Home/Index/ACLU Makes No Money Supporting This Right/Parable of the Lambs/Gun Lawsuit Reform/Indiana Use of Force
Good for the Country
ENDORSED CANDIDATES
Keep up on all new stuff Here They Come Again 
A Senator reponded re Senate Bill 397 that he did vote for the bill. He
neglected to tell his loyal constiguent that he voted for a "poison
pill" that would have, again, caused the bill to be withdrawn.
Senate Bill 397, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms, once again
met the test of the one hundred Presidents in Waiting. How did we go? As
we go through this one, you may find your eyelids drooping. The amendments
will go on for sometime and some may lose the significance of a vote. As
we go through, the webmaster will stick in little reminders.
Old Sarge is pleased to report that The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
has issued its ratings of the States. Unfortunately, Indiana received a
D rather than joining Alabama, Idaho, Kentucky, Lousiana, Mississippi,
Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming in the better rating of F. The Brady Center
also assigned ratings to express its approval of Senatorial candidates
in 2006. The following candidates received better than a 50% approval rating
from the anti-2nd Amendment bunch. If your representative is amongst them,
and you support the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms,
you might wish to inquire:
Diane Feinstein (D) California - 100%
Joseph Lieberman (D) Connecticut - 92%
Thomas Carper (D) Deleware - 100%
Bill Nelson (D) Florida - 100%
Daniel Akaka (D) Hawaii - 100%
Richard Lugar (R) Indiana - 53%
Paul Sarbanes (D) Maryland - 100%
Edward Kennedy (D) Massachusetts - 96%
Debbie Stabenow (D) Michigan - 100%
Mark Dayton (D) Minnesota - 100%
Jon Corzine (D) New Jersey - 100%
Jeff Bingaman (D) New Mexico - 60%
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) New York - 100%
Kent Conrad (D) North Dakota - 71%
Mike DeWine (R) Ohio - 63%
Lincoln Chafee (R) Rhode Island - 88%
James Jeffords ((I) Vermont - 57%
Maria Cantwell (D) Washington - 100%
Robert Byrd (D) West Virginia - 92%
Herb Kohl (D) Wisconsin - 100%
[Remaining Republicans running for re-election in 2006 received less than
a 19% rating]
Senate Bill 397 to prevent anti-2nd Amendment crowd to achieve in the courts
what they cannot do at the ballot box will be debated soon. Last time both
Senators Lugar and Bayh voted for one or more amendments to the bill that
caused its withdrawal. The "poison pill" amendments can be found
elsewhere on this site. The outcome was that many anti-gun owner lawmakers
were able to say they would have voted for the bill but it did not come
to vote. The senators can be contacted at for Senator Lugar navigate to where you can find him and at http://bayh.senate.gov/LegForm.htm for Senator Bayh.
Let us remind them that suing a gun maker for criminal acts by third parties
who are totally beyond their control is like suing General Motors for criminal
acts involving Buicks.
On February 16, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was introduced
again. Last Congress it died in the Senate after several "poison pill"
amendments were made and supported by the anti-gun crowd. Unfortunately,
both of Indiana's Senators voted for one or more of the the killer amendments.
We need to keep an eye on them this time and make sure all votes are known
by we all. Details at Entries Feb 25, 2004 - Mar 2, 2004
See Senator Craig's floor speech re Bill Speech
January 25, 2005
Michael Moore has received a well deserved award. Not too long ago Moore's
body guard got busted for carrying a handgun without the appropriate permit.
It appears the bodyguard made a jurisdictional mistake. Of interest is
that what is good for us lowly people is not good for the elite. Some Pigs are Moore Equal...
December 31, 2004
State Senator Patricia Miller recently sent a survey to her constituents.
Senator Miller is no enemy of the Second Amendment but one question should
be viewed as a harbinger of things to come: "10. Should police have
the ability to request a court order to confiscate firearms possessed by
someone who is mentally ill?" Heads-up was provided by an NRA member
in Senator Miller's district. More to come.
November 24, 2004
Some time ago (scroll down) we warned that the anti-Second Amendment bunch
and their supporters were going to mount an attack in Indiana. The Indianapolis Star and News published an article of interest. http://www.indystar.com/articles/6/196935-8126-127.htmlThe City State Section, November 23, 2004, reported a "survey" which claimed that fewer
Hoosiers own guns and "...an increasing number of gun proponents and
opponents support measures to reduce gun violence..." The survey consisted
of over 1000 Hoosier households reached by telephone in January and February.
Two quick points before before going on:
Anyone should "support measures" to reduce the unlawful use of
firearms. The problem occurs when the question assumes the meaning of unlawful.
Secondly, if some twit were to call me on the phone and ask if I had guns
in my home, I would answer if I were stupid enough to give him also my
credit card number and the keys to my car.
The article did point out FBI statistics show that firearms related crime
has "plummeted" to the lowest level ever since 1993. Some hold
that the reduction can be attributed to the increase in the number of States
whose citizens are able to be armed over the same period of time.
The survey was conducted by the Indiana University Center for Survey Research
on behalf of the Indiana Partnership to Prevent Firearm Violence http://www.hcgv.org A visit to the site might be informative. I was particularly impressed
that the organization recognised Gary, IN, Mayor Scott L. King. I am sure
for his success in reducing gun violence in the City. http://www.hcgv.org/winter2004.html The survey was funded by the Joyce Foundation whose stated purpose is
"supports efforts to strengthen public policies in ways that improve
the quality of life in the Great Lakes region..." Can one equate "strengthen"
with "affect." http://www.joycefdn.org and the University of Indiana School of Medicine.
