A crazy man and a "fighting rifle"

(Cross-posted at DailyKos)

On March 10th, in the small town of Middlefield, Ohio, James Gilkerson took a right turn too fast onto the State Route 608. Two local police officers--Erin Thomas and Brandon Savage--were patrolling in their cruiser and saw the turn. They pulled Gilkerson over.

Before they could approach his car, he stepped out with an AK-47 holding 40 rounds and opened fire on the officers. Thomas was wounded. The two officers returned fire, hitting Gilkerson. He doubled over in pain and yelled, "kill me!" He stood back up, raised his AK-47 back towards the officers, and started firing again. The officers again returned fire, killing him.

The dashboard camera ran the entire time, and the audio was recorded as well. This footage is now available, though it is extremely graphic, and I wouldn't recommend watching it.

The Cleveland Plain-Dealer released a slide show of items found in Gilkerson's car. In addition to many more high-capacity magazines, he also had literature on corpse disposal, ammunition and explosive manufacturing, a book on homemade weaponry, a book on constructing suppressors, a copy of "Invisible Resistance to Tyranny" (which, according to its Amazon page, promises to teach readers "the many paths of invisible resistance to tyranny - intelligence collection and dissemination, propaganda, support for active operations and, if it should ever come down to it, direct operations against a totalitarian regime"), and a couple of training manuals in gunfighting.

It was one of those last items that stood out to me as I looked through the slides. Specifically, this one:

This manual was recovered along with ammunition and other militant literature from the car of an insurrectionist who attacked police officers in Ohio back in March.

I noticed, as I skimmed past it, the logo on the bottom-right corner.

"Tactical Response"

Tactical Response is the weapons training company run by James Yeager. Mr. Yeager, you might recall, made headlines in January for a web video where he promised to "start killing people" if President Obama pursued tougher gun control:

"James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response, a Tennessee company that trains people in weapon and tactical skills, claimed in a video posted on YouTube and Facebook that he would "start killing people" if President Barack Obama decides to take executive action to pass further gun control policies, Raw Story reports.

In a frenetic address to the camera, Yeager puts a call out to other gun rights advocates to "load your damn mags" and "get ready to fight" in what he claims will turn into a "civil war" if gun control measures in the country get any stricter."

Transcript: "Fuck that. I'm telling you, if that happens, it's going to spark a civil war and I'll be glad to fire the first shot. I'm not putting up with it. You shouldn't put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you're going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean, pack a backpack with some food in it, and get ready to fight. I am not fucking putting up with this. I am not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. (yelling) I am not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I'm going to start killing people."

Mr. Yeager's permit to carry a concealed weapon was temporarily suspended after that video, but was returned to him last month.

The course book that Gilkerson had with him was for a two-day Tactical Response training program called "Fighting Rifle." Here's the course description from their website:

You know how to shoot your rifle or subgun now let us teach you how to FIGHT with it! This course is far more advanced than any other rifle course you can attend (with the exception of our advanced course) and covers trajectory, battlesight zero, gear set-up, sling configurations, transitions to pistol, use of cover and concealment, practical ready and firing positions, close- and medium-range snap shooting, weapons handling, urban applications, team drills, firing while moving, multiple targets, plus the tactics required to employ this potent tool in combat. Every student leaves this class with empty mags, a red hot rifle, and a smile from ear to ear! This is one of our most popular courses.

This class is great for nearly any magazine fed rifle or subgun and any traditional military style rifle. We will show you how to run your MP5, AR, AK, RPK, FAL, M1A, G3, VZ-58 or whatever weapon you have!

To my knowledge, Tactical Response hasn't made any statements about the Middlefield shooting, not even to comment on the attacker's form and technique. And just because he had what appears to be materials from this course doesn't mean he necessarily received training--I'm confident he could have picked it up from the same source as the other literature in his car, which I assume probably came from a vendor at a gun show or a table at an extremist right-wing rally--but I think it's worth looking into, especially as the course is regularly taught in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

In January, the CEO of this company says he wants "patriots" to "load your damn mags, make sure your rifle's clean...and get ready to fight," because he's ready to "start killing people." In March, someone with his company's training materials from a course on how to better kill people using assault weapons opens fire on police officers with an AK-47 loaded with a high-capacity magazine.

