Monthly Archives: August 2012

Old enough to fight for the Constitution? Old enough to exercise it


We give them a M-16, send them to a foreign land and tell them to defend the United States and  what it stands for, but if you’re not 21 in some parts of the country you will be denied the 2nd Amendment rights enumerated in our Constitution.

Well, FINALLY, a state has taken the step in overthrowing this theatre of the absurd.  Missouri has passed  Bill HB1657 that will allow US Military Personnel under the age of 21 to get their Concealed Carry Weapons permit.  Currently, the law states that everyone must be 21 in order to receive a CCW.

As I stated in my opening, we are giving these young men and women rifles, machine guns, tanks and cannons to fire with dire purpose in defense of Liberty, how hypocritical of a nation must we be to then deny them the simple right to defend themselves while at home.

Now, I am not in favor of exceptions, but if anyone deserves one it is our military servicemen and women who have given more than most in defense of what we hold dear.  I am hopeful that this will be a step in the right direction to the day when Constitutional Carry will be recognized by all 50 states.

Furthermore, another measure was passed by Missouri in regards to Open Carry.  While Open Carry is generally legal in Missouri, it is not covered under State Preemption and as such, local municipalities can dictate its legality.

Now people with a valid concealed carry permit and who legally carry a firearm may “briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.”  While this isn’t a full-on open carry measure (the word briefly is vague) it does offer protection for a licensed gun owner who may be railroaded by a local municipality on trumped up charges.  Not a home run, but still another step in the right direction.

That is not all the good news in the world of gun ownership.  Our neighbors to the north in Canada are “well underway” in the dismantling of their long gun registry.  I bring this up only because a victory for gun rights anywhere is a victory for gun rights everywhere.  Of course, Quebec immediately filed an injunction and kept their long gun registry intact while they challenge the measure in court.

I’m overjoyed anytime I see a gun registry scheme thrown out.  Gun registry has never been proven to stop any crime but has been proven to be the easiest avenue for gun confiscation and the gateway to the denial of the gun rights on a populace.

A pair of feel good stories to start your weekend.


In the heat of the moment, true stories of split second decisions to shoot


I got a little blowback from some about my recent blog post about the recent shooting at the Empire State Building. I heard a lot about how dangerous the profession is and how in the heat of the moment you can’t shoot straight so I thought I would look into some other recent examples.

First, let me direct you to what an NYPD officer himself said on

“Any average CCW citizen who practices more than twice a year pretty much has most of the department beat in terms of training”

You can read more about the officer’s insight here.  Training is definitely important for all gun owners, be they wearing a badge or not.

As I said, some kept telling me that “if you’ve never been in that situation you can’t criticize”.  I question that logic too, now that I think about it.  I’ve never been President of the United States either; does that mean I am not allowed to criticize the Obama?

But I digress.  Here are some recent, real world situations about people who, with their life on the line defended themselves from would be murderers and they didn’t have to empty their magazines to do it.

Two would be thieves entered a Dollar Store in Jacksonville Florida with nefarious intent and started threatening the two clerks working.  Unfortunately for the robbers the only customer in the store at the time happened to be a 57 year old grandfather who was also a CCW holder and was armed.  The unnamed Samaritan shot 2 shots, connected both and killed the first robber while the second high tailed it out of there.

According to his wife. “He’s always been a marksman. He shoots in competitions, but this is the first time he’s ever killed anyone and I don’t know how he’ll handle that.”

I hope that this hero doesn’t have any restless nights because he may very well have saved lives with his actions.

Now, if there is ever a situation when a full blown firefight may ensue when you can’t hit 100% of your targets it might be a situation like Gun Shop Owner Stephen Bayezes faced on August 9th in Belvedere, South Carolina.  Three would be thieves drove a van through a wall of the gun shop that Mr. Bayezes owns in order to do a smash and grab of as many weapons as they can.

Mr. Bayezes, who lives on the premises, came out and one of the robbers shouted “Shoot the mother [explicative]”.  At that point Mr. Bayezes heard a gun click.

But once again, unfortunate circumstance for the bad guys, Mr. Bayezes did not bring a knife to this gun fight, he brought his AR platform rifle and he opened fire.  Choosing his targets carefully, shooting to hit he hit all three suspects without the need to reload, killing one and driving the others from his property.

Even being awoken in the middle of the night, outnumbered 3 to 1 by armed bad guys, Mr. Bayezes didn’t just have his trigger finger dance in “spray and pray” mode.  No report of any bullets striking outside of his gun shop, no reports of neighbors houses being hit.  In the heat of the moment an average citizen defended himself with his weapon and the streets did not run red with innocent blood.

