From the Office of Rep. Bill Sali

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A federal agency has halted a controversial program giving agents engraved Leatherman tool kits reminding them to focus on the seizure of private property, after Congressman Bill Sali, (R-Idaho), raised objections.
Sali said he will pursue legislation to prevent the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from restarting the marketing program.

The ATF had ordered Leatherman tool kits, engraved with the words “Always Think Forfeiture.” Sali learned of the issue after a constituent brought the purchase to his attention. ATF said the tools were to be used as part of its Asset Forfeiture Program, which provides training to federal, state and local law enforcement. But Sali said the “Always Think Forfeiture” motto engraved on agent tools sent the wrong message to law-abiding citizens.

“Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. We have a right to private property. But ATF, through its engraved motto, sends a message that these rights are secondary to the government’s apparent goal to ‘always’ seek forfeit of private property. Of course, we all want our law enforcement agencies to pursue and prosecute criminals fully. But I have a problem with a federal agency sending a message, even an unintended one, that law abiding citizens will apparently ‘always’ be treated the same as criminals.” said Sali.

In an email to Sali’s office, the ATF said after hearing the Congressman’s objections, the agency had “halted the distribution” of “Always Think Forfeiture” engraved items.

The ATF email said, “As part of training for ATF special agents and state and local task force officers, ATF purchased a number of Leatherman tool kits engraved with the words ‘ATF – Asset Forfeiture’ and ‘Always Think Forfeiture’ for distribution to the participants. These training aids were designed to increase awareness of the asset forfeiture concept so that persons who do not regularly employ the strategy as part of a criminal investigation might be reminded to consider it. We regret that ATF’s training initiative created a misperception. However, be assured that ATF’s Asset Forfeiture Program complies with Federal law and Department of Justice guidelines. As a result of the concerns brought to ATF’s attention by your constituents, we have halted the distribution of the training aids at issue.”

Because ATF said the program complies with U.S. Department of Justice standards and federal law, Sali said he’s drafting legislation that would prevent ATF from launching similar marketing program.

Related post links here.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

The President of BSU’s Faculty Senate, Dr. David Saunders, has just issued his Spring 2008 report, and it’s not encouraging if you are a parent looking for a quality and safe college education for your student.

To begin with, the Faculty Senate adopted two recommendations which will dilute the quality of education BSU offers, especially to its undergrads. The recommendations come in connection with the University’s move to become more of a research-centered school.

The first, dealing with “Faculty Tenure,” eliminates the policy “requiring evidence of outstanding performance in teaching” and weakens it to “meeting the college criteria,” whatever those are. Bottom line: BSU will now offer tenure to instructors who no longer have to demonstrate excellence in actually educating the students in their charge.

The second, dealing with “Faculty Promotion,” eliminates the policy that “teaching is the single most important role of faculty” at BSU and replaces that policy with one that says teaching merely plays “a critical role” in consideration for advancement. Bottom line: average-to-poor instructors will now be eligible for academic promotions at one of the state’s premiere institutions of higher education.

The Faculty Senate also took the time to declare that BSU must continue to be a gun-free zone, resolving unanimously that the “Administration is most vehemently urged” to oppose legislation that would permit adults with concealed weapons permits to carry on campus. Not just “urged,” you will note, but “vehemently urged.” And “using all resources available.”

Thus BSU’s faculty, in all its wisdom, has decided that only certain parts of the Constitution should be honored on campus. As with most on the left, the template among BSU faculty is simple: First Amendment, good (unless proponents of Intelligent Design try to use it), Second Amendment, bad.

Firearms are currently prohibited on the BSU campus, turning the student body into helpless shooting-gallery targets for the kind of deranged gunman who killed 32 students a Virginia Tech just a year ago. Guns, you will remember, were absolutely banned from the Virginia Tech campus, illustrating just how useless such bans are in preventing campus violence.

The “Resolution on SB 1381 - Concealed Weapons Law” says that “Faculty at Boise State University cannot be expected to academically evaluate students who carry weapons,” apparently afraid that the average student may demand a higher grade at gunpoint.

Nor can students “be expected to feel comfortable being instructed by Faculty if Faculty are in possession of firearms.” Apparently they worry that students will live in mortal fear that a professor will suddenly being firing at them randomly as they sit peacefully in his classroom.

