Category: Gun Rights

They’re the Only Ones Violent Enough to Beat Lawful Carry Permit Holders

The state likes to protect its monopoly on violence so they periodically take it upon themselves to seek out challengers and initiate violence against them. That appears to be the motive of Minneapolis police officers in Zachary King’s case:

Zachary King says he was walking to his car when police noticed his gun in his waist band. He claims he told police he had a permit to carry, but they still attacked him.

King suffered a concussion after five officers beat him on Father’s Day night. King says video of the assault was taken by a bystander. He says it all started when police noticed a bulge near his waist band.

“I have my conceal and carry, and it’s my gun. And soon as I said that he grabbed me by my neck, slammed me against the wall, snatched my gun out the holster, started waving it in the air saying ‘gun, gun, gun,’” said King.

[…]

King says officers eventually went for his back pocket and his wallet to get his weapons permit.

“And he goes like this to show them that I have my card and they stopped beating me,” said King.

With that said King’s past is brought up in the story as he has had previous run ins with the police:

King’s attorney, Mike Patton, says his client was arrested, jailed and not charged for recording police back in April that allegedly showed abuse of power.

Recording the police isn’t a crime in Minnesota so this is entirely irrelevant as far as King’s character is concerned.

He was also acquitted of manslaughter in 2008 after his pit bull mauled to death his 7-year-old son.

This is the more damning thing against King’s character but I believe it to be irrelevant to his current situation. King was acquitted of charges so this wasn’t a crime and we also don’t have any information to go on regarding the case. Did King’s son abuse the dog? Was King even around when it happened? Either way this isn’t relevant to his current predicament although it’s going to be used against him in all likelihood.

Speaking of pasts, let’s touch on the Minneapolis Police Department’s (MPD). MPD isn’t known for being, shall we say, upstanding. This is the same department that established a Gang Task Force that was allowed to run wild, steal private property, and extort money from individual. The main difference between King’s past and MPD’s past is the fact MPD was actually found guilty of misdeeds.

Overall, this could be an interesting case to watch.

Guilty Until Proven… Never Mind, You’re Just Guilty

EDIT: 2012-06-19 07:00: Bikerdad pointed out that these people have been charged and are being held by the federal government. My confusion can be partially blamed on writing the story in the wee hours of the night and partially blamed on the story being downright confusing (mostly the former though).

The root cause of this problem regards the definition of who can and can’t have a firearm. According to the story:

Decades ago, Congress made it a federal crime for convicted felons to have a gun. The law proved to be a powerful tool for police and prosecutors to target repeat offenders who managed to escape stiff punishment in state courts. In some cases, federal courts can put people in prison for significantly longer for merely possessing a gun than state courts can for using the gun to shoot at someone.

To make that law work in every state, Congress wrote one national definition of who cannot own a gun: someone who has been convicted of a crime serious enough that he or she could have been sentenced to more than a year in prison.

Combine this definition with North Carolina’s rather interesting method of determining a person’s sentence:

Figuring out who fits that definition in North Carolina is not as simple as it sounds. In 1993, state lawmakers adopted a unique system called “structured sentencing” that changes the maximum prison term for a crime, based on the record of the person who committed it. People with relatively short criminal records who commit crimes such as distributing cocaine and writing bad checks face no more than a few months in jail; people with more extensive records face much longer sentences.

Finally combine the above two facts with a ruling that changed the laws:

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said federal courts (including itself) had been getting the law wrong. Only people who could have actually faced more than a year in prison for their crimes qualify as felons under federal law.

The 4th Circuit’s decision came in a little-noticed drug case, United States v. Simmons, but its implications could be dramatic. For one thing, tens of thousands of people in North Carolina have criminal records that no longer make having a gun a federal crime. About half of the felony convictions in North Carolina’s state courts over the past decade were for offenses that no longer count as felonies under federal law.

Needless to say the so-called justice system in the United States is convoluted. The above scenario makes things confusing already but then you combine the fact that cases often get handed over to different courts and you have for some fun times:

Police checked the guns’ serial numbers and learned the shotgun had been reported stolen, so they arrested McCullum. (They didn’t realize until later that the gun had been stolen nine years earlier, by someone else, when McCullum was 12.) When they found out McCullum had a criminal record, they charged him with possession of a firearm by a felon, and turned the case over to the federal government.

