This is from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
Hamline University Student Suspended After Advocating Concealed Carry for Students
School Orders Psychological Evaluation
October 10, 2007
FIRE Press Release
ST. PAUL, Minn., October 10, 2007—Hamline University has suspended a student after he sent an e-mail suggesting that the Virginia Tech massacre might have been stopped if students had been allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Student Troy Scheffler is now required to undergo a mandatory “mental health evaluation” before being allowed to return to school. Scheffler, who was suspended without due process just two days after sending the e-mail, has turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.
“Hamline’s punishment of Troy Scheffler is severe, unfair, and apparently unwarranted,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “Peacefully advocating for students’ ability to carry a concealed weapon as a response to the Virginia Tech shootings may be controversial, but it simply does not justify ordering a mandatory psychological evaluation.”
On April 17, 2007, Hamline’s Vice President of Student Affairs, David Stern, sent an e-mail to the campus community offering extra counseling for Hamline students in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. Later that day, Scheffler responded directly to Stern, arguing that Virginia Tech’s ban on concealed weapons was part of the problem and advocating that Hamline eliminate its similar policies. Scheffler also wrote that the university’s diversity programs may have angered some in the student body, himself included.
On April 19, 2007, Hamline University President Linda Hanson e-mailed the campus community again to address the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Scheffler responded directly to Hanson and again criticized the university’s concealed weapons ban, academic standards, financial policies, and the university’s efforts to promote diversity.
Hanson replied to Scheffler on Friday, April 20, offering him a chance to meet with university personnel to discuss his views the following week. Yet on Monday, April 23, before Scheffler was even able to respond to Hanson’s invitation, he received a hand-delivered letter from Dean of Students Alan Sickbert notifying him that his e-mails to Stern and Hanson were “deemed to be threatening and thus an alleged violation of the Hamline University Judicial Code.”
Sickbert’s letter also informed Scheffler that he was being placed on immediate “interim suspension” that could not be lifted unless he agreed to a “mental health evaluation” by a licensed mental health professional.
FIRE wrote to President Hanson on May 29, 2007, vehemently opposing the sanctions against Scheffler, since neither of Scheffler’s e-mails even came close to meeting the legal definition of a “threat.” FIRE also pointed out that Hamline maintains a “Freedom of Expression and Inquiry” policy that encourages the public expression of opinions and the freedom to examine and discuss all questions of interest. FIRE wrote that “it is difficult to reconcile these admirable commitments to freedom of expression with Hamline’s hasty actions against Scheffler.”
FIRE also informed Hamline administrators that subjecting Scheffler to a mandatory psychological evaluation poses a grave threat to liberty at Hamline. FIRE wrote, “A psychological evaluation, to be overseen by a Hamline administrator, is one of the most invasive and disturbing intrusions upon Scheffler’s individual right to private conscience imaginable. Because Scheffler has shown no proclivity toward violence and has made no threatening comments, this psychological evaluation seeks to assess his political opinions….”
Hanson responded to FIRE on June 11, 2007, claiming that there were several reasons for Scheffler’s suspension, including the e-mails, his failure to meet with administrators when invited, and “critical input from various members of the Hamline community.” FIRE addressed each of those claims in another letter to Hanson on September 17, 2007. Not only did FIRE reiterate that Scheffler’s e-mails were not threats, but it also pointed out that Scheffler was given less than one full business day before his suspension to respond to the invitation from school officials to discuss his views. FIRE also noted that the alleged information from “various members of the Hamline community,” which supposedly played a role in determining Scheffler’s sanctions, had not even been revealed to Scheffler himself, denying him the right to defend himself or present his side of the story. In a September 28, 2007, response, Hamline’s attorneys refused to address FIRE’s concerns that Scheffler has been denied his due process rights.
“How can Scheffler hope to defend himself when Hamline refuses even to tell him what he is accused of doing?” FIRE Vice President Robert Shibley asked. “Hamline’s policies promise freedom of expression and basic due process to its students, but this case brings the sincerity of those promises into serious question. FIRE calls on President Hanson to either admit that the suspension and order for a ‘mental health evaluation’ had no justifiable basis or give Scheffler all the information he needs to respond to the charges against him.”
FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty across America can be viewed at thefire.org.