Further, the resolution warns that allowing qualified students (concealed weapons permits are only issued to those over the age of 21) and professors to protect themselves will damage recruitment of both instructors and students. No, they wouldn’t want to be anywhere law-abiding citizens could defend themselves against violent attacks. Who would?

Visiting athletic teams, the resolution warns, may not want to play at BSU, apparently for fear they will be ambushed by gun-toting redneck students, and those who lecture on subjects “that are controversial in nature” may be intimidated into silence, in evident fear that a disgruntled student will blow them away if they say something the student happens to disagree with.

The reality is that the mere possibility that students or professors may in fact be in a position to defend themselves and others is the most powerful deterrent against homicidal behavior. (How many shootings take place in police stations?) Someone thinking about shooting the place up will simply have no idea who might be in a position to stop him in his tracks.

One of the questions on the Gem State Voter Guide will deal specifically with this issue, whether a candidate supports or opposes the right of adults with concealed carry permits to carry on Idaho’s college campuses.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Be sure to read Part I, A Little History

The Shelly Parker Case

By George A. Reimann

The case of Shelly Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia is certainly more clear-cut.

The counsel for the District’s collective right theorists argued that the Second Amendment protects only a right of the various state governments to preserve and arm their militias. Since the “well regulated Militia” of the founding era no longer exists, application of the Second Amendment depends upon a non-existent institution. The District’s counsel even asserted in oral argument that it would be constitutional to ban all firearms outright.

The opinion for the United States District Court was filed by Senior Circuit Judge Silberman. This opinion demolished the District’s argument when he concluded “…that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia.

In contrast to Miller, there is no ambiguity here. The opposing positions are clearly stated. Further, an abundance of scholarship was developed in recent decades supporting the individual rights position. Even some university scholars (Sanford Levinson, Yale, and Laurence Tribe, Harvard) who are considered to be Liberals support the individual rights view. So it should be an interesting election year, especially if the SCOTUS decides to take this case when it reconvenes in the Fall.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By George A. Reimann

A Little History

The last time the SCOTUS confronted the 2nd Amendment directly was U.S. v. Miller in 1939. The Court’s decision was ambiguous at best and each side of the gun control debate claims the decision supports their position.

The first federal law regulating firearms was the National Firearms Act of 1934 which levied a $200 tax on machine guns and sawed off shotguns (with a barrel length of less than 18 inches). The feds claimed that such guns were the weapons of choice for the gangs that developed during prohibition. Jack Miller and his buddy Frank Layton fit the profile of unsavory characters. Miller was a bank robber and moonshiner with serious enemies due to his ratting out of cohorts in a bank robbery. So he needed his sawed off shotgun. Both Miller and Layton were arrested by federal agents in June of 1938 for transporting his shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas in violation of the 1934 Act.

The Court’s decision was rendered in May of 1939, however Miller had died in April from multiple bullet wounds. His .45 was by his side with four rounds fired. It seems he needed that sawed off shotgun.

So the Court made its decision without hearing any arguments or examining any evidence presented by Jack Miller that a sawed off shotgun was a suitable militia arm and that his rights under the 2nd Amendment were violated. Thus, without any opposition the Justice Department won its case by default.

In its decision the Court concluded “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” (emphasis added)

But the Court also noted “And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” (emphasis added) In 1939 the kind of arms in common use were bolt action rifles. We had the 1903 Springfield, the Brits had their Enfields, the Germans had their Mausers, etc., The Garand was issued on an experimental basis in 1936 and was not in common use. So when called for service the men were expected to appear with some kind of bolt action rifle (as well as sidearms). Such rifles were abundant due to military surplus sales (starting with Krags after the Spanish-American War) and from commercial production. Today however the arm in common use is the M-16, which is capable of fully automatic fire. It is classified as a sub-machine gun. So, according to Miller, when called for service men are expected to appear bearing M-16s supplied by themselves?

Be sure to read Part II, The Shelly Parker Case.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Executive Director, Idaho Values Alliance

The mission of the Idaho Values Alliance is to make Idaho the friendliest place in the world to raise a family. One of our four goals in pursuit of that mission is to promote judicial restraint, since so many traditional values in our culture have been trashed by a hyperactive judiciary which is increasingly inclined to legislate from the bench.

