A Happy Anniversary: The Brady Law Turns 14

The Brady Law went into effect 14 years ago today, February 28, 1994.

On anniversaries like this, it is important to remember what the Brady Law has accomplished, how effective the law has been at helping reduce gun crime, and how bitterly the NRA fought to kill it - including their effort to have the Brady Law struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since 1994, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (the "Brady Law") has stopped an estimated 1.4 million criminals and other "prohibited purchasers" from buying guns from Federally licensed gun dealers. As the Bureau of Justice Statistics has shown, the rate of gun crime in America then plummeted for years. "After peaking in 1993," the BJS reports, "the number of gun crimes reported to police declined and then stabilized at levels last seen in 1988." Furthermore, according to the BJS, "nonfatal firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, before increasing in 2005."

Before the Brady Law was enacted, most states didn't require background checks of gun purchasers at all. While the Gun Control Act of 1968 made it illegal for felons, fugitives, the dangerously mentally ill and other "prohibited purchasers" to buy firearms, there was no national mechanism to help enforce this rule.

This meant that until February 28, 1994, gun dealers and gun buyers worked on the "honor" system. As long as gun buyers promised they weren't dangerous on a Federal form, prohibited purchasers could get away with buying, and gun dealers could get away with selling, as many guns as they wanted. And if their guns were later used in crime, a gun dealer could always say, "The buyer lied to me. How could I know?" Before 1994, criminal gun buyers and dealers could ignore the Gun Control Act with impunity.

After 1994, however, we entered the era of "Trust, but verify."

President Ronald Reagan often used that phrase in the context of international arms control in dealing with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and others.

When it comes to "domestic arms control," the Brady Law does the same thing. It recognizes that most gun buyers and gun dealers are honest, but it works to filter out those purchasers who are dishonest - about 1.4 million people so far - by checking to make sure.

It only makes sense that President Reagan would come out in favor of passing the Brady Bill. In an eloquent Op-Ed in the New York Times on March 29, 1991, one day before the 10th anniversary of the assassination attempt on his life and that of his Press Secretary, James S. Brady, President Reagan described his own incredible ordeal of surviving the shooting, and then went on to talk about Jim:

"I was lucky. The bullet that hit me bounced off a rib and lodged in my lung, an inch from my heart. It was a very close call. Twice they could not find my pulse. But the bullet's missing my heart, the skill of the doctors and nurses at George Washington University Hospital and the steadfast support of my wife, Nancy, saved my life.

"Jim Brady, my press secretary, who was standing next to me, wasn't as lucky. A bullet entered the left side of his forehead, near his eye, and passed through the right side of his brain before it exited. The skills of the George Washington University medical team, plus his amazing determination and the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah, pulled Jim through. His recovery has been remarkable, but he still lives with physical pain every day and must spend much of his time in a wheelchair.

"Thomas Delahanty, a Washington police officer, took a bullet in his neck. It ricocheted off his spinal cord. Nerve damage to his left arm forced his retirement in November 1981.

"Tim McCarthy, a Secret Service agent, was shot in the chest and suffered a lacerated liver. He recovered and returned to duty."

Then, President Reagan made his position crystal clear:

"Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special -- a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol -- purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance.

"This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady bill -- had been law back in 1981."

Those moving thoughts are worth remembering still.

A gaping loophole in the Brady Law remains, however, and Congress needs to take action immediately to help close it. Currently, only Federally licensed gun dealers are required to run Brady background checks on gun purchasers. That means there are millions of gun sales by unlicensed sellers not subject to Brady checks at all. In fact, one study done for the National Institute of Justice reports that about 40% of all firearms sold in America are sold by unlicensed sellers with no Brady background check required. A significant proportion of these unlicensed sales occur at gun shows, allowing criminals and other prohibited purchasers to arm themselves with no questions asked.

That's wrong, and Congress needs to do something about it. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (NJ) and Sen. Jack Reed (RI) recently introduced a bill to close the gun show loophole and require checks on all gun purchases at gun shows. I urge the Congress to pass this bill as soon as possible.

Make no mistake, it's been a long and difficult fight, but America is turning the corner on the gun issue. The country should not let the gun lobby stand in the way of public safety.