This is a direct rebuke of gun control zealots who continue to say that anyone other than the police would just shoot up the place and innocent people would get in the crossfire.  Furthermore, it is a testament to why AR platform weapons are absolutely reasonable for self defense.

Finally, some amazing video of a female store owner defending herself from a gun wielding and violent attacker who was trying to smash his way into her store.  One well placed and timed shot had the attacker limping off as fast as he could.  Here’s the video, it’s amazing to see the ferocity of the attacker and how quickly he turns tail and run after he realizes that his intended victim has bite.

We have 3 situations of varying degrees but all were intense and sudden and needed split second decisions to be made.  In total 3 shots were fired from 2 pistols.  Both stopped a violent crime in its tracks.  From an AR platform weapon fewer than 20 shots were fired at 3 suspects, killing one and stopping a violent crime in action.  At no point was any innocent person injured and at no point was any shooter conceivably out of control.

And before anyone gets the outlandish notion that I am saying that only citizens can use their weapons responsibly I’ll relate a personal story about a shooting I witnessed firsthand on a busy street in Pittsburgh, PA.

A man was walking down the street mumbling with a meat cleaver.  A Pittsburgh Police Officer, Eric Tatusko just happened upon the scene and ordered the man to drop the cleaver.  The man continued to walk forward and Officer Tatusko retreated some and continued to order the man to drop the cleaver.  The man moved in an aggressive manner toward Officer Tatusko and with innocent people behind him fired a single shot and killed the man with the cleaver.

The point is that a badge does not make you innately better with a gun than the average citizen.  Nor does it make you the only one to whom the Second Amendment applies.  At the end of the day it is training that will carry the day and if you don’t have enough of it then bad things will happen.

This is even truer for average everyday gun owners.  If you think just having a gun is enough then you are setting yourself up for failure.  Any gun you own you should be proficient with it, like any tool, if you don’t use it, your skills will be rusty at best.

And while a hammer may only smash your finger, a firearm can have more costly mistakes.

Take the money and run


Most likely you work hard for your money.  In this economy that sentiment is probably an understatement.  So why would you want to spend your hard earned cash at a place that doesn’t recognize your rights?

I am talking of businesses that are hostile to gun ownership and gun owners.  They come in diverse fields and have varying degrees of being anti gun establishments.  For instance they could have that little sign on their door with a pistol X’d out.  Now, unless I missed it  on the news, force fields or magic pixy dust has not been proven to stop criminals so this business wants you to make yourself vulnerable to death but will do nothing more than place a sign up to insure your safety.

I tend to avoid these places, mainly because I don’t want to be murdered.

Sometimes they won’t have the little sign but if you are printing your weapon or open carrying it they will come to you and ask you to either leave or put it in your car.  I leave, for the same reason as before.  Leaving a place where you are ensuring that the only people who will be armed are those with criminal intent greatly increases your chances of not being murdered.

Then there are those companies and corporations that ardently support gun control.  These are a little harder to find because they often require some leg work to uncover.  These companies may be heavy supporters of gun control groups or they may be hostile to gun manufacturers.

This is the case with Bank of America.  Earlier this year McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing and McMillan Group International had been collectively banking with Bank of America but were told to pay off their accounts as they would no longer be welcomed to bank with BoA.

Kelly McMillan, Operations Director of the McMillan companies, met with Senior VP of BoA Ray Fox and what was supposed to be an “account analysis” quickly became a political smack down.

In McMillan’s words, “What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer want my business.”  To which Fox replied, “That is correct.”

Of course, not all businesses are so blatantly anti gun like Bank of America.  Some are questionably so.  To this I am thinking of Craigslist and Capital One Credit.

Craigslist has long been against the trade and sale of firearms on their website and from a point of view you could see how that might make sense.  They don’t want to be liable for facilitating an illegal gun sale or other Fast & Furious type operations.  That would initially make sense if it weren’t for the fact that Craigslist has long been used as a hub for prostitution.  I guess it doesn’t come as too much of a surprise that San Francisco based business Craigslist, bans ads for the sale of guns but facilitates prostitution.

That one seems a little more cut and dry than the Capital One stance.  Capital One has an image card in which you can personalize your credit card with a photo or picture.  There was a time when the guidelines specifically stated no firearms but apparently after a backlash they changed the wording.  While still at the sole discretion of Capital One to reject the image one of the guidelines reads:

Images which could be considered to show violence or violent acts, blood, gore or injury.

So given to who reviews these images, any hunting or harvest photo sent will be (and has been) rejected outright.  Furthermore, any photo of a firearm, regardless of its context could be “considered” to break the guideline.  This one is a judgment call.  But if you have a Capital One credit card I suggest you submit a photo of your 1911, AR-15, your prized hunting rifle, or the shotgun your dad gave you as a kid and see if these pieces of Americana make the grade with Capital One.  If they don’t then I guess you know where they stand.

My point is that if you work hard for your money you should know that the businesses that are fortunate enough to have you as a customer do not go about stabbing you in the back in regards to your Second Amendment rights.

There is yet one more class of business that defer to local law in regards to making gun policy.  Examples would include Starbucks and Wal-Marts who will defer to local law in regards to policy.  In that, if it is legal to Open Carry in Pittsburgh, PA (which it is) then you are welcome to patron those stores.   I have no problem with their no-stance stance as it does not hinder law abiding citizens.

I have found a very good site that offers personal experiences of businesses and rates them on their friendliness to gun owners.  It’s an open site that anyone can rate a business on and I encourage you to check it out and contribute to, in case you are curious as to which businesses support or conspire against your rights.

That site is

Maybe, if these businesses lose enough money they will come to their senses and stop their dangerous and un-American stances against the constitution and personal safety.

Please sir…I want some more


Sometimes, as Americans, it’s important to look at other countries that have gone forward with gun control measures to realize what is at stake and what kind of world the gun control zealots would have us live in.  Today, I want to take a look at Australia, who much like England, enacted a gun ban but who are taking the arduous steps to regain what they have lost.

First, the facts.  Australia has more violent crimes since the gun ban was instituted.  5 years into the ban the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged that there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in the commission of crimes.  Plainly put, as if it’s a surprise to anyone with common sense, CRIMINALS DON’T FOLLOW THE LAW.  Unfortunately for the law abiding citizens of Australia, they do and have had to pay dearly in the past 15 years for it.

In 2006, year 9 of the gun ban Australia saw the following increase of crimes with a firearm:

-armed assault rose 49.2%

-armed robbery rose 6.2%

-rape at gunpoint increased 29.9%

-overall violent crime rate with use of firearm increased 42.2%

So, when you disarm the law abiding, the criminals still ignore the laws and you get an overall sky rocketing of gun related crimes by an increase of nearly 50%.

But I thought gun control was supposed to prevent crime? Some gun control zealots probably are thinking that the US with our 2nd Amendment freedoms must be worse in regards to crime over that period.

Well, let’s take a look at a comparison to the US and Australia from the time period of 1995 – 2007 then.

-In Australia the murder rate decreased by 31.9%.  Not bad, the gun control zealots would tout this as a victory.  But in the US, the murder rate decreased by 31.7%.

-In Australia, as I mentioned previously assault rose 49.2%, robbery by 6.2% and rape by 29.9%

-In that time the US saw a DECREASE of those crimes by 32.2% (assault), 33.2 %(robbery) and 19.2 %(rape)

So, during that time frame, where Australia implemented a gun ban while the US saw gun ownership increase there was a similar decrease in murders by a rate of approx 30% in both countries.  But while the US decreased in crime across the board by HUGE margins, Australia saw a dramatic increase of violent crime against an unarmed populace.  Australian women are 3 TIMES more likely to be raped than American women. That is gun control in action my friends, disarm the lawful so the criminals gain control.

But there is hope in the land down under.  Queensland is the first state to look into easing the restrictions currently facing potential gun owners.  Of course, against all logic, reason and evidence to the contrary the Police have been adamant about opposing this saying such reductions in bureaucratic red tape would have the streets run red with blood.

Currently, while Australians can get some firearms, mostly shotguns or rim fire rifles the steps necessary in getting the license to do so is arduous and takes anywhere from 8 months to a year.  But that doesn’t seem like enough red tape for some.

Queensland Police Union president Ian Leavers said ”If anything we shouldn’t reduce red tape for gun owners, but increase it”.

Now, as Americans we have heard such nonsense before and we fight against it.  But remember, we still have our weapons and we are looking to maintain ground and at times forward the recognition of our innumerable right in the eyes of the government.  Our Aussie cousins have had that right denied them and, like Oliver Twist, are coming up to the gruel master and asking for some more.  And people like Ian Leavers response is a disdainful, “MORE?!?  Actually, here’s the scene with limited modification:

‘Please, sir, I want some more of my rights.’