Robert Shibley, Vice President, FIRE: 215-717-3473; email@example.com
Linda Hanson, President, Hamline University: 651-523-2202; firstname.lastname@example.orgDavid Stern, Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs, Hamline University: 651‑523-2088; email@example.com
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
This is from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
Posted by Bill Jungbauer at 9:48 PM
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Just a few weeks ago in northern Dakota County there were several Robert Street Transit Study workshops. I think that the most discouraging part of all of this was the lack of people that showed up. One lady expressed her desire for a personal helicopter for her transportation needs. I asked several questions and the one that you may find interesting is that according to the Metro Transit report for 2006 from the National Transit Data Base reports that overall Metro Transit received 32% of their operating costs from the farebox. It appears that the LRT (Hiawatha light rail line) gets about 42% of LRT operating costs from the farebox and the bus system gets about 31% of bus operating costs from the farebox. The balance is paid by you and I, with our taxes.
You may find this interesting. Senator Metzen and Representative Hanson introduced these bills asking for $6,000,000 to appropriate from the bond proceeds fund to the Metropolitan Council for environmental studies, engineering, real property acquisition, and construction of passenger facilities for the Robert Street corridor transitway along a corridor on or parallel to U.S. Highway 52 and Robert Street from within the city of St. Paul to Dakota County Road 42 in Rosemount.
House File 2540
Senate File 2341
So far $500,000 has been appropriated for this study. Now, before the study is even complete, they want $6,000,000 to start the process of purchasing land and build passenger facilities. Don't you think that our present infrastructure, (roads and bridges), should take priority? How much of our taxpayer money is going to be wasted on frivolous light rail lines when the money is needed for more important things?
Now check this out!
House File 2407
Senate File 2156
These little items ask for $500,000 to be appropriated from bond proceeds to study the feasibility of a high-speed rail line between Rochester and the Union Depot Concourse Multimodal Transit Hub in down town St. Paul. What really amuses me is that the Union Depot may have to get nixed from the Central Corridor light Rail plans because of the incredible cost of that project. Add on to that the revelation of having to rebuild or retrofit the Washington Avenue bridge any amount between $30,000,000 and $400,000,000 of our taxpayer money.
Also, here is a new one for you.
House File 246
Senate File 189
These ask for $500,000 to study the feasibility of combining the Southwest Rail Transit Corridor with the Interstate Highway 394 Corridor between downtown Minneapolis and a point of divergence west of downtown.
All of this went on early last session. I am sure all of this gives you some idea of what is going on behind the scenes and is a good example of why we have to pay attention. I am reminded of the phrase "visions of the anointed." Our elected officials feel that they are anointed by us voters to fulfil their visions. All while spending our money.
Posted by Bill Jungbauer at 7:59 PM
Monday, October 15, 2007
1)"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above
2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above
3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above
4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."
A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above
5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
A. Karl Marx
B. LeninC. Molotov
D. None of the above
6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above
(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005
Posted by Bill Jungbauer at 4:36 PM
Sunday, October 14, 2007
This is from the Minnesota Taxpayers League. I believe it's time for me to check up on Metzen, Hanson, and Atkins. They live only five minutes from the capitol but sure seem to feel entitled to tap us taxpayers for all they can get.
I have been discussing the per diem issue with various people all summer. Some say that our legislators should just give themselves a raise and be done with their helter skelter use of per diem. If they vote for a raise, it will not take affect until after the next election. And with 2008 being an election year, I think they fear the implications that could cause them. I have heard the argument that for us to have the best people step up to represent us, they must be justly compensated. I don't go for that one bit. In New Hampshire legislators are paid $100. The people of New Hampshire have representatives who feel it is their civic duty to step up, rather than it being a second job.