Common-sense gun control like the Brady Law saves lives, and the American people know it.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[BronxGOPer]

Let me say at the start that I am not a member of the NRA. I have never fired a handgun and the last time I fired a rifle was at Boy Scout Camp over 25 years ago. I grew up (and still live) in the Bronx. I have never felt the need or had the desire to own a gun. That said, I do believe that law abiding citizens should have the right to own a gun if they feel differently from me.

There is an idea for gun control reform that has been percolating in my brain for some time. I think it’s about time I throw it out there in case anyone else thinks it would be an improvement over our current system. I strongly suspect that both the NRA and gun control advocates would have a problem with it. That’s why I think it might work.

Here is my idea in two parts.

I. The Federal Government should preempt all state and local gun control laws. All firearms must be registered with the Federal Government and guns may be sold only to persons with a Federal permit. All gun sales must be recorded with the Federal Government. Anyone transferring a firearm without following these requirements is civilly and criminally liable if the firearm is used illegally.

II. Any citizen of at least 21 years of age, without a criminal record or history of mental illness, may carry a concealed firearm provided they pass a gun training and safety course.

Because guns can practically, if not legally, flow easily over state lines, any gun control regime needs to be national in order to be effective. I believe this proposal will make it harder for criminals to get firearms through straw purchasers, while at the same time protecting and expanding the right of citizens to own and carry guns should they choose. For those of you opposed to national firearms registration and licensing, remember that this proposal would give citizens the same right to own and carry guns in cities like Washington, D.C, New York, and San Francisco that citizens in Texas and Florida now enjoy. For those who favor stricter gun control laws, ask yourself, would this system be better than e have today?.

[tadees]

Welcome, Bronx...

Look forward to the discussion. sounds as if you are almost as confused as I am and simply seeking some answers. Let's see what plays out...

tadees

[Sneaky]

Welcome.

Please don't take what I say next personally: I see ZERO good coming from that system.

On your first point, why is it that my ability to buy and sell something I have every right to own (to "keep and bear") should depend on a federal yes or no? What does this solve? Does it even remotely deter crime in any way? We have a system of law where we, the citizens, are assumed innocent until proven guilty. That said, why on earth would I support a system that treated me like I needed to be watched? If I'm a criminal, try me as one. If I'm not, back off. The first point is both impractical (it solves nothing and costs much) and oversteps the lawful bounds of the federal government.

Your second point brings me to the same question I addressed your first point with: What does this solve? How would the federal government lawfully tell more than half of the states in the Union, "sorry, your laws are going to change now," and in many cases violate state constitutions (Montana rings a bell) in the process.

You see, your reasoning behind your points digs into a deeper problem in the country, and that is the acceptance of state-issued licenses by other states. Legally, states must accepted on another's' drivers licenses, marriage licenses*, numerous other business and miscellaneous licenses. Why on earth would concealed carry licenses be different? LEGALLY, they're not supposed to be. That's all that would be needed to solve that which you perceive to be a problem. States can remain the semi-sovereign entities they were designed to be (make their own gun laws), but remain required to accept the licenses of other states. The only role the federal government should have in any of this, legally, is to oversee that no constituti­onally-gua­ranteed rights are infringed upon by states and that the states actually honor one another's licenses.

[mike101]

Kelli

Well, you lasted a whole day. Congratulations. Welcome back, dear.

Now, did you see the post where your buddy traded his .45 ACP Brady Assault Pistol for a gun that will easily fit in his pocket? Does that make him a threat to the safety of "the children", or a gun toting wacko? God, I hope he doesn't take it to a national park. He might accidentally shoot Yogi.

Did you notice that he traded it to a friend? No Brady Background Check, nuttin'.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[Mark0]

"I'd love to hear your thoughts."

From Kelli? I'd just love to hear the truth.
As always Mike, lets not hold our breath.

Apparently a special dispensation is available from Shedanced to anyone who will denounce every other person's right to own a firearm. For just a few hollow words, you too can become her friend and ally.



Recent events on this blog clearly illustrate two things:

Those who are most opposed to the possession of firearms by others are often those who lack the impulse control to trust themselves with a firearm.

Gun control is more about people control than it is about guns.

[mike101]

"Gun control is more about people control than it is about guns."