I am sure the Star and News is planning a follow-up which will tell us, specifically, what parts of
Indiana were represented by the 1000 plus folks interviewed, how many contacted
declined to respond and how the results were analyzed and adjusted to achieve
a balanced outcome.
One does wonder why the survey was funded, in part, by the Indiana University
School of Medicine. As a taxpayer, I will feel better when the follow-up
assures me that the survey was objective and not agenda driven.
Chief Bob
September 30, 2004
The House of Representatives voted on the 29the as to whether the residents
of the District of Columbia should have the same rights as other citizens
under the 2nd Amendment. Roll Call 477 passed. Votes were as follows:
Roll Call Vote 477, HR 3193, DC Personal Protection Act, Passed - Rep Yea=198,
Rep Nay=22, Dem Yea=52, Dem Nay=148, Rep NV=6, Dem NV=4. Indiana Representatives
voted:
Carson - Nay
Hill - Yea
Visclosky - Nay
Burton - Yea
Buyer - Yea
Chocola - Yea
Hostettler - Yea
Pence - Yea
Souder - Yea
Remember when you were alerted to the efforts of the liberal press to demonize
anyone who would support the right of law abiding citizens to keep and
bear arms for their protection? Read this and respond to the misrepresentations.
Link previously provided is no longer valid. Perhaps they received to many
questions?
The Chief wrote this letter and warrants there will be no response nor
publication:
Fort Wayne Newspapers
600 West Main Street, PO Box 100
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802
Dear Sir or Madam,
I read your editorial, "Where are Souder's Priorities."
I served two tours of duty in our nation's capitol at BoIling Air Force
Base. As a special agent with
the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, I had many opportunities
to interact, professionally
and personally, with law enforcement folks, Federal and local, in the District.
Your editorial seems to neglect two givens. The US Constitution (Article
1, Section 8) makes the
legislative process for the District of Columbia the business of Representative
Souder and his fellows.
While we look to our representatives to take care of us, locally, they
are also tasked and, hopefully,
serve to uphold the US Constitution.
Your editorial serves its apparent purpose but lacks balance.
Assault rifles have been banned since the 1930's and the ban remains. Here
in Indiana where our
State Constitution gives a greater right to keep and bear arms than does
the US Constitution, 2nd
Amendment, we cannot "carry our guns to work" if our employer
decides otherwise. If we disagree,
we have the option to seek other employment.
You did not define for your readers "children", 14 of which "gunned
down." Would it have been
proper to exercise a modicum of research to find that they were in fact
less than 21 years of age and
were gang members who were shot by other gang members?
The handgun ban in DC is total -cannot possess even in ones home. If the
ban were effective, how
could there have been 3,300 seized from criminals in 2003 and 2004, to
date?
I wonder why Congressman Souder's position would "embarrass Democrats"
unless they feel they
are voting contrary to the wishes of their constituents?
I do not expect that my letter will appear in your publication. I have
taken the liberty, however, to
post it on my website with a link to your article.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Lusk, Jr., CMSgt, USAF-Ret
Active Duty 1959-1986
"
-
August 22, 2004
One of the "thin blue line" was recently taken from his family
and we all by a deranged person using a semi-automatic firearm which the
press and anti-Second Amendment folks choose to style as an "assault
weapon." Mr. Webster Smith of the city of Indianapolis had been able
to educate a talk show host, John Strauss as to the properties of a real
assault weapon. Mr. Strauss took the time to understand the difference
between appearance and performance and to pass the information on to his
listeners. Now there will come the knee jerk posturing of politicians looking
for emotional votes rather than solutions.
July 15, 2004
Some weeks ago, I sent out e-mail alerting my correspondents to keep a
weather eye toward an attack on Indiana's firearms laws. The Sunday, July
11, 2004, edition of the Indianapolis Star has to be the most transparent piece of advocacy disguised as journalism
I have seen. A more detailed treatment can be seen at Star Article
Check out hip://www.clintongunban.com
for the real story on the efforts to extend and expand the ban on so called
assault weapons.
As we approach the General Elections, we must look at those who seek to
represent us and decide if they agree with our values. We must not be tied
to preconceptions, soundbites and emotional appeals by those whose goal
is to exercise power for power's sake. A government that fears an armed,
law-abiding citizen calls into question the motives of such a government.
Conversely, an armed citizenry is Homeland Defense.
To start off this page, consider the emotional reference to "assault
weapons." Anti-gun groups know the difference between a real assault
firearm and the firearms they wish to forbid to law-abiding citizens. Automatic
firearms have been restricted for many years. The so called assault weapons
ban which is about to expire banned semi-automatic weapons because of their
appearance not their performance. Now those who wish its extension are
trying to expand its definitions. Learn the facts at http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?id=59
HR 2038 and S 1431 are pending in the House and Senate, respectively. Both seek to extend the so called assault weapon ban. Attempts were made in the Senate to add the ban renewal to the Bill that was intended to stop nuisance lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. The attempts failed and the ban will sunset in September 2004 unless the anti-Second Amendment bunch get their way.