We all know that when politicians need a few bucks to cover some desperately desired item of spending they can simply raise taxes or fees. Of course you and I don’t have this option when bills come due at the end of the month so we’re forced to budget and make choices. Why so many elected officials can’t understand this has always puzzled me. Don’t they have to make tough choices around the kitchen table, too? Well, according to this story from the Star Tribune, I now realize they don’t. They just increase their salary when money gets a little tight. That’s exactly what a number of state legislators are doing when they claim ridiculous per diem expenses – in some cases doubling their $31,000 a year legislative salaries. State Rep. Bernie Lieder (DFL-Crookston), chair of the House Transportation Committee, “said many who top the lists are committee chairmen from communities far from St. Paul. Many of those committees conduct business even when the Legislature is not in session.” And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the other problem. What part of the world “adjournment” don’t legislators understand? Granted, the 35W bridge collapse has necessitated an increased number of transportation committee hearings. But what possible business does the Capitol Restoration Working Group or the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources have that needs to be accomplished now? Go home! And if you try and say that these kinds of meetings are important but they get lost in the shuffle during regular legislative sessions, that’s a pretty good clue that the work you’re doing is worthless.
Posted by Bill Jungbauer at 9:01 PM
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Gene sent me the link for this great website. It provides us with more information and reminders of what we have witnessed in the past and what we can expect to see if Hillary, (God forbid!) gets elected.
Here it is,
Check it and be educated!
Her proposal to give every infant an account with $5000 in it will cost about $20 billion dollars per year. It was reported in the paper that about 4 million baby's are born annually in the United States. She has not mentioned how this will be payed for.
Posted by Bill Jungbauer at 10:28 PM
This is from the National Review,
By The Editors
There are two kinds of crooks. The first cuts a deal. He tells the government what he knows and forever after is ostracized and hunted by his old partners in crime. The second is “stand-up.” He keeps his mouth shut. After serving his time, he is welcomed back into the fold. He might even get a “bump up” in rank from his grateful bosses.
No, we’re not talking about The Sopranos. What we have in mind is a new episode of a tawdry soap opera that began in the 1990s. Welcome to the case of disgraced former national security adviser Sandy Berger — and what it portends about a potential President Hillary.
Now Berger is back in business at Camp Clinton, advising New York’s junior senator in her bid for the White House. This warrants a review of Berger’s recent history. After his stint as national security adviser, he became Bill Clinton’s liaison to the 9/11 Commission as it investigated intelligence failures (many of which happened on Berger’s watch). Berger was accordingly given access to the national archives, both to prepare his own testimony and to get the former president ready for an interview with the commission.
Berger used his privileged access to steal top-secret national-defense documents. On at least two occasions he stuffed them into his clothing and briefcase, smuggling them out of the archives. He secreted some of these stolen papers under the wheel of a truck at a nearby construction site so that he could return for them later. Other documents he intentionally destroyed. These actions were serious felonies.
Berger’s behavior was so strange that the government noticed and investigated. Berger then lied to the authorities, denying what he had done and absurdly claiming he had taken the documents in an honest mistake. Only later did he fess up to his theft.
Because the archives lacked filing controls, it is impossible to know exactly how much Berger stole. Yet — as our Byron York has reported — among the highly classified haul were various drafts of an “after-action report” prepared by top Clinton counterterrorism officials after the Customs Service, in a stroke of luck, foiled the millennium plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport. That report has been widely described as a scathing internal assessment of the Clinton administration’s performance and state of preparedness for domestic terrorist attack. It was highly relevant to the 9/11 Commission’s investigation, as was the manner in which it was finalized and the question whether the Clinton administration acted on its recommendations.
Yet the commission was not told about Berger’s unlawful actions. He was not questioned about them, and the public has never been permitted to see copies of what he took (such copies are said to exist). President Clinton and the Clinton Library are conveniently immune to Freedom of Information Act disclosure requests for 12 years. And the Bush Justice Department shamefully tucked this whole affair under the rug by permitting Berger to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, effectively shielding him from public disclosure of the evidence.
What kind of advice is Berger giving Mrs. Clinton, anyway? It can’t be legal advice: Berger forfeited his law license. It’s unlikely he’d be much help on Iran: The Clinton administration didn’t respond to the Khobar Towers bombing (in which19 U.S. Air Force personnel were killed) because Berger and others were convinced that then–Iranian president Mohammed Khatami was going to “reform” the hard-line mullahs. Berger failed on al Qaeda, too: Clinton declined to respond to the terror network’s bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (17 U.S. Navy personnel killed) because, according to Clinton, Berger’s intelligence services couldn’t tell him who did it.
Sandy Berger was a failure as national-security adviser. Then he became a criminal. As Americans contemplate making Hillary their president, they would be wise to consider the company she keeps.