Which bring to mind that little gem Helmke posted a couple of months ago, about the Brady Campaign's "duty to be our brothers' and sisters' keepers".

It's enough to give a person nightmares.

[mike101]

"Do me the courtesy, HP, of deleting (immediately & permanently) ALL of my posts. You cannot seem to prevent the gun nuts from creating a cesspool here. Moreover, it's abundantly clear to me, after your recent ban of a fine gun control supporter named "Solitude" & your continued allowance of (malicious type) posters ~ such as mike101 & molonlabe ~ to continue their personal attacks on gun-control advocates unabated ... that you folks know little about moderation."

Hmmm. Didn't it ever strike you as a little odd, that your "fine gun control supporter" had a .45 ACP Pistol, and a 12 gauge shotgun in his bedroom? Maybe not so "fine" after all.

Also, debating with the anti-rights side does not make us "trolls" dear. A troll is someone who pretends to be something they are not, in order to embarass the other side, in some fashion. We are certainly not pretending to be anything we are not: Strong supporters of the Constitution, and of the natural right of human beings to self-protection.

[edutilos]

You really need to get your information straight mikey, before you go spouting of things which you simply do not know about.

Not that I feel the need to explain anything to this crowd, but I got rid of the shotgun. Just the daily sight of it turned my stomach and I couldn't in good conscience keep it any longer. And that other gun had to go away to - it was just to intimidating. So my friend traded me it for a much smaller, less vicious looking killing machine that more easily fits in my pocket.

Interesting that you so acutely defined what a troll is. I suspect you would.

[Sneaky]

You're intimidated by an inanimate object? Seriously?

[molonlabe]

"Not that I feel the need to explain anything to this crowd, but I got rid of the shotgun. Just the daily sight of it turned my stomach and I couldn't in good conscience keep it any longer. And that other gun had to go away to - it was just to intimidating. So my friend traded me it for a much smaller, less vicious looking killing machine that more easily fits in my pocket."

Hahahahaha­hahahahahh­aahah!

Can I play this game to? Here I go........"Yeah, i kicked the Heroin habit and straightened out. Now I just do blow."

Are you being serious?

Why the trade? Why not just sell off your weapons and be done with it? Why not trade your weapons for a nice pot and pan set or some Pyrex bakeware? You mean that after all the hostility and anti-gun sentiment you STILL acknowledge a NEED for a weapon?

Are you for real?

[mike101]

'edutilos' huh? What is that, some kind of Mexican snack food? You better hope they don't hold this page up in front of a mirror.

And now you traded the .45 for a gun that "more easily fits in my pocket." That's beautiful. Sounds like an illegal transfer to me. Did you have your Brady Background Check? Does it hurt when you sit down?

And I'll just bet you don't have a carry permit.

I'm sincerely glad to see you. I was afraid things would get a little dull around here, now that 'itdances' is gone.

And stop calling me Mikey. It's Mr.101 to you.

[ladyshooter]

Your aversion to the shotgun does seem emotional. I am very fond of my shotgun, the one I built for practical shooting competition. I will fire any kind of firearm, I can get my hands on. Why? I want to become familiar with every type of firearm. Competition is a lot of fun.

[NYCexile]

dancesnomore
:(

[tadees]

LOL - shedanced

[Sneaky]

I'm honored. Willing discourse and representation of facts, with a dash of civility, is apparently "abusive, potentially libelous, harassing, [and] nearly-always manipulative". Is this the state of modern America and her citizens?

Peace, Kellie, 'cause Lord knows you couldn't handle life if peace faded.

[molonlabe]

Malicious? Personal attacks?

Was it my "mountain biking into a bear" story or my statement about preferring to carry a Makarov over a 1911 when I am in the woods?

Kel, are you really from Illinios? Because i'd swear by how easily you're upset by the truth that you were from Berkeley, Kalifornia.

[edutilos]

Greetings Kelli -

After a short, mandatory hiatus I have rejoined the front line to continue the good fight. It seems I had upset the moderators with a poignant, but personal attack that was made in the heat of the moment. I must admit, I let the pro-gunners get the best of me.