Chief Justice Gerald Schroeder will retire from the Idaho Supreme Court this summer, before his term is up, which means that Governor Butch Otter will appoint his replacement from a list of two to four names given to him by the Idaho Judicial Council (IJC). Since our state Supreme Court consists of only five justices, this is a decision of immense importance for every Idaho family, since the Court issues rulings that affect the life of every citizen in the state.

Unfortunately, the process by which Justice Schroeder’s replacement is selected virtually excludes the public from meaningful participation and information. The IJC is a seven-member committee which is appointed rather than elected, meaning that critical decisions will be made by officials who are political appointees and have no direct accountability to the public.

One of the seven members of the IJC is district judge Ronald Wilper, the activist judge who denied the Keep the Commandments Coalition its right to a vote on a duly qualified petition in 2004. His legally flawed ruling was overturned by the state Supreme Court 4-1, and yet he is now in a position to influence the choice of our next justice.

For all we know, genuine conservatives may be in a distinct minority on the IJC, yet it will have the authority to deny 15-17 of the applicants the opportunity to sit on the bench.

To give the citizens of Idaho some idea of the judicial philosophy of the candidates who have applied for this vacancy, the Idaho Values Alliance has produced a non-partisan questionnaire which has been mailed to all nineteen candidates. Responses will be posted on our website after May 14, the deadline for the return of the questionnaires.

I’ve included the questions from this “Citizen Information Guide” below for your perusal. As you will see, the questions give every candidate an opportunity to inform the public about the judicial philosophy he (generic use) will bring to the bench if selected.

Judicial candidates routinely refuse to return questionnaires such as this, but there really is no good reason for a candidate with a clear judicial philosophy to hesitate to answer any of these questions.

In 2000, when Dan Eismann decisively defeated a sitting justice for a seat on the Supreme Court, he answered a detailed non-partisan questionnaire while his opponent did not, so a precedent has been set that a candidate who is unafraid to divulge his judicial philosophy need have no hesitation letting the public know something about that philosophy.

IDAHO SUPREME COURT CITIZEN INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE:

1. The Founders of the state of Idaho were grateful to God for our freedom.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

2. All men have an inalienable right to enjoy and defend both life and liberty.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

3. All men have an inalienable right to acquire, possess, and protect property.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

4. All political power is inherent in the people, not the courts.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

5. The exercise and enjoyment of religious faith and worship should be forever

guaranteed.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

6. Liberty of conscience should not be construed to excuse acts of

licentiousness.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

7. Bigamy and polygamy should be forever prohibited in the state of Idaho.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

8. Idahoans should have the right to freely speak, write and publish on all

subjects, but are responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

9. Idaho’s constitution permits capital punishment.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

10. The people, not just the militia, should have the right to keep and

bear arms.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

11. Idaho law should not impose licensure, registration or special taxes on the

ownership of firearms or ammunition.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

12. Idaho law should not permit the confiscation of firearms, except those

actually used in the commission of a felony.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

13. The right of eminent domain should be permitted for any use necessary

to the complete development of the material resources of the state.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

14. Property qualifications should be allowed for school elections and elections

creating indebtedness.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

15. Unless the constitution expressly directs or permits, the judicial department

should not exercise the powers properly belonging to the legislative and

executive departments.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

16. Casino gambling is contrary to public policy and should be strictly prohibited,

including electronic and electromechanical imitation and simulation of all

forms of casino gambling.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

17. The first concern of all good government should be the virtue and sobriety of

the people, and the purity of the home.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

18. The legislature should further all well directed efforts to promote temperance

and morality.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

19. All political subdivisions in Idaho should be prohibited from recognizing any

domestic legal union other than a marriage between a man and a

woman.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

20. The governor should have the power to disapprove of any item or items of

any bill making appropriations of money embracing distinct items.

Agree ___ Disagree ___

21. Which one of the current or recent U.S. Supreme Court Justices most reflects your judicial philosophy?

___ Ginsburg

___ O’Connor

­­___ Kennedy

___ Scalia

___ Other ___________________________

22. Rate your judicial philosophy on a scale of 1-10 when approaching the constitution, with “living document” being a 1 and “strict constructionist” being a 10.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

23. Which of the following former U.S. Presidents best represents your political philosophy?

___ Jimmy Carter

___ Ronald Reagan

___ Bill Clinton

___ George W. Bush

___ Other ___________________________

Read The Idaho Supreme Court: Appointment vs. Election, Part I and Part II

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

In his weekly column, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas observes that while increased gun control may result from the tragedy at Virginia Tech, increased “people control” almost certainly will.