What’s interesting is the implications of this mess. There are currently people being held in federal prison who are not actually guilty of federal crime, except they are, unless they’re not. We do know that the federal government “believe innocence is a valid case to release prisoners so those sitting in federal prison will likely be there for a while longer. Looking at this case from the current angle I have to ask where North Carolina is. Isn’t one of the duties of an individual state government to protect its people? Why isn’t the government of North Carolina up in arms over this? Shouldn’t they be making legal proceedings to get their people out? Should they not be readying themselves to storm the federal prison complex to free their people?

Like the federal government, the individual state governments don’t care about the people. Nothing is likely to change for those currently being held illegally in federal prisons. The federal government doesn’t believe innocence is a valid reason to free a prisoner and the individual state governments long ago became subservient to the federal government. We shouldn’t be surprised by this as it is the only logical result of having one entity with monopoly control over both law enforcement and the courts. There is a conflict of interest that results in the people being shafted.

I have left the post I originally wrote below for historical purposes and because I like to keep demonstrations of my failures around to remind myself to do better. Have fun reading:

Here’s another story sent in by Zerg539 via Twitter. Like the last one he sent in this one isn’t going to do well for those with heart conditions but it appears as though North Carolina has decided to completely do away with the idea of innocence:

A USA TODAY investigation, based on court records and interviews with government officials and attorneys, found more than 60 men who went to prison for violating federal gun possession laws, even though courts have since determined that it was not a federal crime for them to have a gun.

Many of them don’t even know they’re innocent.

The legal issues underlying their situation are complicated, and are unique to North Carolina. But the bottom line is that each of them went to prison for breaking a law that makes it a federal crime for convicted felons to possess a gun. The problem is that none of them had criminal records serious enough to make them felons under federal law.

North Carolina is throwing people in prison for lawful behavior. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anybody since such behavior is typical for a state. What really adds to this story though is that the federal government, who often claim their duty is to swoop in and protect people from the individual state governments, has decided this battle isn’t one they should be involved in:

Justice Department officials said it is not their job to notify prisoners that they might be incarcerated for something that they now concede is not a crime. And although they have agreed in court filings that the men are innocent, they said they must still comply with federal laws that put strict limits on when and how people can challenge their convictions in court.

“We can’t be outcome driven,” said Anne Tompkins, the U.S. attorney in Charlotte. “We’ve got to make sure we follow the law, and people should want us to do that.” She said her office is “looking diligently for ways, within the confines of the law, to recommend relief for defendants who are legally innocent.”

When it appears that George Zimmerman’s motivation for shooting Trayvon Martin were race-related the federal government swooped right in. They were investigating the local government because they felt racism may have been the reason Zimmerman wasn’t arrested. It appears as though the federal government is very selective in what they will oversea regarding potential abuses by local governments though since innocent individuals in North Carolina are currently being held illegally and no help is going to be forthcoming.

I’ve said it numerous times but it bears repeating, this country is a police state. When innocence of a crime isn’t enough to set you free then there is no law and order. Granted, the federal government has openly stated before that “Federal law does not recognize actual innocence as a mechanism to overturn an otherwise valid conviction“. Basically, once you’re in the prison system, you’re fucked. You’re not innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent, you’re simply guilty.

Another Clever Case of Using the State’s Tools Against It

Via The Firearm Blog I came across another example of a clever individual using one of the state’s tools against it. Various police states claim that gun buyback programs get illegal guns off of the street and therefore reduce crime. These programs don’t reduce crime and exist solely to use taxpayer money to sucker individuals into selling firearms for less then they’re worth. A clever individual has found a way to get some of his taxpayer money back from the demonstrable irresponsible state:

Many works from the show conflated fashion and violence, as with HG (Hermés Hand Grenade) (1995) and Tiffany Glock (Model 19) (1995), both of which were models made with Hermes or Tiffany packaging.

Although these sculptures were non-functional, another piece – Hecho in Switzerland (1995) – was an actual working homemade gun. Sachs and his assistants would make similar guns and sell them back to the city as part of New York’s gun buyback program (for up to $300 each).

