out to do - protect employees, specifically late night gas station employees. The installation of security cameras prevents nothing; it merely acts as a POTENTIAL resource for police as they try to solve the crimes that MAY have been caught by them. Robberies and killings occur each and every day in this country and are dutifully recorded by security cameras. In many cases, the images they capture are too grainy, out of focus, or dark to provide any meaningful assistance to law enforcement. 

Similarly, the addition of another employee guarantees nothing, especially if a firearm is introduced into the equation by a criminal. A firearm in the hands of a criminal nullifies any perceived advantage offered by the presence of a second employee. 

This bill does two things: it makes people FEEL SECURE without providing ACTUAL security, and it increases the costs to employers - many of whom simply cannot afford the additional expenses. Passing a bill simply because it is better than nothing is what the legislature has a history of doing. If we are going to pass legislation to protect employees, then pass a bill that actually stands a chance of protecting someone. Pass legislation that repeals so-called "gun free" zones. Pass legislation that requires an employer to recognize the right of their employees and customers to provide for their own protection by carrying their lawfully-owned firearms and then INDEMNIFIES the employer. "But we don't want to infringe on the private property rights of an employer," you say, yet that is EXACTLY what HB 5189 does. 

Mr. Chairman, I encourage you and your committee to REJECT the emotional appeal that will be offered today in support of this bill in favor of legislation that actually stands a chance of accomplishing its stated goal of providing REAL PROTECTION to employees. You have Republican majorities in your committee, and both chambers of the legislature; this SHOULD BE an easily accomplished task.

Gov. Rick Perry Loses Concealed Pistol License….

Because of the specious charges brought against Rick Perry, charges that even many hard core liberals say are shaky at best, he has lost his right to carry a concealed firearm in public, as well as to buy firearms and ammo:

“It shall be unlawful for any person to sell of otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”

The amazing thing? If he is actually convicted, he could be sentenced to as long as 109 years. Just think - there are mass murderers who have been sentenced to less time in prison. And why? Political spite.

Eugene Volokh has analyzed the charges:

Another way of thinking about the problems with the Rick Perry indictment - The Washington Post

Why the Gov. Rick Perry prosecution unconstitutionally intrudes on the gubernatorial veto power

His firearms rights will be restored if he is cleared of the charges.

"Everytown for Gun Safety" Inadvertently Creates Pro-firearm Ad...

There is a good chance that you have seen this disturbing ad:

The intended purpose of this ad is to illustrate that many women are killed by an intimate partner and demonstrate the need for more gun control - specifically, to put pressure on legislators to support the newly introduced Domestic Violence Gun Homicide Prevention Act of 2014, which would force states to confiscate the firearm of any person under a restraining order.

Instead, this ad serves to illustrate what those of us in the Pro-Second Amendment community have been saying for years:  taking away one's right to their own defense protects no one - particularly women.

First, it illustrates that a restraining order is just a piece of paper with no real legal authority.  The Supreme Court case, City of Castle Rock v Gonzales, states that police are not obligated to enforce a restraining order and that "… the Due Process Clause does not "requir[e] the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors."

Second, it illustrates that, when motivated, there is nothing to prevent a bad guy from obtaining a weapon.

Third, it illustrates the adage, "when second count, police are minutes away."  In the narrative illustrated by this ad, in the time it takes for the woman to call 911 and begin to answer the questions of the operator, the estranged husband has already gained access to the house, pulled his firearm, and, presumable, pulled the trigger.  The average 911 response time in the town in which I live is 18 minutes; in other cities that time has exceeded 25 minutes, and in rural areas response times regularly exceed 45 minutes.

Finally, the ad demonstrates the conclusion reached by the majority in Castle Rock v. Gonzales:

"You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole." 

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

 Everytown has, with this ad, done an admirable job explaining the pro-Second Amendment position on the necessity to provide for one's own protection.

The Mass Shootings About Which Few People Speak….

Bloomberg's Everytown cooked statistics to try to show that, since Sandy Hook, there had been 74 "mass school" shootings. Once fact checkers got ahold of those numbers, they determined that the true number was closer to 15 - still far too many, but significantly lower than Bloomberg tried to portray.

But while everyone is talking about school shootings, there is another kind of shooting that is going on and very few people are talking about it - church shootings. 

In 2012 and 2013, there were 139 and 132 (respectively) shootings in churches or on church property, nearly NINE TIMES as many as school shootings, resulting in (respectively) 76 and 45 deaths, those numbers are up from 107/49 in 2011 (Church Shootings). While the number of attacks stayed relative stable from 2012 to 2013, what changed is the number of churches that are allowing their members to carry - which kept the number of deaths down in 2013.