Posted by Bill Jungbauer at 7:04 PM
Sunday, October 7, 2007
This man is an American Hero and if he is ever prosecuted for such patriotic activities I will be the first to contribute to his legal fund.
A video of a veteran upset about a Mexican flag being flown above an American flag in Reno is popping up on Web sites and prompted a response Wednesday by police on displaying the American flag.
KRNV News 4 broadcast a story on Monday of a U.S. veteran, Jim Broussard, cutting down the U.S. flag flying above the bar and taking it away in protest of what the station reported was an illegal display of the flag.
“I took this flag down in honor of my country with a knife from the U.S. Army,” Broussard told the TV station.
“I’m not going to see this happen to my country,” he said. “I want to see someone fight me for this flag.”
Reno police received numerous inquiries about the legality of flying a foreign flag above the American flag. A Fourth Street cantina was identified as the site of the incident captured on video by News 4.
The United States Code establishes a protocol for the display of the American flag in relation to other flags displayed in the same location, Reno police say. But the protocol is advisory and is not a criminal statute. No sanction is in place for violation of the protocol and is not enforceable by local law enforcement.Nevada Revised Statutes contain provisions relating to the display of the American flag and the Nevada State flag.
“However, none of those provisions make it unlawful to violate the protocol established in the U.S. Code,” the city said in its news release Wednesday. “There are no provisions in the Nevada Revised Statutes regarding the display of flags of other countries
.”If any individual reports a crime, Reno police would take the report. If the facts warranted would investigate and then submit to the prosecutor’s office for a review regarding the potential for prosecution of the crime, the city said.“It is the policy of the Reno Police Department to protect life and property and to ensure that everyone’s rights are protected,” the release added.
-- The Associated Press contributed to this story.
Posted by Bill Jungbauer at 8:40 PM
By Ted Nugent
WACO, Texas (CNN) -- Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby's Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.
Anybody see what the evil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I've about had enough of it.
Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.
A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.
At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.
More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.
My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby's Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden "feel good" politics.
She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.
No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a "cult of agriculture fertilizer" following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh's heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody wanted "steak knife control" as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.
Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.
Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.
Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun ban. Feel better yet? Didn't think so.
I'll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that's who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to "feel good" is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.
Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children's school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.
Posted by Bill Jungbauer at 5:42 PM
In 39 U.S. states, thousands of collegiate students and faculty-age 21and above-are licensed to carry concealed handguns throughout their day-to-day lives. And they do so without incident. However, despite the absence of any compelling evidence that these licensed individuals would pose any more threat to college campuses than they currently do to office buildings, shopping malls, movie theaters, grocery stores,banks, etc., they are prohibited, either by state law or school policy, from carrying their firearms onto most college campuses.
On April 16, 2007, twenty-seven students and five faculty members at Virginia Tech lost their lives to a madman who possessed one distinct advantage over his victims-He wasn't concerned with following the rules. Undeterred by Virginia Tech's status as a "gun free zone,"this mentally unstable individual carried two handguns onto the university campus and indiscriminately opened fire.
In the last twenty years, the vast majority of the mass shootings in America-from the Texas Luby's massacre to the Columbine High School massacre-have happened in "gun free zones." Labeling an area "gun free" may make some people feel safer, but as the shootings at Virginia Tech taught us, feeling safe and being safe are not the same thing.
For over a year, state law in Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on college campuses. This has yet to result in a single act of violence. Numerous studies* by independent researchers and state agencies show that license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes. Clearly, license holders pose little threat to college campuses.
There is a wide discrepancy between the intent of campus gun bans and the actual consequences of such bans. It is this discrepancy to which the students of SCCC hope their Empty Holster Protest will draw attention. While opponents may argue that guns have no place in institutions of higher learning, SCCC contends that it is the threat of uncontested, execution-style massacre that has no place in America's colleges. The students of the Empty Holster Protest respectfully ask that steps be taken to take the advantage away from those who seek to harm the innocent.
For more information visit
Posted by Bill Jungbauer at 5:07 PM
Here is a very classy video from the Ron Paul camp. I differ with Ron Paul when it comes to leaving Iraq immediately. I feel we need to finish the job there. When we left Viet Nam, millions died. If we just get up and leave Iraq it would spark an instant civil war and a blood bath.