That’s rather brilliant. You can build a nonfunctional although convincing zip gun for almost nothing and then turn it into a gun buyback program for decent profit. Since the buyback programs don’t actually lower crime it would be wholly irresponsible to let the police continue sinking money into them, it would be doing the community a service to take that money from the unproductive wasters and distribute it to the productive providers of goods and services in the community.

Using the State’s Patent System Against It

While the patent system is a clever state devised mechanism to create artificially scarcity on a non-scarce resource (ideas) it’s nice to see it can be used against the state at times:

In California, legislation signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007 has been held up while the attorney general’s office makes sure the technology is unencumbered by patents, as the microstamping law requires. A gun rights group, the Calguns Foundation, went so far as to pay a $555 fee to extend a lapsing patent held by the developer to further delay the law from taking effect.

“It was a lot cheaper to keep the patent in force than to litigate over the issues,” said Gene Hoffman, the chairman of the foundation, adding that he believed the law amounted to a gun ban in California.

Excellent move Calguns Foundation. The interesting thing about microstamping, besides it’s unusable nature, is the fact it could be used as a de facto firearm ban. Microstamping is patented, meaning one entity has been granted a monopoly by the state on developing and selling the technology. While the patent owner claims he wants the technology to fall into the public domain the gun control zealots probably want it to remain patented. Why? Because laws can be put into place to require microstamping technology be implemented on firearms while the patent holder can make the cost of licensing the technology so absurdly high that nobody could purchase a firearm. Fortunately this issue is tied up in court because the scenario I just described would violate the right to keep and bear arms.

Although my accusation is speculative, I’m pretty sure the gun control zealots and California’s legislative body (but I repeat myself) were betting on the patent scenario I described above would work out in their favor. Instead their idea has actually worked out, somewhat, in our favor. Once in a while we can use the state’s weapon against it.

Come Back with a Warrant

Indiana is the first state that has finally taken away one of the special privileges its state agents enjoy:

Indiana is the first U.S. state to specifically allow force against officers, according to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in Washington, which represents and supports prosecutors. The National Rifle Association pushed for the law, saying an unfavorable court decision made the need clear and that it would allow homeowners to defend themselves during a violent, unjustified attack. Police lobbied against it.

[…]

“Public servant” was added to clarify the law after a state Supreme Court ruling last year that “there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers,” he said. The case was based on a man charged with assaulting an officer during a domestic-violence call.

Young cited a hypothetical situation of a homeowner returning to see an officer raping his daughter or wife. Under the court’s ruling, the homeowner could not touch the officer and only file a lawsuit later, he said. Young said he devised the idea for the law after the court ruling.

The Supreme Court, the sole entity granted permission to interpret what Constitutional protections we serfs enjoy, ruled that us serfs had no right to defend ourselves against unlawful state agent activity. This ruling shouldn’t come as any surprise, the Supreme Court has a long history of upholding the statists’ agenda, but it’s nice to see Indiana basically gave the ruling a huge middle finger.

It’s also not surprising to see that the police lobbied against this law as it does put a barrier between their act of performing an unlawful entry and killing any dogs in the home. I’m glad to see this law passed. I believe all should be equal under the law. Whether the person unlawfully breaking into my home at two in the morning is wearing a state-issued costume or not should be irrelevant.

Now that we know the real story let’s take a look at a heavily editorialized version of this story:

Indiana legalizes shooting cops

We’re off to a good start.

Hold onto your holsters, folks: shooting a cop dead is now legal in the state of Indiana.

Oh you adorable little gun control zealots and you’re purposeful omission of details in an attempt to make the story sound evil and scary when it’s not. “Shooting a cop dead” isn’t legal in Indiana unless that cop is unlawfully entering your property. There is a vast difference between the two statements.

The rest of the article mostly reads like the one I first linked to but the openings were just too good to go without comment.

Possible Hope in Fast and Furious

How long as the Fast and Furious scandal been known about? It’s been a while and the House Oversight Committee is finally moving to hold a hearing on whether or not Eric Holder should be nailed for contempt:

(CBS News) CBS News has learned the House Oversight Committee will vote next week on whether to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. It’s the fourth time in 30 years that Congress has launched a contempt action against an executive branch member.

This time, the dispute stems from Holder failing to turn over documents subpoenaed on October 12, 2011 in the Fast and Furious “gunwalking” investigation.