Rep. Paul observes that too many Americans look to government rather than themselves for protection and security. This is in direct contradiction of the principles upon which our nation was founded.

It is impossible for government to protect its citizens from all threats, yet many rights and freedoms will be infringed or discarded completely as our leaders try to reach that goal.

I am reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s observation: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.

As copy-cat shooters keep raising their heads and threats of attacks and bombings continue to be reported, we are in a very dangerous and precarious position. Especially with Democrats in control in Washington, almost anything could happen.

Rep. Ron Paul:

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

When we are presented with two very similar crime stories, separated only by a few years in occurrence, it is critical that we compare them and learn any inherent lessons in order to protect innocent lives in the future. WorldNetDaily.com reminds us of the difference one small law can make.

Situation 1: on January 16, 2002, legal alien student Peter Odighizuwa set out to murder students and faculty on the campus of Appalachian Law School in Grundy, VA. Odighizuwa entered the offices of several professors and shot them at close range, killing them. He also shot and killed a female student, and wounded three more. However, before he could kill others, he was stopped by 2 students who had rushed to their cars to retrieve their guns. The two students were able to disarm Odighizuwa and subdue him until law enforcement arrived.

Situation 2: on April 16, 2007, legal alien student Cho Seung-Hui set out to murder students and faculty on the campus of Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA. Several hours after murdering 2 in a dorm room, Cho entered a school building and opened fire on faculty and students. Cho killed 32, wounded 15, and finally killed himself, all before law enforcement showed up on the scene.

Both situations occurred in the state of Virginia. In the five intervening years, the Virginia General Assembly passed a law banning legally possessed and carried weapons from all university campuses. One year ago, a bill was introduced to allow guns back on campus, but failed. A Virginia Tech spokesman said,

“I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”

Lessons learned?

1. Law enforcement cannot protect students or anyone else from a deranged madman intent on murder.

2. Laws prohibiting guns on campus are obeyed by law-abiding citizens, not deranged madmen, and are unenforceable.

3. Feel-good legislation and rhetoric doesn’t protect anyone.

4. Legally armed students and/or faculty can and do stop armed killers.

Read the previous posts on this subject, Virginia Tech: Gun Control Fails…Again, and Guest Post: Second Amendment, Designed for Virginia Tech.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Chances are increasing that your family, immediate or extended, will be touched in some way by school violence. Whether it’s an attack on a teacher, a bomb threat, a stabbing in the hall between classes, or a shooting, most schools are seeing an up-tick in such occurrences, or at least the threat of violence.

Take my little granddaughter, Anna, for instance. She’s in the first grade in an unincorporated area of Arizona where her family lives. The area is experiencing explosive growth. Most of the area schools for the lower grades have Kindergarten through 8th grade. That’s quite an age span, but it usually doesn’t cause many problems.

Almost two weeks ago on Friday, April 6th, long before the massacre on the Virginia Tech campus, a bomb threat for April 20th was found scrawled on a wall of Anna’s school. (Note that the date coincides with the eighth anniversary of the Columbine shooting.) Since the weekend was upon them, school officials waited until Monday to send home a note warning of the event.

Of course, a number of parents were angry that they weren’t notified earlier, with the use of the school’s mass-phone-call system. However, most felt almost two weeks was sufficient warning.

Without knowing everything that has transpired as April 20th has approached, I can say that there has been a sharp increase in law enforcement activity at the school. Both the sheriff’s office and the state police have responded. Awards assemblies and similar events scheduled for that day have been postponed. Teachers anxious to know how and what to plan asked children in their classes to raise their hands if they were planning to attend Friday.

The new district superintendent held an open meeting in the library of Anna’s school to get acquainted with district patrons - and to answer questions about the bomb threat. Anna’s mother, my daughter-in-law, reported that the meeting was sparsely IBattended. However, she was interested to learn that the school janitorial staff was conducting sweeps of the entire school at the end of each day. When a parent questioned the custodians’ credentials for such an assignment, the superintendent responded that they were the ones most familiar with the school, with all its nooks and crannies, and would be the first to recognize anything out of the ordinary.