The master was a fat, healthy man; but he turned very pale. He gazed in stupefied astonishment on the small rebel for some seconds, and then clung for support to the copper. The assistants were paralyzed with wonder; the boys with fear.

‘What!’ said the master at length, in a faint voice.

‘Please, sir,’ replied Oliver, ‘I want some more of my rights recognized.’

The master aimed a blow at Oliver’s head with the law; pinioned him in his arm; and shrieked aloud for the beadle.

The board were sitting in solemn conclave, when Mr. Bumble rushed into the room in great excitement, and addressing the gentleman in the high chair, said,

‘Mr. Limbkins, I beg your pardon, sir! Oliver Twist has asked for more gun rights!’

There was a general start. Horror was depicted on every countenance.

‘For MORE!’ said Mr. Limbkins. ‘Compose yourself, Bumble, and answer me distinctly. Do I understand that he asked for more, after we gave him a meaningless appearance of rights?’

‘He did, sir,’ replied Bumble.

‘That boy will be shot,’ said the gentleman in the white waistcoat. ‘I know that boy will be shot.’

Nobody controverted the prophetic gentleman’s opinion. An animated discussion took place. Oliver was ordered into instant confinement; and a bill was next morning pasted on the outside of the gate, offering a reward of five pounds to anybody who would shun Oliver Twist and his want of rights. In other words, five pounds were offered to any paper who wanted to shun Oliver Twist and demonize his request for more.


Outside of changing what he was asking for and the part about the media, that is the scene from Dickens classic.  How fitting it is.  How the government, any government, would react with condemnation and fear at the thought of someone who dared ask for more than what the government ruled that they have.  How quickly and harshly they come down on someone who simply asks for their rights given to them by natural law be recognized by the state.

But that is the truth of the matter in Australia.  They have to ask for their rights back and I hope for their sake they can get them.  In America we have the right written out and we fight to keep it.  I am thankful for that, as it is better to fight to keep what you have than it is to come hat in hand and ask for what you should have.

Best of luck to our Aussie cousins and let it be a tale of warning for gun owning Americans.

The Bloomberg Hypocrisy


It will come to no surprise to those who have read this blog that I feel that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a tyrant who tramples on peoples free will and freedom of choice to impose his own whims on the people by fiat.  He is a bully in an ivory tower. If New York City was a foreign country we would look upon him with the same condemnation we have for all despots.  He has changed election laws to allow himself to run a third term and he has used his billions of dollars to ridicule and brow beat opposition as well as trying to expand his reach.  Like any greedy little despot, he wants to become a bigger despot.

One of the ways he goes about doing this is by founding the Mayors Against Illegal Guns.  The hypocrisy starts there in the name itself.  Bloomberg views all guns that are not used to protect him and his rich socialite cronies as illegal.  In his mind, the little peons can’t be trusted with firearms so they shouldn’t have them, or perhaps because they aren’t rich or famous they don’t deserve them.  The cost for even applying for a permit (that will most likely be denied) is in excess of $430.

The city issues approximately 2000 gun licenses a year…in a city of 8 MILLION.  We’re not even in the 1% range here…that is .00025 percent of the population is deemed worthy in Michael Bloomberg’s eyes as needing a handgun.  For those of you who don’t know, a New York State carry permit is not recognized in NYC and both are “May Issue” permits.  But Bloomberg retains his grip on his fiefdom by regulating, with high non refundable application fees and arbitrary prerequisites of “need”, that it would take 40 years before 1% of law abiding citizens were allowed to carry in the city.

But let’s get to reason I spent this weekend thinking about this.  Imagine if you will, a criminal with a gun walks over to the Empire State Building with murder on his mind.  Now this criminal pulls out his gun and is about to heinously assassinate a man who was just trying to go about his day heading into work.  But before the  assassin has the chance to pull the trigger a law abiding person, maybe his victim, maybe someone around him , sees what is about to go down and pulls out their firearm that they are legally allowed to have and a firefight ensues.

I won’t even say who fired poorly and who didn’t but I will just tell you how it ends up.  The assassin is dead and nine innocent bystanders were wounded in the crossfire.  What do you think Mayor Bloomberg’s reaction would be?

Would he congratulate the bystander for saving a man’s life?

Would he have been quoted saying, “There is no doubt that the situation would’ve been even more tragic except for the extraordinary acts of heroism”?