I agree with Ron Paul on numerous issues. Low taxes, small government, personal freedoms, a return to basic consitiutional principals and values, all of which I agree with.
Posted by Bill Jungbauer at 9:55 AM
Friday, October 5, 2007
There's some NEW campaign materials you can use especially for people who do not have internet access, senior voters, or others.
Check out the new Ron Paul Freedom Message Card:
People can call and hear clips from Ron Paul on 9 key issues. Try it for yourself! Dial 1-641-715-3900US
Foreign Policy - 4 min. Ext. 35004#
Protecting Civil Liberties - 3 min. Ext. 35005#
Healthcare Reform - 5 min. Ext. 35006#
Fixing the Inflation Tax - 2 min. Ext. 35007#
Taxes and the IRS - 2 min. Ext. 35008#
Entitlements - 4 min. Ext. 35009#
Second Amendment - 3 min. Ext. 35010#
Immigration Sanity - 3 min. Ext. 35011#
Our Constitutional Republic - 6 min. Ext. 35012#
Feel free to post this information on your blog, website or on your printed material.
Again, you can get these Freedom Message Cards at:
We have just about 90 days so let's start getting out there and get people out to vote in the primaries and become delegates!
Posted by Bill Jungbauer at 4:03 PM
Thursday, October 4, 2007
When the so-called “mainstream”media completely ignore animportant firearm studyby the FBI, there’s gotto be a good reason--doesn’t there?
If you ever needed proof that the media ignore or suppress stories that don’t fit their anti-gun agenda, here it is.
Forget the old New York Times slogan “All the News that’s Fit to Print.” When it comes to the conflict between your firearms, your freedom and the media’s bias against both, their slogan ought to be “Only the News that Fits, We Print.”
How else could the national establishment media outlets--right down to the last one--have completely ignored a recently released FBI report that demolishes many of the anti-gun articles of faith that they’ve printed and parroted without question or conscience for years?
The 176-page report is titled “Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on America’s Law Enforcement Officers.”
Although it was written by three of the FBI’s most respected researchers--recipients of the University of Virginia’s Jefferson Award for Research--and although it represents the culmination of more than 15 years of inquiry into violence against law enforcement officers, the report was received by the media with abject silence.
Why? Maybe because, among other things, the FBI report shows that many of the media’s banal bromides regarding guns and crime are false:
• Criminals do not get their guns through gun shows.
• Criminals do not find “loopholes” in the law through which they get their guns.
• Anti-gun laws do not stop criminals from getting guns; in fact, they don’t even appear to slow criminals down.
15 Years of FBI Research … Ignored The FBI has collected data on law enforcement officers feloniously killed in the line of duty since 1945, and in recent decades has made increasing efforts to analyze the data and glean lessons from it.
To that end, in 1992 the FBI released “Killed in the Line of Duty,” a three-year study of 51 cases in which 50 offenders killed 54 law enforcement officers.
In each case, investigators collected all kinds of information on the incident itself. They interviewed the fallen officers’ colleagues, their supervisors and the homicide investigators assigned to their murders.
They interviewed the law officers’ killers. And to make sure those interviews wouldn’t be tainted, they limited the cases they selected for study to those in which the offenders had exhausted all appeals.
Although the 1992 study was well received by the law enforcement community--indeed, one sheriff gave it credit for saving the life of one of his deputies--many felt that it was lacking in one dimension: the point of view of the officers who were killed.
So the FBI opened a new line of inquiry, this time analyzing cases in which law officers had been seriously assaulted, but not killed.
In another three-year study, the researchers examined 40 incidents (out of 625 submitted for review) that involved 52 victim officers and 42 offenders (nine cases involved multiple victims, and three involved multiple offenders).
As in the previous study, to ensure the quality of the information obtained, investigators granted complete anonymity to the victim officers, their departments and the offenders.
The resulting monograph, titled “In the Line of Fire,” was released in 1997.
For the third and final research report, “Violent Encounters,” the FBI analysts culled 40 incidents involving 43 offenders and 50 officers from a pool of approximately 800 cases submitted for consideration by agencies across the country.
Again, the victim officers and offenders were interviewed in depth. Again, extensive information was collected from the crime scenes and case files for each incident. And again, anonymity was guaranteed to all parties.
