Which is Worse: Lying to the Press, or Spying on Law Abiding Citizens?

A strange and disturbing report from the City by the Bay:

Park Officer Posed as Another, Lied to Press

A U.S. Park Police officer is facing disciplinary action after lying to The Chronicle and the New York Times by identifying himself as a former officer and in an unseemly manner, according to the San Francisco field office commander for the U.S. Park Police.

The officer, Ken Rawles, was assigned to work undercover to take photographs and video of officers and their interactions with gun activists during a Baker Beach event at which activists sought to carry visible, unloaded handguns on the beach, said Major Jason Wu.

But, dressed in plain clothes, Rawles told reporters covering the event that he was Brad Lawrence. Lawrence is the name of a former U.S. Park Police officer who now works for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in Georgia. Rawles told reporters he was at the beach to video people sunbathing in the nude, but finding none began to photograph and video the gun activists.

His statements appeared in a Chronicle story Sunday and in a New York Times blog about the event. Colleagues of Lawrence contacted the Chronicle upset at the portrayal.

"What Officer Rawles did is not something that we would do," said Wu. "Certainly, I am not too pleased about that myself."

Wu said Rawles' video and photographs were intended to be used later for training purposes, as people are now allowed to bring licensed and unloaded handguns into national parks, such as the Presidio, where Baker Beach is located.

"What we're looking to make sure is that the interaction between the officer and the citizens are appropriate - which can work both ways, as you know," Wu said. "We do respect people's constitutional rights, but we do have to make sure for public safety to make sure the weapons are not violating state laws."

Wu said that Rawles would face internal discipline, but declined to state what that would be.

"He was there with pretty clear instruction and that was to capture on video and camera the interactions, and nothing more," Wu said.

Disturbing, because he is going "undercover," which didn't seem very clear as he was to take video and photographs of "officers interacting" with gun activists? Sounds like a flimsy thread for building a visual file of future "suspects" though no one was doing anything illegally.

"We do respect people's constitutional rights, but we do have to make sure for public safety to make sure the weapons are not violating state laws." I believe that a U.S. Park officer who is more concerned for enforcing "state laws" on federal land than he is defending the Constitutional rights of individuals is deserving of termination from his post.

He doesn't get it, and the "superiors" who assigned him this task also don't get it. Lying about your identity to reporters isn't a crime but it is certainly not the brightest move a man could make.

I think the public deserves to know the extent of the "internal discipline" that is taken.

It's driving these anti-gun Liberals and Progressives crazy that affection for the Second Amendment seems to be growing stronger in the 21st Century. It drives the press crazy that someone would actually lie about their identity. From the tone of this story you get the impression that the writer thought the deception was the only real offense.

Identity theft -- even if it's only temporary and not for profit -- is certainly not something to be taken lightly, but it hardly holds a candle to violating the constitutional rights of individual citizens.

The End Run on Gun Rights Via the U.N.

A few important points on a Thursday morning.

The Obama Administration has given the "green light" to the United Nations to negotiate a treaty that will "regulate the marketing, transfer and brokering in firearms."

If you think the Second Amendment will magically protect you from the effects of this proposed treaty, think again. The Supreme Court has generally held that international treaties trump domestic legislation AND basic protections of the Constitution.

Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr has blogged about this development. I don't care what you think of Bob Barr; he's been very good on gun issues.

This is what you need to know:

1) When any Obama official -- and many Democrats in Congress -- reassures us that they have no intention of messing with the Second Amendment, what they mean is that they won't need to. They are planning an "end run" around the Constitution.

2) We cannot afford to maintain the Pelosi-Reid machine in Congress by sending Blue Dogs to Congress. Sure, they may be "hunting rights" supporters (but are they "gun rights" supporters?), and their hearts may be in the right place, but their very existence as registered Democrats mean that they keep Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in the drivers' seats. For the sake of individual liberties and traditional American freedoms, we must "clean House" and Senate in 2010 and replace them with people who will defend the Constitution.

Notice that I said people, not Republicans. The Republicans need to clean their house of Progressive elements. I believe this can be done, and a whole hell of a lot easier than the Democratic party, but we have to demonstrate the will, as the electorate, to force the issue. Each candidate needs to be vetted by We, the People, to make sure that individual liberties will be safe on their watch and they will not suddenly start supporting big government (socialist or socialist light) solutions to perceived problems.

If the American people lose their individual right to "keep and bear arms" we will take a huge step toward tyranny. Our Founders knew this and it was generally accepted as a truism throughout most of our nation's history. The Progressives have worked hard to dumb down our schools and demonize gun ownership in the last century. To the extent that people are asleep on this issue, they have succeeded.

Awaken your neighbors; teach your children. Write your congressman and don't let him get away with making a distinction between "hunting guns" and "guns for personal protection."

The Second Amendment says nothing about hunting.

Poisoning the Well Against Lawful Gun Ownership

Federal agents are going "house to house" in Houston, Texas, investigating gun sales which they suspect will wind up in Mexico.

Success on the front lines of a government blitz on gunrunners supplying Mexican drug cartels with Houston weaponry hinges on logging heavy miles and knocking on countless doors. Dozens of agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — sent here from around the country — are needed to follow what ATF acting director Kenneth Melson described as a “massive number of investigative leads.”

All told, Mexican officials in 2008 asked federal agents to trace the origins of more than 7,500 firearms recovered at crime scenes in Mexico. Most of them were traced back to Texas, California and Arizona.

Among other things, the agents are combing neighborhoods and asking people about suspicious purchases as well as seeking explanations as to how their guns ended up used in murders, kidnappings and other crimes in Mexico.

“Ever turning up the heat on cartels, our law enforcement and military partners in the government of Mexico have been working more closely with the ATF by sharing information and intelligence,” Melson said Tuesday during a firearms-trafficking summit in New Mexico.

So far, so good. We should applaud their efforts to track down those responsible for illegal gun transfers out of the country.

But then the story takes another tack, predictably one that attempts to make a case for more government controls and restrictions on law abiding citizens:

The ATF recently dispatched 100 veteran agents to its Houston division, which reaches to the border.

The mission is especially challenging because, officials say, that while Houston is the number one point of origin for weapons traced back to the United States from Mexico, the government can’t compile databases on gun owners under federal law.

Agents instead review firearms dealers’ records in person.

You knew it was coming. The "boo hoo" of the government that they cannot require all information on all firearms from every American "under federal law."

A change in the law would imply that the government has a greater, or compelling interest in knowing who has the guns and ammo, than individual citizens' rights to own those weapons. That is simply wrong-headed thinking. Wrong on the Second Amendment and upon the very purpose of our Constitutional freedoms guaranteeing a limited government with great individual responsibility.

It is okay to treat lawbreakers as suspects. It is wrong to treat law abiding citizens as suspects, which is exactly the climate a national database would foster.

This is exactly the kind of story we have grown accustom to seeing in our metropolitan newspapers, written by reporters whose worldview is that the government is always best when it is biggest, and willing to help propagandize against individual rights at all times.

A Shot for Freedom Expected Today

At least there's one freedom defending organization with enough clout to successful navigate the legislative waters of Capitol Hill: the NRA.

The House should pass today the Credit Card bill (which will probably eliminate credit to many marginal applicants and increase costs to all others) which contains within it the Coburn Amendment -- yep, that Coburn -- that would allow citizens who otherwise legally meet all the requirements of their state's firearms laws laws to carry weapons in national parks.

The Senate already passed the bill with 67 votes, veto proof.

The bill would also standardize the gun policy of the various federal agencies that manage federal lands. For example, the Parks Service forbids firearms on its lands, whereas the Bureau of Land Management permits them. Thirty-one states already allow the carrying of firearms in their state parks.

"We have been working on this measure for close to a decade," said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association. "We think it's a reasonable measure that helps law-abiding people."

The anti-gun left is unhappy, but that's nothing new. The chief complaint is that rampant violence will now take place in national parks. Newsflash: a great deal of violence already does, and law-abiding citizens have had no legal means to defend themselves.

Arulanandam rejected [the] argument that the bill will cause more violence. "Citizens who behave in a lawful manner elsewhere in their states are not going to become violent all of the sudden just because they happen to be in a national park," he said.

Arulanandam cited National Parks Service statistics showing that visitors to national parks are victimized every year — murders, rapes, and robberies — and that the parks often conceal secret methamphetamine labs and marijuana fields. Given the relative scarcity of law enforcement within large parks, law-abiding visitors might find a firearm necessary in the event that someone tries to victimize them.

The anti-gun left contends that the numbers of murders, rapes, kidnappings, thefts and robberies are minimal compared to the millions who visit the parks.

I would contend that with the new regulation in effect, that number will drop even farther.

Also, the number of visitors include those people who drive into a national park, snap a few pictures and visit the tourist center, and then leave for the nearest town where there are, uh, more modern entertainments and conveniences. This type of visitor is not a high profile target. It's the one who camps in tent or RV, who spends a couple of days hiking on the back trails or reading on a blanket in front of tent, who becomes the real target of opportunity. If the National Park Service numbers reflected the statistics based on this, rather than total visitors, the numbers would not be so minimal.

I know whereof I speak on this matter. I have spent, and will continue to spend, a great deal of time camping and hiking in the national parks system. It will not trouble me to know that there may be someone in my campground who is trained and licensed to responsibly carry a weapon.

I might even become one of them.

A Second Amendment Success Story

For all those anti-Second Amendment "progressives" who say there is no proof that gun ownership can thwart crime, comes a report out of Georgia of a wild home invasion that goes awry when a quick thinking college student takes action.

With a gun.

A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own. Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment. [snip] “Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.

Bailey said he thought it was the end of his life and the lives of the 10 people inside his apartment for a birthday party after two masked men with guns burst in through a patio door.

“They just came in and separated the men from the women and said, ‘Give me your wallets and cell phones,’” said George Williams of the College Park Police Department.

Bailey said the gunmen started counting bullets.

“The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey.

That’s when one student grabbed a gun out of a backpack and shot at the invader who was watching the men. The gunman ran out of the apartment.

The student then ran to the room where the second gunman, identified by police as 23-year-old Calvin Lavant, was holding the women.

“Apparently the guy was getting ready to rape his girlfriend. So he told the girls to get down and he started shooting. The guy jumped out of the window,” said Bailey.

The would-be rapist, who apparently lived in the complex, died before he could reach his own apartment.

There are a couple of quick lessons to be drawn from this. First, never assume that just because college students attend classes in "gun free zones" made safe for criminals, that they live in "gun free zones" too. This story should be spread far and wide so as to introduce uncertainty into the peanut-brains of all would-be home invaders.

Second? Never count your bullets in front of your intended victims. What a dumb-ass thing to do!

Not Exactly a Swift Response

Since the mainstream media won't put the puzzle pieces together ...

Earlier today I heard an ABC Radio news report quoting someone in the Binghampton, N.Y., police department remark how yesterday's immigration center massacre would have been so much worse had not a secretary "played dead" and called 9-1-1 on her cell phone.

That was a nice, feel good moment.

Sadly, I'm afraid it was a bit of CYA on someone's part. Read this from an Associated Press report:

One receptionist was killed, while the other, shot in the abdomen, pretended to be dead and then crawled under a desk and called 911, he said.

Police said they arrived within two minutes ... [snip]

Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers.

Waited an hour?

What's the point of dialing 9-1-1?

Sure, the guy apparently killed himself when he heard the sirens, or at least that's the theory, but what if he hadn't?

It was just a few days ago that a family burned to death in South Yorkshire, England, while police stood guard outside and prevented nearby citizens from attempting any rescue, even though there were cries of help from inside. And everyone tut-tutted and said, "Damn, I'm glad I don't live in England!"

Let's not be so hasty to judge.

The rash of gun incidents in the U.S. will no doubt fuel the demands for more stringent gun control legislation. In fact, I've already heard a Brady Campaign spokesman "demand" that Congress do something now.

Consider, however, if those two receptionists had been trained and licensed conceal-carry people? The gunman might have got one of them, chances are he would have been taken down by the second. How many of the 13 who died might have been saved? How many of the four critically injured might not have been hurt? How about the terror experienced by the 26 people who hid in the boiler room for three hours, waiting first for the policemen to decide to enter the building, and then for another couple of hours as a methodical search was undertaken?

Instead, American are going to be lectured how the availability of guns is making ours a deadly society, and how we must rid ourselves of them, emasculate our ability to fight back, so that we can be sitting ducks for the next deranged loner. Sitting ducks who may or may not be able to count on immediate help from law enforcement. Just depends on how much risk a particular police department allows its officers.

(I would suspect that it was the regulations, not the personnel, that are at fault here. Most cops I know would not hesitate to risk their own lives to save others. Most would not sit outside for an hour where they know people have been shot.)

Remember this incident when you hear calls for more stringent gun control laws. With every infringement on your Second Amendment rights of self-protection, you must grant ever more trust that the government will be there to protect you.

It's not very reassuring.