Say what you will, it's a uniquely American story.

Senatorial Misfire

As expected, the Senate failed to move forward on any firearms legislation.

The most popular proposal--toughening penalties for straw purchasers and weapons traffickers--failed by a vote of 58-42, with only Republicans voting against it.

The second-most popular proposal--a Republican plan to gut states' rights by mandating reciprocity for concealed-carry permits issued in any state, whether that state required an extensive training course or that the applicant collect three box tops from Remington products--failed 57-43.

The weakened background checks proposal from Sens. Manchin and Toomey, which was already a compromise of a compromise, failed 54-46.

Reinstating the ban on high-capacity magazines failed with no Republicans supporting it. Same with the Assault Weapons Ban.

No matter how the issues may split us, we are all united in the common belief that Congress is overpopulated with cowards and idiots.

Also, what he said:

Tragic irony strikes again.

This time at the NRA 500.

A medical examiner says a man who died in the infield during a NASCAR’s NRA 500 race at Texas Motor Speedway shot himself in the head. The event was the first NRA-branded race in NASCAR’s premier series.

The Tarrant County medical examiner’s office on Sunday said the death of 42-year-old Kirk Franklin of Saginaw was a suicide.

Fort Worth police have said a man who was camping in the infield died of a “self-inflicted injury” after getting into an argument with other campers. The incident happened late in the Sprint Cup race.

In related news, an 11 year-old carried an assault weapon at a rally at the New Hampshire state house, and a gun nut who declared he was "gonna start killing people" if gun control passed had his concealed carry permit restored after its previous revocation.

But at least the King of England can't come in here and push us around.

Wait...CNN did investigative reporting?!!

AC360 does the obligatory "how easy is it to buy a gun at a gun show without showing ID?" hidden-camera investigation.

The answer, as it has always been, is "really damn easy."

And yes, for the record, these were all illegal purchases under federal law, since they were made outside the buyer's home state. So if someone tells you that they don't want new gun laws but do want to see more enforcement of the laws that we have, remind them that we need to expand background checks for precisely that reason.

Manchin-Toomey: A major misfire

The AP reports that, an hour from now, Sens. Joe Manchin (Sad about being a D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) will present their compromise on background checks. If the details that have leaked thus far are accurate, it's nowhere near acceptable:

The emerging deal would expand required background checks for sales at gun shows and online but exempt transactions like face-to-face, noncommercial purchases, said Senate staffers and lobbyists, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks. Currently, the checks are required only for sales handled through licensed gun dealers.

Though many details of the emerging agreement were unclear, Manchin and Toomey are among their parties’ most conservative members and a deal could make it easier for some hesitant senators to support the background check measure, at least for now.

Some Republicans might vote to begin debate on the legislation but eventually oppose the measure on final passage. Other parts of Obama’s gun effort already seem likely to face defeat, including proposed bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

This might be useful for breaking a filibuster, but it's pretty useless otherwise.

I accept that the assault weapons ban is dead on arrival (and said as much to Time Magazine), and I'm resigning myself to the idea that the high-capacity magazine restriction is probably going to be defeated as well. After all, those measures only enjoy around 58-59% public support.

Universal background checks--criminal history and mental health checks for every gun purchase, whether made at a dealer or a gun show or out of the back of a Subaru--consistently poll around 90% support. I can't think of any active legislation that's more popular.

Yet here come Manchin and Toomey, exempting a huge number of face-to-face transactions. I could live with exempting gifts between immediate family, but to say that I can sell a gun to a stranger in a parking lot and not have to run a background check is to leave one huge goddamn hole in the background check system.