[…]

However, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., says the Justice Department has refused to turn over tens of thousands of pages of documents. Those include materials created after Feb. 4, 2011, when the Justice Department wrote a letter to Congress saying no gunwalking had occurred. The Justice Department later retracted the denial.

“The Obama Administration has not asserted Executive Privilege or any other valid privilege over these materials and it is unacceptable that the Department of Justice refuses to produce them. These documents pertain to Operation Fast and Furious, the claims of whistleblowers, and why it took the Department nearly a year to retract false denials of reckless tactics,” Issa wrote in an announcement of the vote to be released shortly. It will reveal the vote is scheduled for Wednesday, June 20.

Will anything come of this? I’m not holding my breath. With the exception of a handful of members of Congress, it appears as though the legislative body has been less than apathetic in pursuing Fast and Furious. On the other hand this ruling could be a big deal during the election and the Republicans have a vested interest in ruling Holder in contempt. As the Republicans hold the majority of seats on the committee and have a vested interesting in holding Holder in contempt something may actually come of this. Of course state agents are also vested in protecting one another from prosecutions related to their criminal activities so the House Oversight Committee may not vote to hold Holder in contempt, doing so may cause the Democrats to seek revenge by calling the Republicans on one of their criminal activities. This is the problem with organized criminal entities, reform is almost impossible because everybody has dirt on everybody else. Ruling Holder in contempt would also interfere with the state’s move to push gun control forward, which was, at least one of, the goals of Fast and Furious.

This will be an interesting case to continue watching to say the least.

Gun Control Zealot Editorialization

Reading articles by gun control zealots is interesting because they’re often laced with countless editorializations that attempt to make a case for disarming the people. Take this recent case from Wisconsin where a 75 year-old man shot a 16 year-old kid because the older man thought the kid stole his firearm collection:

75-year-old John Henry Spooner from Milwaukee, WI, appointed himself judge, jury and executioner when he gunned down a 13-year-old boy whose only crime appeared to be…his appearance. The victim, Darius Simmons, was black, unarmed and brutally shot in front of his now grief-stricken mother.

At issue was a gun collection, which had been, according to Spooner, stolen. Simmons lived next door. Spooner confronted Darius, who was in sixth grade, and his mother, Patricia Larry, when the boy was moving a garbage can in the front yard. Darius denied involvement in the theft. In fact, he was in school at the time of the robbery, but that answer was unsatisfactory to Spooner, who proceeded to point his 9mm handgun at Darius.

[…]

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Spooner was upset that his neighborhood had turned from a majority Caucasian neighborhood to a mixed-race neighborhood. Darius and his family had recently moved next door to Spooner.

There is some editorialization that attempts to build a case of racism against Spooner, something we saw in the Zimmerman case. Speaking of the Zimmerman case, the author of this article doesn’t forget to make a spurious editorialization to play on the death of Trayvon Martin:

Wisconsin does have both Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws on the books, although it probably be even more difficult for Spooner to make the case that he was under any sort of threat than it will be for George Zimmerman, the killer of Trayvon Martin.

The article attempts to convince the reader that Spooner was a racist who gunned down an unarmed black teenager for the sole reason that the teenager was black. Because of the Zimmerman case I won’t believe any such accusations unless absolute proof is brought forward. Let us not forget that both MSNBC and CNN were caught fabricating evidence to make Zimmerman’s motivation appear race-related. The media has shot what little credibility it may have once had when it comes to reporting the facts in any crime that involves a black individual being shot by a person of a differing race.

Not only has the author attempted to make this shooting appear race related but it attempts to make the Zimmerman case entirely race related. The paragraph should read, “Wisconsin does have both Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine laws on the books, although it probably be even more difficult for Spooner to make the case that he was for the racist murder Zimmerman who had no claim of self-defense whatsoever.” Seriously, if you’re going to editorialize go big or go home. Either way the author forgets to bring up the fact that evidence exists supporting Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. Of course it took ages for this evidence to come to light because it didn’t fit the media’s narrative, and it’s possible Spooner’s action was legitimate self-defense and we’ll only learn of evidence supporting such a claim much later down the road, and it won’t be reported to any extent.

Let’s take a look at another recent story written by a gun control zealot:

BAD boy swimmers Nick D’Arcy and Kenrick Monk have sparked outrage after they posed with high-powered weapons in a US gun shop.