Pastors, I know it goes against everything many of you believe, but it is time to let the sheep defend themselves from the wolves who are attacking, not because of our testimony, but because we are seen as just that - sheep, easy pickings. To quote from Thomas Paine, 

"These people are either too superstitiously religious, or too cowardly for arms; they either cannot or dare not defend; their property is open to any one who has the courage to attack them," Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War

 To quote from a HIGHER Authority, Jesus the Christ, "...let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one," Luke 22:36b (ESV). King David and the Prophet Samuel thought the temple too important to allow it to be attacked or pilfered; they established the temple guard (1 Chron. 9:17-29).

It is time to let our members defend themselves and their families. Let them carry.

Sen. Boxer Wants the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE To Take Over School Safety...

Sen. Boxer has been a busy woman this session.  She believes local police aren't doing enough to protect schools, so she introduced S. 145, a bill that would get the Dept. Of Defense involved in state school safety matters by deploying NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS to police stations and making them responsible for evaluating school safety:

Save Our Students Act - Authorizes the Secretary of Defense (DOD) to provide funds to states submitting specified plans for using National Guard personnel to: (1) perform administrative functions normally performed by state and local law enforcement personnel in order to enable such law enforcement personnel to be dispatched to keep schools and students safe from violence, (2) help conduct school security assessments and safety plans, and (3) conduct capital improvements related to enhancing school and student safety. S. 145 Summary, S. 145 Text

Yes, she is pushing for the military to take over school safety, INCLUDING LOCAL POLICE FUNCTIONS.

This bill is currently in committees, where, hopefully, it will die.  We need to be contacting our legislators in Washington to insure that this happens; this bills cannot be allowed to leave the committee.

Bloomberg News is ANGRY! Armed Detroit Citizens Are Having An Effect On Crime!

An article appearing in Bloomberg News accuses Detroiters of resorting to "gunning down burglars." The article acknowledges that the Detroit police force has shrunk significantly, doesn't have either the money or equipment to do their jobs, and responses to calls for help can take over an hour.

What really gets them, though, is this:

"Such headline-grabbing incidents belie a 25 percent drop in crime during the first three months of this year compared with the same period a year ago, according to police. Homicides fell to 45 from 68...

More than 29,000 Detroiters are legally armed and more are packing every day. The 6,974 concealed-pistol licenses issued to residents in 2013 were more than double those in 2009. Even more -- 7,584 -- were issued in 2012, according to the Michigan State Police. The number of unregistered guns is unknown," emphasis added.

In other words, while on one hand they deride Chief Craig for telling Detroiters to defend themselves, on the other hand Bloomberg News is forced to acknowledge that CITIZENS DEFENDING THEMSELVES WITH FIREARMS IS HAVING AN EFFECT ON CRIME IN THE CITY OF DETROIT!

Can I get an Oo Rah?!

Detroit Homeowners Gun Down Burglars as Police Await Cars - Bloomberg

If Bloomberg were as all fired interested in the well being of Detroiters as he would like everyone to believe, then instead of trying to disarm them, he would part with a portion of his billions to help equip the Detroit PD to do the job they were hired to do. 

Of course, THAT doesn't fit into his agenda of ridding the US of the firearms he hates so much (but with which he surrounds HIMSELF!)….

Critical Lessons Lost To History….

Insights from two men of history who were much smarter than I.

"A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, and dares say to reason, `Be thou a slave'; who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it. THE LAWS OF THIS NATURE ARE THOSE WHICH FORBID TO WEAR ARMS, DISARMING THOSE ONLY WHO ARE NOT DISPOSED TO COMMIT THE CRIME WHICH THE LAWS MEAN TO PREVENT. CAN IT BE SUPPOSED, THAT THOSE WHO HAVE THE COURAGE TO VIOLATE THE MOST SACRED LAWS OF HUMANITY, AND THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THE CODE, WILL RESPECT THE LESS CONSIDERABLE AND ARBITRARY INJUNCTIONS, THE VIOLATION OF WHICH IS SO EASY, AND OF SO LITTLE COMPARATIVE IMPORTANCE? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? IT CERTAINLY MAKES THE SITUATION OF THE ASSAULTED WORSE, AND OF THE ASSAILANTS BETTER, AND RATHER ENCOURAGES THAN PREVENTS MURDER, AS IT REQUIRES LESS COURAGE TO ATTACK UNARMED THAN ARMED PERSONS," Cesare Bonesana, "On Crimes and Punishment," 1764.