I see your letter to the moderators. I must admit I troubled by your recent change-of-heart. I thought you would actually have the courage to face the tiger - even in its own den. I suppose I was wrong, and that you were not as strong as I thought. In your honor, I too, then shall cease posting/commenting here - let the foxes guard the chicken coup. That'll teach 'em.

In closing, I must say I will miss the witty banters and the engaging dialogues. Most especially, I will miss the pancakes. Who doesn't like pancakes, but I fear I'll never be able to eat them the same again.

[shedances]

Hi Solitude ~ one tiger (or lion) at a time, friend (LOL)! I don't want to fight both the gun nuts AND the forum moderators, the latter of whom are probably trying to do their best as they wade through a lot of trash postings. Still, it's their job ... isn't it? I doubt you would've gotten that angry with the gun nuts, if the moderators hadn't allowed their continuous 'baiting' and abuse here. This is what angered me the most. The gun nuts posting here will never understand (I expect) that just because you CAN get away with saying ~ or doing ~ something abusive or nasty to others, doesn't mean you SHOULD. They think it's all a big game. Well, let them play by themselves here for awhile.

Kelli

[MSorgy]

Kelli:

So, the next time you say you are going to so something, are we suppose to believe you? You said you were going to stop posting here because HuffPo wasn't (in your opinion) moderating the pro-civil rights side enough. Now, a day later, you are back!

As far as nasty, abusive things, please remember that most of us here also posted over on the BC blog and we remember the things you said about us there as well as here.

Michael

[Thirdpower]

2,200 to 2,500 people showed up in Springfield, IL to protest the new anti-gun laws. The MMM and BC were nowhere to be seen. I guess having a showing 10x anything you manage to put together is a little intimidating.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8778

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8782

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=8789

[OldSFMJT]

Is it just me, or does anyone else see that entire 'strings' of comments & replies have just evaporated into the ether? I posted a comment yesterday about Kelli's "harassing" remark & now the entire string is just GONE!
Old SF MJT

[Tao21Zen]

I'm sure it's just "technical difficulties." I can't imagine that a liberal/progressive organization that preaches tolerance of others views and stands for the protection of free speech would censor the speech of others, just because they disagree with the content of that speech.

[molonlabe]

Reasoned Discourse(tm), my friend, Reasoned Discourse(tm).

[Sneaky]

They're not really "gone". What's happening is the new comment program Huffington Post is using is posting a "screenshot" of what all "was" there at the time the "screenshot" was taken. That's why you ALWAYS see that damn "New comments on this entry - Click to refresh" message. If you click the message or refresh your browser, the comments will usually show up (you can see whether or not your messages were actually recorded by viewing your profile), but that "new comments" message will usually pop up again anyway even if they're not really new.

I wish they'd go back to their old system, which was a GOOD system all things considered. This one is so buggy it's leading to more use than it can handle because people are double-posting before they can find their message has shown up, or keep trying to repost when their messages "vanish".

[mike101]

" there are millions of gun sales by unlicensed sellers not subject to Brady checks at all. In fact, one study done for the National Institute of Justice reports that about 40% of all firearms sold in America are sold by unlicensed sellers with no Brady background check required. A significant proportion of these unlicensed sales occur at gun shows, allowing criminals and other prohibited purchasers to arm themselves with no questions asked."



There it is again, the dreaded "gun show loophole". So BC, how about allowing public access to NICS? Seems simple enough.



Now let's take a short look at this "research", because it's not worth spending too much time on. The BC is claiming that "millions" of gun sales are not subject to background checks. They claim that a full "40%" of all firearms sold in this country are sold without background checks. Sorry, but I have to call "BS" on that one.



And they arrived at this conclusion via the results of a phone survey? I wonder just how they managed that. I think we can safely assume that these phone calls were made during business hours. Who is most likely to be at home to answer the phone? Mom, that's who. What does the average mom know about guns, or gun-laws? Not much, I'm afraid.



So there's mom, sitting on the sofa watching Oprah, when the phone rings. Mom isn't real happy about Oprah being interrupted, but it's about evil guns, so mom agrees to answer some very leading questions, "for the children". But, does mom even know what she's talking about? Odds are she doesn't. All she knows is, guns are bad, because that's what she keeps hearing on TV from people like Rosie and Oprah, Paul Helmke, Dianne Feinstein, a biased media, and Hollywood types who don't know what they're talking about either.