Years ago, people conflated the "gun show loophole"--a rule that allowed licensed dealers to move inventory into their "private collections" and then sell those guns at gun shows without conducting background checks--with the problem of face-to-face sales conducted by non-dealers. So now, all Manchin and Toomey have to do is include sales at gun shows in their bill, and people will think the problem is solved.

It isn't. This might be useful for getting past the filibuster, but this would make terrible, weak law, in an area that's begging for real reform. Every sale needs a check, and any bill that falls short of that is inadequate.

Half-Cocked Pedants

I have decided that the most annoying subset of people are those who insist on correcting anyone who uses the word "clip" instead of "magazine."

Having been around guns since I was a kid, owned them since I was about 13, regularly shot them for many years, and having both sorts of devices within arm's reach of me now, I've never once been in a situation where the terms "clip" and "magazine" weren't freely used interchangeably, except for conversations where some pedantic gun control opponent wants to pretend that people who disagree with him don't know anything about guns.

I have never known anyone to give two shits about the distinction except in that context. I've never been to a range where someone passes a magazine to his shooting partner and asks him to "reload that clip" and everyone on the line stops to correct him. I've never heard anyone yelled at for saying they got a "new clip for my Sig" or anything of the sort.

Yeah, it's technically inaccurate to say "clip" instead of "magazine." Nobody gives this much of a crap except when trying to be dismissive. Ever.

We don't know for sure if George Zimmerman is a racist*, but ain't no doubt that his mama raised at least one.

--

(* - Yeah, we do.)

Today's Tragic Juxtaposition

...comes to us from the Great State of Colorado:

Colorado prison chief shot dead on eve of gun laws signing

(Reuters) - The head of Colorado's prison system was shot dead at his home in what police said may have been a targeted killing, just hours before the governor on Wednesday signed new gun control laws spurred by a rash of deadly mass shootings in Colorado and elsewhere.

Police said Tom Clements, 58, appointed two years ago as executive director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, was shot on Tuesday night at his home in a secluded wooded area near the picturesque town of Monument, 45 miles south of Denver.

The killing did not appear to be linked to any break-in or robbery attempt, said El Paso County Sheriff's Department Lieutenant Jeff Kramer. He said the shooting did not appear to be random.

Meanwhile, on the Governor's Facebook page, gun nuts are trolling in full force, because apparently "the right to keep and bear arms" means "the right to own whatever kind of guns and magazines you feel like without ever submitting to a background check." Because freedom.

This Week in Radical Gundamentalism, Pt. II

Looks like Mitt Romney hit the bullseye with his five-year plan to get the gun lobby to ignore his past positions and accept his candidacy. A number of conservative legal scholars and practitioners just signed a letter endorsing Mitt and forming a new advisory group for legal affairs. The big news has been that the effort is being directed by famous failed nominee and Nixon hatchet man Robert Bork. But buried a little deeper is that Alan Gura, the E.F. Hutton of the gun law set ("when Alan Gura talks, gun deregulation fans listen"), is also joining the cause.

Gura is best known for winning the District of Columbia v. Heller case, establishing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership, and his part in the Chicago gun control law case that led Heller's holding to be extended to every state. His support might go a long way toward soothing over some hurt feelings over past slights. I'd be interested in learning how Romney bagged Gura's support, in case any enterprising young reporters out there are looking for a story.

This Week in Radical Gundamentalism

Whenever someone suggests good policy that will make lives better without in any way impacting our core Second Amendment freedoms, you can bet the NRA will get their asses in gear...

WASHINGTON -- The gun industry plans to file lawsuits on Wednesday challenging requirements that weapons dealers along the U.S. border with Mexico report multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles, escalating the fight with the Obama administration.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives last month ordered more than 8,000 gun dealers in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California to report such sales to try to stem the "iron river" of guns flowing to the violent Mexican drug cartels.

Dealers are required to report sales of two or more rifles to the same person at one time or during any five business days for semi-automatic weapons greater than .22 caliber and with the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Does it ban multiple rifle sales? No. Does it require permanent records of all firearms ownership? No. All the rule says is that the purchase of more than one semi-automatic rifle over .22 caliber within a week will create a modicum of extra paperwork for dealers and a small chance of added scrutiny for buyers. And in this the NRA finds a grave threat to liberty.

Here's the important thing to keep in mind about this rule: it doesn't infringe the right to keep and bear arms in the slightest. You know how I know that? Because it doesn't affect anyone in any way until they've purchased a second firearm. Those who want to have a rifle for lawful purposes can still do so. Those who want multiple rifles for lawful purposes can still get them, either immediately with a little extra thoroughness from the government, or over a longer period and without the additional scrutiny.

Why bother challenging this rule at all? It makes good sense and doesn't risk gun owners' rights in any real way.

"I'm not a history major, though." He's also not an Originalist.

State Rep. Hal Wick (R-SD) thought it would be funny to introduce a law mandating that people purchase firearms as a way of protesting the federal health insurance mandate.

What he didn't realize is that we used to have just such a requirement, under the Militia Act of 1792.

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

If, upon being presented with this information, Rep. Wick had simply admitted that he'd made a mistake in thinking such a law would be unconstitutional, the story would be over. But that, of course, didn't happen. Instead, he offered an explanation for why it would have been constitutional to mandate gun ownership then but not now:

In the course of the interview, I asked whether this would change his opinion on individual mandates. "No," he said. "I really don't feel like a gun mandate would be constitutional under these circumstances."

What does he mean by the circumstances?

"Well, it was shortly after the Revolutionary War, and it was before the War of 1812," he said, "which may have been something that was on the radar screen -- that they knew there could be another challenge coming from overseas. I'm not a history major, though."

Let's set aside for a moment the obviously ridiculous argument that a war 20 years in the future could justify something that's otherwise unconstitutional whereas a present crisis in health care would not. Notice that he's arguing that something that once was constitutional no longer would be, despite the Constitution's language on the issue remaining unchanged.  That's the antithesis of originalism. Originalists come in various stripes, but the idea that the Constitution's meaning is fixed until properly amended is common to all of them.

I'm not really an originalist, though I practice originalism on occasion (it's a useful tool for determining statutory or constitutional meaning, though it isn't the only one, and it isn't the only valid one). But, in today's GOP, anti-originalism is akin to apostasy. The legal challenge to the health care reform bill's mandate is based on an originalist view of the Commerce Clause. Originalism was the basis for the opinion (and Justice Stevens's dissent!) in District of Columbia v. Heller, one of the most important Second Amendment cases ever decided. For someone who's endorsing both gun rights and the challenge to the insurance mandate to also reject originalism is stunning.

Obviously, in addition to not being a history major, Rep. Wick is also not a constitutional law scholar. Perhaps he'll keep both of those facts in mind the next time he wants to pull a stunt like this.

General Rules to Live By:

If you're a felon who wants to be permitted to own a gun, don't announce that you want it so you can threaten teenagers.

‎"Satanist" turned heavy metal minister - Boing Boing

www.boingboing.net

As for the workaday world, he says the next step toward escaping his felonious past is a petition to get his gun-owning rights restored. "I have a 12-year-old daughter and it won't be that long before she'll be dating," he says. "I want to be cleaning a gun when the guy comes to pick her up."

 

Even worse, I'm pretty sure he got the idea from a scene in "Twilight."

Yes, this. (II)

Ruth is right.

And I really, really hate it when I agree with Ruth Marcus!

[ed.: No, I only mildly dislike it. It makes me feel so Establishment.]

Yes, this.

Senator Lautenberg plans to reintroduce a federal ban on high-capacity magazines.

Good.  Magazine capacity limits have been done in the past, they don't infringe on the Second Amendment, and, as Bill Ruger rightly noted, no honest man needs more than ten rounds in any gun.