"But the position laid down by Lord Sandwich, is a clear demonstration of the justice of defensive arms. The Americans, quoth this Quixote of modern days, will not fight; therefore we will. His Lordship’s plan when analized amounts to this. These people are either too superstitiously religious, or too cowardly for arms; they either cannot or dare not defend; their property is open to any one who has the courage to attack them. Send but your troops and the prize is ours. Kill a few and take the whole. THUS THE PEACEABLE PART OF MANKIND WILL BE CONTINUALLY OVERRUN BY THE VILE AND ABANDONED, WHILE THEY NEGLECT THE MEANS OF SELF DEFENCE. THE SUPPOSED QUIETUDE OF A GOOD MAN ALLURES THE RUFFIAN; WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND, ARMS LIKE LAWS DISCOURAGE AND KEEP THE INVADER AND THE PLUNDERER IN AWE, AND PRESERVE ORDER IN THE WORLD AS WELL AS PROPERTY. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; BUT SINCE SOME WILL NOT, OTHERS DARE NOT LAY THEM ASIDE. AND WHILE A SINGLE NATION REFUSES TO LAY THEM DOWN, IT IS PROPER THAT ALL SHOULD KEEP THEM UP. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves," Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War," published in Pennsylvania Magazine, 1775. 

What is true of nations is true of individuals as well. Since some will not lay down their arms, others dare not. While a single bad guy refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up.

Remember, Thomas Paine was a Quaker - a pacifist, but even HE recognized the truth of this precept.

Capitol Shooting - Mother Was Depressed. Obviously We Need Vehicle Control Laws....

Regarding the recent capitol shooting: the driver was known to Connecticut police, it appears that she was suffering from depression and had been hospitalized for it at one point, and she rammed the barrier at the White House because she believed that Pres. Obama was stalking her (actually, she wasn't far from wrong on that count!).

Obviously, her right to own a vehicle should have been taken away long ago. 

We need to provide comprehensive, universal background checks as a condition to owning a vehicle, and we need to limit the capacity of gas tanks of all vehicles to not more than 10 gallons to insure that someone can't try something like this again. We need to immediately ban all high capacity gas tanks (11 gallons or larger), and register all vehicles in a federal database that can take a high capacity gas tank. Sen. Pelosi should waste more tax payer dollars looking at photos of vehicles so that she can come up with a list of scary-looking assault vehicles that should be banned from ownership unless you buy a tax stamp first; this list will grandfather in historic assault vehicles. It is imperative that the President pass an executive order banning the reimportation of any US-made historic assault vehicle that may have been provided to another country 60 years ago during the course of a war.

Further, the right of anyone associated with such a person to own a vehicle, especially one with a high capacity gas tank or, heaven forbid, an assault vehicle, should be curtailed as well to insure that the disturbed person can't illegally acquire the vehicle by running the owner over with their own vehicle. In addition, vehicle free zones should be established to prevent such people from getting too close to the White House, congress, and schools, and teachers and other school staff should be forbidden to possess a vehicle in a school zone. Malls, theaters, hospitals and other commercial entities should have the right to post themselves as vehicle free zones. The simple act of posting a vehicle free zone sign will be sufficient to deter someone who is potentially dangerous from using their vehicle to commit a crime, such as ramming a 7-11 for the purpose of dragging out the ATM.

If we take these measures, we can insure that something like this never happens again, because everyone knows that disturbed people, or even hard core bad guys, would never try to circumvent this system by illegally acquiring a vehicle or modifying a legal vehicle by adding a high capacity gas tank and other assault vehicle features.

Sound absurd? I can think of at least one other area in which these same conditions are considered to be "common sense," even though that area accounts for a fraction of the deaths that occur in the US as compared to automobile ownership.

Michigan Math: 10% Reduction in Police Force = 22% Reduction In Crime

The "experts" can't explain it, but Mlive published an article in their Sunday, 08/25/13, edition that demonstrates this phenomenon.

Statewide, Michigan has shed 10% of its police force, yet during the same time period, crime, including violent crime, has decreased 22%.  On a local level, Grand Rapids, MI, which has shed 17% of its police force in recent years, has seen a 33% reduction in violent crime and a similar reduction in property crime.

The "experts" have proffered various explanations, each more preposterous than the previous one.  One author posits that free access to abortion on demand accounts for the drop.  Another points to the switch to lead-free gasoline, while others posit that baby boomers were crime-prone and are now too old to commit crime.  Yet another "expert" points to the utopia that is Obama's new America.  Being unable to build any consensus among these experts, Mlive turned to the leadership of the police community, who attribute the reduction to technology - especially surveillance cameras and cell phones.

Long story short, they continue to grasp at straws when the most obvious answer is in front of them.

I have been saying it for years: THE NUMBERS DO NOT LIE!!!

In roughly the same time period as the reduction in crime, private gun ownership has skyrocketed; nearly 500,000 private citizens have concealed pistol licenses. As the article points out at the end, despite what the Brady Campaign, Bloomberg, and the rest of the gun grabbing world would like you to believe, more legal gun ownership does not equal more crime or even more gun accidents!!! This is simply the result of private citizens exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights.  