So, this is where the BC gets their statistics. Sure, mom is a much better source than the FBI, DOJ, ATF, etc..



Are you serious, Paul?

[Tao21Zen]

So, what happens after they are able to get a law passed requiring FFL background checks inside the gun show and private gun sales are just moved out to the gun show parking lot, or across the street/town somewhere else (e.g. IHOP parking lot)? Then will we have the "skirting our new gun show law by selling guns elsewhere loophole"?

[mike101]

You know it.

[molonlabe]

Hidden guns
Sheriff wants more concealed carry

El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa wants more guns - not for his deputies, but for citizens. "Offenders in the jail system tell me they avoid crimes against people because they know there is a very high concealed-carry rate," Maketa told The Gazette.

But it's not high enough, and Maketa said he wishes more citizens would train to carry concealed and apply for permits. El Paso County has the highest number of concealed carry permits in the state, at 8,400 - a statistic that makes public safety advocates proud. But El Paso County also has a higher population than any other county in the state.

For every 1,000 people living in El Paso County, about 14 have permits to carry concealed weapons. The number is low enough that in small crowds - in places like movie theaters and average-sized churches - it's possible nobody has a lawfully concealed weapon with which to provide protection in the event of an attack. Although El Paso County has the highest overall number of permits, at least one county has us beat by a country mile in the number of permits issued per resident.

The winner in permits per capita - the statistic that matters most - is Hinsdale County. The permits issued in 2007 alone equaled nearly 54 permits per 1,000 residents. Outstanding, Hinsdale. It's obvious why so many residents in Hinsdale County assume responsibility for the safety of themselves and others. It's the most remote county in Colorado, and one of the most isolated regions of the United States. The Discovery Channel revealed Hinsdale County as one of the few places in the country with almost no roads.

People in Hinsdale County have no delusional expectations that police will race to the scene and save them from animal or criminal attacks. The false sense of security provided by 911 isn't in play out there.

Unfortunately, the urban residents of El Paso County have little more third-party protection than the folks in Hinsdale County have. They just think they do. On a good day, police can arrive on the scene of a crime in eight minutes - about seven minutes and 55 seconds too late to save lives from a rampage killer.

If you're a responsible, law-abiding citizen, give Sheriff Maketa his wish. Get trained, get licensed, and carry concealed. Make El Paso County a criminal's least-favorite place.

[mike101]

NOT FOR POSTING. I can't email, because my AOL is blocking it, but I'm having more tech. problems. Now when I click on "Post Comment", nothing happens. It just goes back to the top of the page. The comment remains in the comment box.

Mike101

[edutilos]

Glad to see the more tech-savvy among us have figured out how to click both the "reply" button and the "post" button. Keep trying mikey...

[mike101]

Hey Kelli, did you see what happened on Josh Sugarman's latest blog?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/want-loaded-guns-in-natio_b_85083.html

As soon as people started talking about his Federal Firearms License, and asking why the VPC showed the IRS zero contributions for four years in row, the blog was closed to comments. This after only 47 posts.

This is a very weak and gutless ( and seemingly common) anti-rights tactic. When the questions get tough, close down comments. Gee, where has that happened before? If you can't beat 'em, ban 'em.

[Melodyl]

Oh Solitude we knew you well. He was a part of all of us, and will remain so. No one will ever eat a pancake and not think of our departed friend.

Godspeed Solitude,

~M~

[Tao21Zen]

What, no glowing remembrance of Zen21Tao? He seemed like such a swell fellow. I sure wish I had been able to get to know him (wink, wink), but he was before my time.

[Melodyl]

Oh Zen21tao we knew you well. He was a part of all of us, and will remain so. No one will ever have a cold drink and not think of our departed friend.

Godspeed Zen21tao,
~M~


Hows that?

[Thirdpower]

Kelli,

What would you like to wager that I know the reason why Solitude "left"? Some donations to the opposing group perhaps?

[mike101]

Enquiring minds want to know.

[tadees]

I have a guess also, but you first thirdpower.

[mike101]

And I'll match Thirdpower's donation.