The pair smiled and looked smug as they handled automatic pistols and pump-action shot guns similar to those used in the Port Arthur massacre.

[…]

Mr Crook said Monk was holding the same pump-action shot guns used by Martin Bryant, who murdered 35 people in Port Arthur in 1996.

D’Arcy was pictured holding semi-automatic pistols, similar to those used by Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui.

The only story here is that two Australian Olympic swimmers went to an American gun shop and took a picture of themselves holding firearms while exercising poor trigger discipline. I forgive the poor trigger discipline simply because they are from a hoplophobic country where firearms training is probably suppressed as much as firearms. After all, you don’t want the peasants to familiarize themselves with firearms or they might find out they enjoy shooting and thus demand the strict firearm laws be struck from the books.

The author of this article tries to make this non-story appear to be a scandalous one but tying the swimmers to two massacres. According to the article the weapons were similar to those used in the Port Arthur massacre and the Virginia Tech massacre. Since no logical argument can be made for gun control proponents must appeal to peoples’ emotions. They must pull at your heartstrings and rely on your fear in order to push their agenda.

These articles are perfect examples of gun control zealots editorializing stories to push their agenda. Because of these editorializations they’ve taken potentially serious issues and turned them into irrelevant gibberish that people have become entirely desensitized to due to the constant Chicken Little claims that never pan out. Editorializations have also made the media entirely unreliable, credibility cannot be granted to organizations that continuously lie in order to push an agenda. Thankfully the people have become wise to these tactics and are no longer buying the gun control zealots’ malarkey. You idiots advocating gun control screwed yourselves in the end. While lying worked in the short term people eventually woke up and called you out. When you refused to back down after being called out people recognized you for the cheats you are and began ignoring you. In all honesty I should thank those of you who editorialized in an attempt to push gun control, you lies basically did gun rights advocates’ work for them. Instead of having to argue ideas gun rights advocates’ merely had to point out your lies, which destroyed your credibility. Victory was handed to all of us in the gun community, by yourselves, on a silver platter.

Shocking Fast and Furious News

Absolutely shocking evidence has arisen that shows high-ranking state officials actually knew about Fast and Furious:

A House investigative committee said Tuesday it has obtained new information from wiretaps related to the Obama administration’s Operation Fast and Furious that suggests high-ranking officials know more than they are telling Congress about the flawed weapons sting.

“The wiretap applications show that immense detail about questionable investigative tactics was available to the senior officials who reviewed and authorized them,” Issa said in a June 5 letter to Holder. “The close involvement of these officials — much greater than previously known — is shocking.”

Who would have guessed that there was corruption afoot? That was a rhetorical question, the entire Fast and Furious operation was nothing but a corrupt state scheme meant to bring in more gun control measures.

When Obama told the Brady Campaign that he was going to work on gun control under the radar everybody assumed he was either placating the gun control zealots or was going to promote gun control through some form of nation campaign. I don’t think anybody expected he would go so far as to authorize an operation that would get people killed and then try to cover the entire mess up. Then again we shouldn’t be too surprised that a psychopath, who ordered the assassination of two American citizens without any form of due process, also authorized an operation that was obviously going to cost lives (what other outcome could have come from arming violent drug cartels).

This new evidence is damning. Not only does it demonstrate higher ups knew about the operation but is also demonstrates that they outright lied about having such knowledge. It also shows the complete disregard for human life the current administration holds. Anybody could have told you what the outcome of arming violent drug cartels was going to be, yet the current administration decided it was OK. I’m sure they feel the ends justify the means.

If You’re in Venezuela Get Out Now

If I have any readers in Venezuela, something I doubt but anything is possible, get the hell out of there:

Until now, anyone with a gun permit could buy arms from a private company.

Under the new law, only the army, police and certain groups like security companies will be able to buy arms from the state-owned weapons manufacturer and importer.

I’ve covered the situation in Venezuela before. Every time they’ve tightened restrictions on private gun ownership crime has only continued to go up. I’m assuming the Venezuelan state isn’t composed entirely of idiots so there must be another reason they’re moving to ban private firearm ownership, and I can guarantee their plans aren’t going to be good for the people living there.