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Michigan is bleeding police officers. In the past decade, enough cops have been cut to equal the elimination of all Michigan State Police officers and the entire sworn force in Grand Rapids, the state’s second-largest city.

But there’s the conundrum, an MLive Media Group investigation found.

Despite the decline, you have never been safer in Michigan from serious crimes in a decade.

People don’t get robbed as much, or assaulted, or raped.

Cars thefts are rarer by half.

Your wallets and purses are less likely to be taken.

At the same time, there are fewer police in your neighborhood.

It is an enigma for cops, who hope more officers mean less crime.

The MLive investigation analyzed a decade of police manpower and crime statistics in the state since 2003. The analysis covered more than 500 departments, and 2.3 million reported crimes.

The conclusion was surprising. Even as communities bemoan the loss of sworn officers, serious crimes continue to drop in most places across the state.

So why do we need more police – or even as many as we have?

The answer is perplexing for departments that push for greater staffing as the economy picks up, but struggle to find statistical support.

“I’ve got command staff and officers that want to make the argument that crime numbers are up as our numbers have dropped, and it can’t be done,” said Lt. Patrick Merrill, an analyst for the Grand Rapids Police Department.  

Less Cops Equals Less Crime

 The article tries to offer several explanations for these results, including free access to abortion, unleaded gasoline, even Obama. An accompanying article supposedly from the police perspective tries to pin these results on better technology - especially surveillance systems and access to cell phones. THEY refuse to acknowledge the facts. When a study concluded that, in the more than 20 years since the passage of the federal gun free school zones act, the incidence of kids bringing weapons of all kinds to schools dropped a whole percent, "experts" immediately proclaimed that this was a direct result of the GFSZA - even though there were no "scientific" studies to back this up. But when it is revealed that crime, especially violent crime, in Michigan has dropped MORE THAN 20% STATEWIDE since the passage of our expanded CPL laws (just over 10 years), the "experts" say there is no way we can say with certainty that the drop has anything to do with the expansion of legal gun ownership and concealed carry.

Do I feel vindicated, ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS SAME MEDIA GROUP CONTINUES TO PUSH FOR MORE STRICT GUN CONTROL IN MICHIGAN?

WHAT DO YOU THINK?!!!

I just faxed this article to my legislators in both DC & Lansing. I encourage the rest of you Michiganders to do the same!

Here are their fax numbers:

Carl Levin: 1-202-224-1388
Debbie Stabenow: 1-202-228-0325
Rick Snyder: 1-517-335-6863

 For the rest of our Michigan state legislators, use the link on the sidebar.

Holder Lashes Out at SYG Laws in the Wake of the Zimmerman Verdict - Yet Another Straw Man...

At an NAACP rally this past week, AG Eric Holder lashed out at the Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws that have been enacted in 22 states.

"These laws try to fix something that was never broken," Holder said at the Orange County Convention Center. "There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if - and the 'if' is important - no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely" (Holder lashes out at SYG laws

There are three very basic flaws in Holder's arguments.

 First, the US Supreme Court has upheld the basic right to self defense in numerous cases, most notably Heller. Self defense is a right; there is no duty to retreat. So once again the good AG is trying to create a legal duty where none exists.

Second, the Zimmerman trial was never about SYG; it was the self-same self defense plea to which Holder refers in his speech. Holder states that citizens have a duty to retreat, yet the jury determined that Zimmerman was unable to retreat. Therefore, he was entitled to his use of lethal force to preserve himself from great bodily harm and death.

But the most important ramification of Holder's speech is this: Holder made the statement, "... people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat..." The context of this statement is Holder's stated contention that Zimmerman exercised his right to employ lethal force before making an adequate attempt (whatever THAT is) to retreat.

 Now, the prosecution's testimony was that MARTIN was the threatened party. Zimmerman was following him, and according to testimony from Martin's girlfriend, Martin felt threatened. The logical conclusion, therefore, under Mr. Holder's argument, would be that MARTIN should have been the one with the duty to retreat - which we know did not happen.

But that isn't what Holder said.

He said that it was ZIMMERMAN who had the duty to retreat.

This poses a real problem for his contention that Martin was the victim. In the light of his stated argument that the victim/defender has the duty to retreat, one can only draw one conclusion: if Zimmerman had the duty to retreat, then MARTIN was the aggressor.

In other words, Mr. Holder just declared Martin to be the aggressor and Zimmerman the victim/defender.

 Thank you, sir, for clearing that up for us. You just confirmed the jury's verdict.

 Now leave our SYG laws, which played absolutely no part in this case, alone.

Conservative Black Leaders Give their input on the Zimmerman Verdict...

Black Conservatives Analyze Aftermath of Zimmerman Case

Washington, D.C. - Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are analyzing the legal aspects of the George Zimmerman verdict and commenting on the implications: