RSS
Home
Brady Campaign joins the VPC in deception
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
"A lie told often enough becomes truth." - Vladimir Lenin
In my last article, Lies, damn lies and VPC statistics, I demonstrated that the recently released Violence Policy Center (VPC) “study” claiming to document the misbehaviors of carry permit holders was fatally flawed.
If you have not read my article, I encourage you to do so and to spread it to your pro-gun friends and colleagues. Make no mistake about it, the media will be echoing the numbers from this so-called “study” for decades and we must stand ready to refute them whenever they are used.
The above quote from Lenin is particularly apt where the anti-gun media is concerned and we can ill afford to allow permit holders to be dishonestly portrayed as dangerous when, in fact, they represent one of the most law abiding segments of our population.
As I noted in my earlier article, the most glaring flaw in the “study” was in their determination of the threshold question of whether or not the parties involved were even carry permit holders. They admitted that they “relied primarily on news accounts” in classifying individuals as permit holders. This is an indefensible methodology when preparing a “study” which they are portraying as well-researched to members of Congress as the following case will clearly demonstrate.
Case in point
There was a single case in the VPC report from Minnesota. The VPC, apparently relying solely upon a Star Tribune article, reported the incident as:
“On July 24, 2008, Michael C. Iheme shot and killed his wife after she left her job at an assisted living center. Court records show that she had an active harassment restraining order against him and suggest a history of domestic abuse, including threats to kill her. After the shooting, Iheme called 911 and said, “I have killed the woman that mess my life up....” Iheme, who had a concealed handgun permit, was found guilty of second degree murder.”
It is interesting that the VPC mentions “court records” in their narrative. It is actually a very shrewd spin tactic. It implies to the reader that they have exhaustively researched the history and setting of the case and are certain of their facts. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. This is just more mimicry of news reports.
Dr. John Lott, author of one of the quintessential books for gun rights activists, More Guns, Less Crime, recognized this immediately and reached out to trusted local activists to try and put together a nationwide picture of just how many cases were misrepresented.
In Minnesota, he contacted Andrew Rothman, Executive Director of The Minnesota Association of Defensive Firearm Instructors (MADFI). Andrew contacted noted author and activist Joel Rosenberg, and Joel was able to contact other prominent local attorneys and activists who were able to confirm verbally with their sources in law enforcement that Iheme was not a permit holder.
But actual court records were what was needed to validate the verbal assurances. Since grassroots activists dedicate their time despite working full-time jobs, neither Andrew nor Joel was able to get free and an answer was needed quickly. Andrew called me. New to the state and a wet-behind-the-ears 2L law student, a quick trip to the Hennepin County courthouse was just the kind of adventure to break me in.
It turned out that parking was the most difficult part of my task. Once there, the nice lady at the records office provided me a case file about an inch and a half thick, and approximately 15 minutes later, I was three-quarters of the way through the file when I found what we were looking for … the original complaint, each page of which is clickable below for your viewing pleasure. The key pieces of data are to be found on pages 2 and 5 and I have highlighted them for your convenience.
I should note that the full details of how the Iheme deception went from phone call to the floor of the Senate is a moving and educational illustration of just how powerful grassroots activism can be and I will be detailing it in tomorrow’s column.
But now, back to the data that the VPC could have easily found themselves if they had even one wet-behind-the-ears activist such as myself in Minnesota. Unfortunately for them, it appears that true grassroots activism is not a part of their organization.
Amazingly, the Offender Tracking Form has a standard question on it that asks the question “Does the subject hold a Minnesota permit to carry a pistol?” and then directs the officer filing the complaint to run a QPC query. The answer on Mr. Iheme’s Offender Tracking Form says “No Permit on File.” It turns out that not only did Mr. Iheme not have a Minnesota carry permit, but he had never even applied for one!
The Brady Campaign joins in
But the VPC is not the only anti-self-defense group to blatantly misrepresent the Iheme case. The Brady Campaign, more commonly known by their previous name of Handgun Control, Inc., has been highlighting the case on its website since it occurred.
In case they remove it after it becomes clear that the deception has been exposed, I have captured a screen shot of the page.
In addition to their attempt to use Iheme’s criminal act to paint all permit holders in a negative light, they also launched a blistering attack on the dedicated law enforcement officers in Minnesota, derisively asking “how could the state allow him to hold a concealed carry permit?”
The answer is simple … if Minnesota’s law enforcement officers are going to be forced to pursue mythological objects, then I vote we launch a search for bigfoot. We will find the elusive sasquatch long before we find Mr. Iheme’s non-existent carry permit.
But did they both just make it up?
While I personally believe the VPC and the Brady Campaign to be more than willing to outright lie if it forwarded their agenda and they felt they could get away with it, I do not believe that was the case here.
The truth I believe is much more damning in its own way. While gun owners invest a great deal of time in understanding the laws of the state they live in as well as the states in which they intend to transport or carry firearms, gun control groups actually understand very little about the state of gun laws in America and the media understand even less.
The chain of events apparently went something like this …
Page 2 of the complaint says:
“In a search of the Toyota driven to the scene by defendant, police officers recovered a .45 caliber magazine, a Minnesota permit to purchase a handgun, and a receipt from Cabela’s to buy the handgun.”
The report in the Star Tribune shortened this to:
“police found a gun permit and Cabela's receipt for the gun”
And finally, VPC and Brady, securely wrapped in the blanket of ignorance and prejudice that are the hallmarks of the anti-self-defense mindset, added “concealed carry” back to the description because they do not even understand the difference between a purchase permit and a carry permit.
After all, when your ultimate goal is the elimination of all civilian ownership of firearms, why bother learning about the safeguards and restrictions already in place?
Going forward
As activists across the country seek the same information in courthouses in their own states, I suspect that the number of improperly reported permit holders will rise quickly. Therefore, I call upon the VPC to immediately recall and renounce this “study”. Failure to do so, in the face of clear evidence that the report is flawed, can only be interpreted as intentional fraud.
However, as I think about it, use of knowingly misleading or false data in congressional testimony is a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Perhaps Senator Schumer or Durbin should use this report after all.
Related Articles:
Comments
.jpg)