On Friday, April 20th, with law enforcement present, all entrances to the school will be locked except for two, through which all the children must pass as they arrive. Every bag and back pack will be thoroughly searched. Bomb-sniffing dogs will be present and the school day will proceed - not quite as normal - while the faculty, staff and parents hold their breath and pray nothing happens. But those are the adults, who know and understand that very few bomb threats have any substance to them. Of course, tit’s the students who are thoroughly traumatized.

Little Anna brought home the school note about the threat with as much interest as she usually regards such announcements from the principal - she threw it on the table with a wad of corrected papers and homework. It didn’t take her mother long to discover it, however, and though she was careful not to alarm Anna any more than necessary, Anna soon deduced that something scary was afoot.

When my daughter-in-law called her husband, my son, she was surprised at his strong reaction as he expressed anger that anyone would threaten not only a public school, but his own darling daughter.

At school the next day, there was talk of little else among the students. Anna is normally a confident, happy girl, but she has a worry-wart side to her sunny personality that kicked into high gear. It soon became apparent that Anna was not going to go to school willingly on April 20th. In order to avert an inevitable battle of wills and further traumatization for their terrified little girl, my son and his wife wisely decided to let her stay home and play with her younger siblings tomorrow.

In all likelihood, nothing at all will happen at this rural Arizona elementary school. But plenty of damage has been done without an actual explosion.

The perpetrator of the threat had no knowledge (I hope) of the coming Virginia Tech massacre, but that tragedy has done nothing to comfort parents, grandparents and friends of the students and staff at this school, who are watching, praying and assessing.

For the hundreds of children who attend the school, the bomb threat has meant shock and terror. They are not old enough to rationally process the situation (are any of us?) and may experience lasting effects such as nightmares, distrust of others and fear of school far into the future.

As the worried grandmother, I hope and pray that the school staff and law enforcement handle the situation for the best outcome. I hope little Anna is looking forward to honing her double Dutch jump rope skills at home tomorrow, and not focussed on events at the school. I hope her parents feel the calm that comes from doing all they can to protect her. I hope that on Monday school will return to normal without further interruption.

And I hope the perpetrator is discovered, appropriately punished, and removed forever from Arizona public schools.

My daughter-in-law expressed a sentiment that many of us are feeling: a desire to hide away her little family in a safe haven, far from any thing or any one who could harm them. Unfortunately, no such shelter exists, but we can do our best.

The first step is realizing that, ultimately, it isn’t schools, teachers, superintendents, the sheriff, babysitters or anyone else who will keep our children safe.

I feel as if I’m revealing a well-kept and guarded secret:
PARENTS HAVE THE PRIME RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROTECTING AND SAFEKEEPING THEIR CHILDREN.

Within the law, parents must do what it takes. I applaud my son and his wife for taking a stand.

If all parents would accept and act on that responsibility, a tiny bit of precious sanity would return to our world. All children would be safer.

And perhaps we would see less school violence.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full feed RSS.

From Idaho Values Alliance

With great pleasure, we welcome Bryan Fischer, executive director of Idaho Values Alliance, who’s guest posts will appear on TrishAndHalli.com. Please browse through his excellent site for other to-the-point articles.

The Second Amendment unequivocally protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, both for their own self-protection and for defense against the tyranny of an autocratic central government.

The American war for independence began when the Crown tried to disarm the colonials, and when the Bill of Rights was created, the Founders wanted to make sure that the central government in the new nation would be forbidden to do what the Crown had tried to do.

However, the trendiness of gun control laws has disarmed one American after another, in the guise of making our streets, cities, and schools “safe” from gun violence. But as the Virginia Tech tragedy illustrates, disarmed Americans are defenseless Americans.

The school president, trying lamely to defend the university’s response, said that it is impossible to have an armed guard at the door of every classroom. Well, that’s exactly the point.

According to columnist Alan Caruba, the Second Amendment Foundation says that firearms are used defensively an estimated 2.5 million times every year, four times more than the criminal use of firearms. Overall, this represents about 2,575 lives saved and protected through the responsible use of firearms for every life lost to a gun. The loss of life due to accidental firearm death is at its lowest point since records were begun nearly100 years ago.