Of course he wouldn’t.  He would rail against the vigilante-ism of the act, he would say we no longer live in the wild west, he would bring the hero up on charges and hold them civilly liable for the 9 innocent bystanders shot and he would demonize everything that this person did only to further his end game of eliminating the ability for regular law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

He would go further than this since there is never a tragedy that he doesn’t like to exploit (that isn’t of his own making).  He would try to expand the racially motivated stop and frisk policy that he currently employs as well as trampling on an even more rights in order to assert his control.

But, that’s not what happened.  What happened was that a man was assassinated and the police, who are not expected to stop crime and indeed are legally exempt from having to, pursued the assassin a few feet, drew their weapons, fired wildly at the man and after 16 shots were fired they hit their target a grand total of once, while 9 innocent bystanders lay bleeding on the ground.

And of Michael Bloomberg’s outrage?  Of his need for his officers to be a little more proficient in the use of arms?  In the call to disarm the police if they cannot act responsibly with a firearm?  What mention has he made on the utter and complete failing of his lauded gun control policies that will not and cannot prevent such acts?

I would say he remained silent but that would be giving him credit he does not deserve.

Bloomberg, like a spoiled rich kid, blames all the poor hicks in the country side for his gun violence inhis city.  In his mind if only we expanded gun control like they have in New York City than everything would be swell.  If only we disarmed the people and tread completely on their rights can we live in a NYC inspired utopia.  Freedom is overrated anyways, eh Mike?  I mean, who wouldn’t want to live in New York City.  You tell us what to eat, the portion sizes, how mothers must nurse their children, what rights we can and cannot exercise (the latter becoming larger than the former) that we must submit to random searches without reasonable suspicion for the good of the city and all these other things YOU, Mayor Michael Bloomberg think WE the people need.

And if something you impose doesn’t work you simply blame someone else.

Hypocrisy is a vile and petty thing…and Michael Bloomberg you reek of it.

One should always stand up to bullies, even if they have a badge


I am glad to see that the corruption and racketeering of some in the Nassau Country Police Department does not go unchallenged, especially when the victim happens to be a gun shop owner on the border of his royal pompousness Emperor Bloomberg’s fiefdom (formerly known as New York City).  $5 million for wrongful arrest from alleged crooked cop with a beef.

The shakedown began in 2006 when Officer Erik Faltings in the Pistol Licensing Bureau of Nassau County came to gun shop owner Martin Tretola and asked him to release some weapons to a friend of Faltings in March of that year.  Tretola questioned the legality of such a request and as a responsible gun shop owner refused.

Officer Faltings apparently didn’t like not being obeyed unquestioningly and according to charges in the court documents orchestrated a raid on Tretola’s T&T Gunnery store which included the Nassau County Fire Marshall, Nassau County Bomb Squad and the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco.    It would seem that Officer Faltings likes to emulate Adolf Hitler who stated that one should lie big since the people would not believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

Tretola’s attorney, Steven Harfenist puts the ordeal succinctly when he states, “I feel (Faltings) had an animus towards Marty.  He didn’t like being told he didn’t know how to do his job.  He was trying to do somebody a favor and Marty didn’t go along with it.  (Faltings) came down with the dogs of war.”

So basically, if you stand up for what is right and not cave into a crooked cop and his cronyism you will get the dogs of war called down upon you.  And if you happen to be a gun shop owner, be prepared to have your name besmirched when you are brought up on trumped up gun charges.

The main charge in this case was that Tretola was operating an illegal firing range.  When the truth of the matter was he simply maintained a trap box – a device for safely discharging bullets from gun for test purposes.  That charge was dismissed.

Faltings wasn’t satisfied with having his vendetta interrupted by facts or the law so he later brought up charges for filing a false instrument for licensing requirements.  That charge was also dismissed.

The harassment and intimidation attempts did not stop there, last year Tretola was arrested for illegally selling assault weapons.  That charge was also dismissed.

Of course, the Nassau County Attorney John Ciampoli comes to the defense of his crooked officer dismissing the claim that Faltings had targeted Tretola.  Of course, with all the dismissing Ciampoli has dealt with in this case, maybe that is just his knee jerk reaction.   Thankfully, the federal jury in awarding Mr. Tretola $5 million wasn’t swayed by the thin blue line but rather took into account what was plain to see, badge or not a vendetta is a vendetta.

Ciampoli, instead of admitting there’s a crooked cop on the payroll and going after the criminal wearing a badge has decided to ask for the verdict in Tretola’s case to be set aside, and if that doesn’t work filing an appeal.