[kaveman]

Let's see if the our Glorious Leader Kim Jong IL...Uh, I mean HuffPo moderaters will allow a lowly serf like me to simply state that I will match Thirdpower's AND mike101's added dontion to the charity of your choice Kelli.

Come on Kelli, do it for the children.

[edutilos]

I'd like to take you up on that wager, thirdpower! (and mikey and kaveboy) I have some "special insight" as to why solitude left.

[Sneaky]

Creative. I guess that answers my question about how banning works.

[tadees]

O/T - but still a bit absurd. And you wonder why gun rights get so watered down? Cause it gets lumped in with "the right to watch television!"

(from Boortz, not me) "Now here's another story from Georgia. Commissioners in the city of Brunswick, Georgia passed an ordinance to stop people from firing guns to celebrate holidays. The law makes it a misdemeanor to fire a gun or any other weapon within the city limits.

As if that wasn't ridiculous enough ... the commissioner who sponsored the measure is James Brooks. Brooks claims that it is designed to "protect innocent bystanders." He also says -- now get this -- it will ensure people's right to watch television. Yes, you read that correctly. Apparently you missed the fact that we have a right to watch television. It turns out that Brooks lost TV reception on New Year's Eve after someone shot his cable box.

OK .. so I can see that you don't want Hussein era Baghdad style celebrations on New Years Eve ... but suddenly we have a right to watch TV. Who elected this idiot? "

[molonlabe]

Remember the hubbub about CCW in National Parks a few weeks ago?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/want-loaded-guns-in-natio_b_85083.html

Maybe this is what Josh meant by "poaching?"

http://dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/handgun-saves-boy-from-rabid-mountain.html

[molonlabe]

Sorry about the double post. For a minute there, I thought i was experiencing Reasoned Discours(tm).

[DMeadows]

I hike and camp in the wilderness, many times far away from anyone else. That's the point, sometimes. I carry a concealed .44 Magnum when in the wilderness. It's a bit more powerful than the 9mm I normally carry concealed in urban areas.

The boy saved from the lion by an armed member of his group illustrates another facet of self-defense, and one that is particulary relevant any time you go into wilderness areas, which should include national parks. There are animals out there that are capable of hurting or killing you. And, there are still plenty of documented instances of human predators out there on the trails and around the campsites, too.

[mike101]

It really is foolish to go into the wilderness without taking such precautions, especially out west where they have big critters that can eat you, and snakes! I hear about more and more mouintain bikers and backpackers being attacked by mountain lions all the time. Then, you ocasionally hear a news story about campers being murdered, like those two women a few years ago.

I don't understand why the anti-gun crowd seems especially ootsie about guns in national parks. I guess it's just part of their irrational fear of guns.

But, when you're out there, you're out there. It's just you. There aren't any police cars patrolling the neighborhood. There is no 911. It's a good idea to have something along.

[molonlabe]

A few years ago I was mountain biking in the Jim Thorpe, PA area (alone) and came out to a clearing with 3' high grass. It was late fall so I thought the hump of "black grass" about 25 yards away from me in the middle of the field of brown grass a little odd. The hump of black grass then stood up and looked at me...now i was raised a country boy and have seen my share of wilderness critters...but face to face, alone, with a decent sized black bear is a little intimidating. I tried to make as much noise as I could while reaching for my weapon. The bear, making no hostile move toward me, finally just came back down on all 4's and wandered off into the woods.

Not at all an "amazing survival story" or a "it was only the weapon that saved my life" situation,
but I have to tell you, the first thing that ran across my mind was "if push comes to shove, my weapon has equalized the lethality factor between myself and the bear."

And amazingly enough, the weapon did not kill any "innocent bystanders(tm)" or create any dangerous "crossfire situations(tm)". The weapon did exactly what the person holding it wanted it to do. Nothing but give a little piece of mind.

[molonlabe]

I was going to post this on Josh Sugarmann's blog, but it appears that there is some Reasoned Discourse (tm) going on over there and I can't post anything.

A few weeks ago there was all the hubbub about CCW in Parks:

http://dustinsgunblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/handgun-saves-boy-from-rabid-mountain.html

Or maybe Josh considers this "poaching?"

[tadees]

Seems to be the flavor of the day, molonlabe. It's called banishment, and it's spreading.