Good news from out west:

A bill would change Wyoming’s Homeland Security laws to make sure that the governor and other officials wouldn’t have authority to order the confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens in the event of natural disasters or terrorist attacks.

The National Rifle Association has pushed similar legislation around the country following Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans and the surrounding area in August 2005. The NRA and other groups also sued the city over its gun confiscation.

Rep. Allen Jaggi, R-Lyman, is the main sponsor of the Wyoming legislation.

There has been a lot of push for this since the Great New Orleans Gun Grab. Good. Push harder.

USCitizen links to a Glenn Reynolds who says People don’t stop killers. People with guns do.

A bill passed this week by a House committee would guarantee people the right to carry or possess firearms on the campuses of South Dakota’s public universities.

HB1261 would also prevent schools from expelling students or firing employees for having a gun on campus.

Don’t forget the Second Amendment Blog Bash:

It runs May 16-18. Murdoc hopes to be there.

I’m in Arizona for a couple of days, so I feel totally justified in posting yet again on the bill in the state Senate which would allow people with concealed carry permits to carry their gun on school property. Today we have a letter to the editor in the Arizona Republic from a teacher which includes

Just because concealed-carry permit holders must pass a criminal-background check and take a gun-safety course, as I did for my hunting license, even though I knew considerable about it beforehand, does not mean that I or anyone else should be carrying a weapon on a school campus unless he or she is a law-enforcement officer performing his or her duties.

Before lawmakers pass this bill, they should see how teachers feel about it and not go off half-cocked and get someone shot because of this inane idea.

Certainly, lawmakers should get feedback from teachers on this issue. But as for “getting someone shot,” I think the idea is to get the right people shot instead of the innocent people hoping that the police get there soon. Or, even better, keep everyone from getting shot by deterring would-be murderers by the mere threat of armed people on campus.

Meanwhile, the lunatics are still haunting the comments section of the paper’s articles on this issue. Here’s a good one:

The “gun nuts” don’t think like the rest of the populations. This is obvious by their stance on this issue, wanting to place weapons that kill in the hands of immature and developing students. What is this insanity and mentality that we are facing?

Someone who doesn’t realize that “immature and developing students” can’t get concealed carry permits (and, therefore, couldn’t legally carry on campus even if the bill becomes law) is calling names? Typical.

And then there’s this one, which I believe to be a taste of things to come:

Keep your guns !! Even buy more !

We need to STOP PRODUCING ammunition and the materials to reload, particularly the explosives. That will drive ammo to the black market where it will become exceedingly expensive and most often defective.

How’s that?

A different commenter responds

Of course you amended our constitution and it was ratified by all states frist right? Because until then that alternative is not valid.

To which the first commenters replies

Valid, schmalid.

The Constitution, I think, left out the phrase “and ammunition” following the phrase “bear arms”. The hair-splitters will have to tackle that one.

Gun afficianados can certainly go back to black powder (easily home-made, as you may or may not know) and muzzle loaders — so citizen rights to bear arms will NOT have been infringed upon. The Constitution does NOT guarantee the right to bear arms of the most modern and deadly character that modern technology can provide — if you think otherwise, show us where that guarantee lies in the Constitution.

Ironic, of course, is the fact that this guy posted his comment about the Constitution not meaning modern guns using a computer connected to the internet. Why he didn’t use a hand-operated printing press or maybe a town crier to exercise his free speech, I don’t know.

Anyway, I suspect that we’ll be seeing more of the “ban the ammunition” plan in the near future.

I previously noted Chris Matthews’ anti-2nd Amendent (and anti-4th Amendment, for that matter) plan to end the “wacky” problem of unlicensed concealed guns on the street.

Say Uncle notes the plan and we get this in the comments section:

Rustmeister Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 11:45 am

Hmm, densely populated urban areas.

Is he saying black folks shouldn’t have guns?

SayUncle Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 11:46 am

Shhh. We can’t say it like that.

This, of course, is a giant open secret that no one wants to talk about. Look at Chicago. Illinois is one of only two states in the Union with no form of CCW permit for regular citizens, and Chicago, of course, is not the most crime-free city in the nation. And, at 36% black and 31% white according to the 2000 US Census, the population of Chicago isn’t what you would call White European-dominated.

When we hear about education and career problems in inner cites, it’s often portrayed as a racial issue and the NAACP gets involved and Jesse Jackson demands change. When black neighborhoods suffer higher crime rates we hear cries for more police protection.

But when these same urban areas, often peopled by those in the lower tax brackets and in many cases minorities, are blanketed with draconian gun control we don’t hear a peep. Is this iron fist of disarmament getting the guns from the gangbangers and drug dealers?

There is no equality when one man can carry a gun and the other cannot.

Meanwhile, over at Murdoc Online, this comment was left:

Rrrriiiight…so Matthews’ dream is that the only people who can legally carry are agents of the state.

That idea puts a hard, icy ball in the pit of my stomach.

But I put him at ease with my response:

Well, I’m sure Matthews would make an exception for authorized bodyguards. You know, like Matthews has.

Recall How many bodyguards do you have?

Not that this is a newsflash, or anything, but MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews is a Grade-A lunatic. Once upon a time I thought he was a decent host of a decent program, but he seemed to lose it during the presidential campaign in 2004 and he never recovered.