In this study, however, researchers considered additional questions, including firearm use; marksmanship training and practice; the sources of criminals’ firearms; the ages at which criminals began carrying firearms; when and how they carried; prior involvement in shootings; and so on.
The “Gun Show” Charade You’d never know it to hear the so-called “mainstream” media tell the tale, but this new FBI report shows that what the media have been saying for years about gun shows, so-called “loopholes” and the sources of criminals’ firearms has been false.
A few quotes from the report here are instructive:
“[T]he federal government has passed many laws to restrict and limit firearm purchases. The offenders in this research, how-ever, stated that none of these laws or statutes deterred them.”
“Of the 33 handguns used to assault the officers who participated in the current study, 32 (97 percent) were obtained illegally. Eighteen of these were purchased or traded from other [criminals]; six were obtained during burglaries; four were taken from the victim officers during the incidents of examination; two were stolen during larcenies; one was stolen during a homicide; and one was illegally purchased from a firearm dealer in a store (straw purchase by a female associate). “None of the rifles, shotguns or handguns connected with this study were obtained from gun shows or related activities.”
Indeed, while anti-gun groups and the media wring their hands, complain about “lax laws” and claim that criminals obtain firearms by exploiting deficiencies in current law, the convicted criminals interviewed for this most recent study made it clear that:
a) At the time of the incident under investigation, they were already prohibited from purchasing firearms because of criminal convictions, illicit activity, underage status and other disqualifying factors; and
b) Those disqualifying conditions didn’t make a bit of difference, since the criminals didn’t, and wouldn’t, attempt to obtain firearms through conventional sources.
Again, some passages from the most recent FBI report sum it up succinctly:
“Thirteen of the 43 offenders readily admitted member-ship in street gangs connected with drug trafficking. They stated that they freely exchanged firearms within the gang and viewed them as a necessary tool not only for their criminal activities, but also for protecting their territories. None of these particular gang members obtained their weapons legally. Generally, they obtained the firearms by illegal street purchase, trade, swapping on the street, or as the proceeds of theft, such as burglaries and larcenies. Four officers were assaulted with handguns taken from them.”
One of the authors of the most recent study, Edward F. Davis of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit, told the International Association of Chiefs of Police that not one of the criminals who attacked police officers was “hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws.”
Indeed, as one of the criminals interviewed for “Violent Encounters” explained:
“I never gave a [expletive] about the gun laws that are on the books ... I never went into a gun store or to a gun show or to a pawn shop or anyplace else where firearms are legally bought and sold and picked up a gun, ever. Because I’m a felon, I couldn’t pass a background check ... That’s just common sense, and I think most felons know that. I’m not going to pass a background check, and I’m not even going to try. Why? Because I can break into Joe Blow’s house down the road here ... where it was relatively likely they were gonna have a piece and search the [expletive] from top to bottom until you found your gun.”
When investigators asked this same offender how hard it would be to illegally buy a gun on the street, he replied:
“Sure, the black market, quote, unquote. You can get everything from a cheap little .22-caliber . . . to a .50-caliber Desert Eagle that retails for twenty-two hundred bucks. You can find everything in between . . . whatever you want to get ahold of.”
Another offender told FBI investigators:
“No, we ain’t going to no store to buy [guns]. I mean, you know, you got everybody out there doing their thing as far as being a criminal. You got guys out there that sell drugs. Guys out there that do burglaries and all that stuff. So, there is some gun sellers out there … it’s almost easy as being able to find drugs.”
“Almost as easy as being able to find drugs.” Consider for a moment exactly what that means.
The drugs to which the criminal was referring are completely illegal. They’re outlawed throughout the U.S. under numerous federal and state laws that impose stiff, mandatory sentences for distribution, and in many cases simple possession.
Thus, if anything, illegal drugs should be harder to obtain than firearms--not easier. But they’re not.
So even if firearms were one day outlawed completely--as narcotics currently are--criminals could still get them as easily as a dime bag.
By refusing to admit that, by refusing to publish the truth that FBI researchers spent 15 years to uncover, the national media don’t just divert attention away from the real problems and allow them to grow worse.
They also diminish our liberty and dishonor the brave men and women in blue whose sacrifices served as the reason for this research--and who gave their lives to protect our families and our freedom.
That’s a disgrace.
Posted by Bill Jungbauer at 9:54 PM