However, according the Virginia Tech website, even citizens with right to carry permits are not allowed to be armed on campus, under threat of arrest. But as historian Clayton Cramer points out, speaking of the Virginia Tech massacre, “This is exactly the situation where one armed student, faculty, or staff could have cut this short.”

A virtually unreported story in the old media’s coverage of the Virginia Tech tragedy is that, according to the January 31, 2006 edition of the Roanoke Times (hat tip: Brandon Stoker), Virginia lawmakers voted down a bill that would have allowed permit holders to carry concealed handguns on campus. The bill was generated in response to the campus arrest of a Virginia Tech student despite the fact he had a state-issued concealed handgun permit.

When the bill was voted down, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hinckler chortled, “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions, because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on campus.” Mr. Hinckler has been strangely silent since yesterday morning.

Utah is the only state which has a statute specifically authorizing law-abiding individuals with carry permits to possess firearms on state university property.

At least two school shootings have been stopped by armed civilians before police arrived, one in Virginia in 2002 (three deaths) at the Appalachian School of Law, and another at Pearl High School in Mississippi (two deaths). Armed citizens in these two circumstances were able to apprehend the gunmen and hold them until police arrived. In both cases, however, the guns had to be retrieved from vehicles, giving the shooters more time than necessary to work their mayhem.

Commenting on the fact that it is unlikely that lawmakers will learn from this tragedy, a spokesman for a Second Amendment organization said, “The only schools and universities where these tragedies have been stopped abruptly were the places where law-abiding citizens had a gun that was accessible to them and they were able to stop the shooter. The schools and universities that had to wait for the police to arrive, those are the ones that find these high death tolls. It’s just a real shame that these guys never get it.”

Boise engineer and Virginia Tech grad Doug Batten drew my attention to the story of Professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who was on the faculty at Virginia Tech when Batten was a student there. Librescu died yesterday by throwing himself in front of the shooter as he attempted to enter his classroom. All the students in his classroom lived because of his selfless act.

As Batten pointed out, Prof. Librescu gave us a remarkable example of the teaching of Jesus, who said, “Greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). It is certainly unfortunate and tragic that the professor had only his body but no weapon with which to defend himself and his students.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

As the story of the tragedy at Virginia Tech unfolds, the gun control nazis will emerge again, more virulent and self-righteous than ever.

And a few lone voices will observe the truth: When guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns.

In fact, that is exactly what happened at Virginia Tech.

As Virginia law stands now, lawfully carried and concealed guns are prohibited on the campus of Virginia Tech. To be fair, we can assume that illegally carried guns are also prohibited.

Yet one man with criminal intent carried at least two guns on campus and killed 32 innocent people, with nary an armed soul to oppose him before he had killed two, then hours later, many more.

As WorldNetDaily.com reports today, about a year ago the Virginia General Assembly defeated a bill which would have allowed permit holders to carry guns on campus. A spokesman for VT heaved a sigh of relief at the time as he said:

“I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”

I’ll bet he wishes he had never uttered those words.

Del. Todd Gilbert, of Shenendoah, sponsored the bill to allow legal guns on campus. He was naturally reticent to comment today, but he did observe:

“The one thing that this tragic event does illustrate is that there is not a single gun law, rule or regulation that will stop someone with this kind of evil intent from going about their business and taking life at will, if they are committed to doing that… Had I been on campus today, and otherwise been entitled to carry firearms for protection and been deprived of that, I don’t think words can describe how I would have felt, knowing I could have stopped something like this.”

If some students and faculty had been carrying their legally permitted guns today, it is likely that a few deaths would have occurred. However, in at least two instances the murderer chained classroom doors closed and proceeded to fire at students. In all likelihood an armed student would have stopped him before 32 people had been executed.

It has never made sense to me that we designate certain areas where we educate, care for, and/or house our children, our most treasured possessions, as free of lawfully possessed guns. In essence we say, “Hey, you murderous scum, there are our kids. The folks there don’t have any guns. Have at ‘em!” And sure enough, the murderous scum show up and kill the innocent, in far too many instances.

As Gomer Pyle would say, surprise, surprise,

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full feed RSS.