And people wonder why I will not willingly forfeit my rights to an officer on his whim.  Be they my 1st, 2nd, 4th, or 5th, I will not give up any rights for the ol’ “go along to get along” idiom.  The police are people just like anyone else.  Some are good people and others are not.

One should be wary in knowing which one they are dealing with because every so often you will, especially as a gun owner, come across an Officer Faltings who would use his badge for his own nefarious and selfish desires.

I would like to hope that a $5 million loss to the county would wake Officer Faltings or the county itself that such shenanigans and criminal activity will not be tolerated by the public servants but there’s the rub.  Neither Officer Faltings, nor DA Ciampoli will have to pay one red cent to this.  This buck gets passed onto the good taxpayers of Nassau County.

I hope they remember who tolerates breaches of the public trust come next election.

More on the  story can be read here.

Standing for the Constitution by standing against the law


When I was in the Army we were told we had to follow all lawful orders.  Sounds easy enough…until you’re given an unlawful order.  Too often in history we hear of atrocities being committed by those “just following orders”.  But even when you are right, and you stand up against what is wrong, it doesn’t mean it’s easy.  In fact, it usually means the opposite and your life is going to get a lot more difficult.  But I guess that’s where things like character and honor come into play.  Are you willing to go against the flow and stand up for what is right?  I just wanted to highlight a few people who seem to grasp the outline of what “shall not be infringed” means in a post Heller and McDonald world.  And then just for kicks, to highlight one who wants to thumb his nose at the Second Amendment and refuse a lawful order because of hatred and bigotry.

In Edwards County, Illinois, the only state that still has a statewide ban against concealed carry, State’s Attorney, Mike Valentine, has recently come out and said “If you’re otherwise law-abiding, you won’t face charges for packing heat in Edwards County”.  A stance that is perfectly and legally within his right to do.

Mr. Valentine has been greeted by some, including State Senator Dan Kotowski, that think they should be stripped of such decision making.  “Higher law enforcement officials should look into it.  I think the attorney general should look into this”, Kotowski said.  What I read into his statement is that he hopes it will get pushed up the ranks and closer to Chicago until someone agrees with him.

But it appears that Mr. Valentine’s thoughts might be gaining traction in other parts of the state.

In Mclean County, State’s Attorney Ronald Dozier has publically announced that he also will not prosecute gun carriers as he views the law as unconstitutional.

Of course the Governor, Pat Quinn has come down on Mr. Dozier stating the “You have a duty to respect the law”.  Funny, considering how in respecting the Second Amendment Mr. Dozier is doing just that.  Perhaps Gov. Quinn should respect the law and give the people of Illinois the same right that the citizens of all 49 other states (in some regard) have.

Mr. Dozier, a former judge, wrote a four-page statement outlying how the state laws of Illinois regulating how and where people carry guns as unconstitutional under recent US Supreme Court rulings.

With men like Valentine and Dozier refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws they are taking a stand against Chicago thuggery and are fostering the dialogue in the minds of voters who can know ask themselves, why are we denied our Second Amendment rights in Illinois?

On the flip side, I’d like to take you to Colorado University in Boulder where we find Prof. Jerry Peterson who also wants to stand up for what he believes in.  The only problem is that he believes in allowing massacres to run unabated on college campuses.  Prof. Peterson has publically stated that he will cancel class if discovers any of his students is a CCW holder and is legally carrying a firearm in his class.

This is the same kind of liberal “feel” good policy that academics like to espouse.  But in truth it’s the same kind of bigotry and hate mongering that a professor who doesn’t want to teach anyone who is in a bi-racial relationship.

In this way, a Professor is saying, “I don’t like your personal views and I certainly don’t like you exercising your freedom that upsets me in my ivory tower so I am going to cancel class and go home.  My hope is that you will eventually be shamed enough to change your ways.”

Well, tough tamales for Prof. Peterson this time because the Chancellor of Colorado University came out and stated that professors “do not have the right to shut down a class or refuse to teach” should they learn that one of their students is lawfully carrying a gun with a CCW. Doing so will be a breach of their contract (let alone denying the education that students and parents pay for) and there will be disciplinary action.

I’ll once again return to my first point about following lawful orders.  The state prosecutors from Illinois are standing up against an unconstitutional law that they use the US Supreme Court to back their claims.  Prof. Peterson is whining like a little child who wants to take his ball and go home because deep down in his heart he doesn’t like the constitution when it doesn’t agree with him.  That doesn’t make what he is doing brave or noble…it makes it petty and small and like all bigots he should be shunned for it.