If you living in Venezuela I can only urge you to flee and if you’re unable or unwilling to flee you must not comply with this prohibition. Keep your arms, hide them in the deepest hole you can find that is still accessible to you. Do not willingly be suckered into putting yourself entirely at the mercy of the state, especially since the violent crime rate is so high. Let us not forget the history of gun control:

The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911. It then proceeded to exterminate 1 and a half million Armenians from 1914 to 1917.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently, from 1928 to 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.

China enacted gun control laws in 1935. After the communist takeover, from 1948 to 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were murdered.

Nazi Germany fully established gun control in 1938. That helped the government to round up 13 million defenseless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings. Many were imprisoned in concentration camps, then destroyed.

Guatemala passed gun control laws in 1964. Then, from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians were exterminated.

Uganda established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 defenseless Christians met a similar fate.

Cambodia established gun control measures in 1956. Subsequently, from 1957 to 1977, 1 million Cambodians met their deaths.

I’m guessing Chavez is either worried about winning the next election, a situation that may require him to seize absolute control and abolish the sham democracy, or he’s planning on doing a massive confiscation of wealth. Venezuela is a Peoples’ Paradise after all and Peoples’ Paradises usually use wealthy individuals as boogeymen to distract the proles from the state’s actions. The wealthy end up being accused of exploiting the working man and keeping wealth tied up so it can’t go to help those in need. Once the people are fired up and ready to accept any action taken against the wealthy, the state moves in, confiscates the wealth, and keeps it while claiming it’s going to be distributed to help those in need.

This is What Winning Looks Like

Andrew Rothman, Vice President of the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (MNGOCRA) was good enough to e-mail me a few days ago to alert me that Minnesota would soon be exceeding 100,000 carry permit holders. Along with this notification Andrew also sent me the breakdown of permit holder statistics by age range:

21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 Total Percentage
Total Male 11,618 14,984 16,906 19.996 16,068 5,680 784 34 86,070 86.8%
Total Females 1,830 2,350 3,098 3,509 1,939 391 28 1 13,146 13.2%
Percentage Male 86.4% 86.4% 84.5% 85.1% 89.3% 93.6% 96.6% 97.1%
Percentage Female 13.6% 13.6% 15.5% 14.9% 10.8% 6.4% 3.4% 2.9%
Percentage Age 13.9% 17.5% 20.2% 23.7% 18.1% 6.1% 0.8% 0.04%

Raw numbers are boring though so let’s display some charts. What’s that you’re asking? I actually went out of my want to make charts? Heck no, these were also provided by Andrew who is obviously a far more productive man than I am. First we have the overall breakdown of permit holders by age range:

Not surprisingly the majority of permit holders are male although I’m sure a bunch of gun control advocates are going to point to this and claim it’s part of the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) secret conspiracy to war on women or something. In reality woman just aren’t as apt to enter the shooting sports or obtain carry permits although that is changing as woman become the fastest growing segment in the firearms market. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the male to female ratio change over the next several years. The next chart Andrew was good enough to send me was a breakdown of permit holders by age range:

The two largest age ranges are 50-59 and 40-49 although the age ranges between 21-29 and 60-69 are fairly evenly broken down overall. What I believe is the most interesting chart is the one that breaks down permit holders by county:

By far the highest percent of permit holder density per country population is in the more rural areas. This makes sense since firearm ownership and thus awareness is more common in rural areas than urban areas. In Minnesota people living in rural areas are more likely to be introduced to firearms than people living in urban areas. Because of this people in rural areas are generally more comfortable around firearms while those raised in urban areas have often had the misguided claim that firearms are bad crammed down their throats. As the firearm market grows I’m betting the density map will being changing as the number of gun owners in urban areas increases.

The final chart Andrew sent to me shows the percentage of females by age range:

It appears the percentage of female permit holders is pretty much in line with the percentage of permit holders by age range. Once again I’m guessing this chart will change as the number of female gun owners increase. In fact I would bet the percentage of female gun owners in the age ranges of 21-29 and 30-39 will increase are a faster rate than the other age ranges.

No matter how you look at the data one thing is clear, the number of permit holders in Minnesota is increasing. As much as it dismays the gun control zealots people are no longer listening to their malarkey claims. Gun sales are up, permit holders are up, and the influence of the gun control advocates is waning.