Newsbusters has the video of Chris suggesting that everyone be disarmed and that people walking down the streets get searched for weapons like in airports. Really. He really says “they ought to check people on sidewalks like they do getting on airplanes.”

I redid the transcript a bit because some important bits, in my humble opinion, weren’t quite right in the Newsbusters transcript. I think it’s important to note how Deroy Murdock reacts to Matthews’ claim Murdock supports carriers without licenses.

MATTHEWS: You know what I think? In big cities they ought to check people on sidewalks like they do getting on airplanes. And why an airplane should be safer than an American sidewalk is crazy to me. Why you can walk down the streets of an American city carrying a concealed weapon without a license is wacky.

MURDOCK: I didn’t say without a license! I think–

MATTHEWS: But that’s what’s going on. I’m talking about a different point here.

MURDOCK: No, people have concealed carry permits. They actually have to–

MATTHEWS: I want to see people disarmed.

MURDOCK: They are made to [inaudible] target practice–

MATTHEWS: I want people disarmed in our major, major cities. How’s that for a plan? I don’t think we should all be armed, and I don’t think more guns is the answer. I think it’s wacky to say that the solution to armed robbery and killing in our streets in big cities is to put more arms in the streets. Anyway, thank you Deroy.

It’s hard to know where to begin. I guess the first problem is that Matthews thinks that people walking down the street “carrying a concealed weapon without a license” is “wacky” and that his (presumably non-wacky) solution is to get licensed weapons off the street.

Right? That’s what gun control is. It’s the control of legal weapons. Matthews is arguing on national television that the solution to unlicensed concealed guns on the street is the elimination of licensed concealed guns.

At least he’s honest when he says that he wants to “disarm” people. Ask the US military, with over 150,000 troops in a country the size of California, how easy it is to disarm a population. They’ve been trying for five years and have got basically nowhere.

Apparently, Matthews has a magic wand that just makes all guns disappear.

Watching the video, it’s clear that both Matthews and Murdock (no relation, by the way) had talking points that they wanted to get out. It’s also clear that Matthews is unhinged.

As a commenter at Newsbusters says:

Wow…He not only wants to take away the 2nd Amendment but also the 4th with its restrictions on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Just so we’re clear on this: These people will stop at NOTHING to take away every gun from every citizen that they can. Half of the time, like Matthews here, they don’t even bother trying to conceal their goal.

UPDATE: More on this over at The Liberty Zone.

UPDATE 2: And even more here.

The Great New Orleans Gun Grab by Gordon Hutchinson and Todd Masson just arrived and it looks great.

What happened in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina should trouble all legal gun owners. A common theme among pro-Second Amendment folks is that the right to keep and bear arms was intended, in part, to protect citizens from the government. But what is a loyal, law-abiding American gun owner to do when the authorities show up and demand that you turn over your gun?

If this act is allowed to stand, it will happen again. And next time it probably won’t take a hurricane to make someone think they can get away with it.

I will have more on this book after I’ve had a chance to read it.

It’s also available at Amazon.com.

Additionally, if you happen to be one of those whose weapon was seized after Katrina, the NRA is interested in discussing it with you.

Snowflakes in Hell: The City of San Francisco has lost its appeal to get its gun ban reinstated.

Sebastian writes

Take that hippies! It would seem preemption, at least, is alive and well in The Golden State.

and scores an Instalanche.

Glenn Reynolds calls it a “Civil Rights victory,” which is exactly what it is. The fact that so many don’t see these sorts of things as civil rights issues merely demonstrates how effectively the anti-gun types, with the active assistance of Legacy Media, have defined the terms of the debate.

Part of the NRA’s statement on the decision:

In 2005, NRA sought an injunction against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to prevent them from enacting one of the nation’s most restrictive gun bans. NRA won the injunction, but the City’s mayor and Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes in their own homes.

The argument that criminals merely ignore gun laws and do what they want is, obviously, valid. So how about mayors and boards of supervisors who ignore court decisions and do what they want? Don’t they risk getting lumped in with the criminals who flaunt the law?

Be sure to check out the Second Amendment Carnival over at Free Constitution. Lots of links to goodies.

Nice to see some other folks jumping on the Lee Gaillard drivel. (More on the more recent incarnation of the Lee Gaillard drivel here.)

Phil at Random Nuclear Strikes, up in Washington state, shows us a few of Mr. Gaillard’s associations and previous writing and tosses this one in for fun:

So now you say “No Mr. Gaillard, “Militia” couldn’t mean the National Guard, they weren’t even created until after the Bill of Rights was written.”

But Mr. Gaillard doesn’t care.

Phil: 1, Mr. Gaillard: 0, for those of you keeping score at home.

Oh, and the Gun Guys love the Lee Gaillard drivel:

In perhaps the most well argued op-ed we’ve read in some time about the debate over the Second Amendment, Lee Gaillard writes a brilliant essay in the Seattle Times.

We strongly encourage you to read it — and the title nails the issue on the head too.

Murdoc now believes that the Gun Guys are pro-gun guys acting like anti-gun guys pretending to be pro-gun guys to discredit anti-gun guys. And you can quote him on that.