Previous Post
Next Post


The Outdoor Wire has printed a response from now former G&A technical editor Dick Metcalf to his firing. In short, Dick’s upset. The controversy has made him fear for both the First and Second Amendments. And when it comes right down to it, all of you and your “voices from cyberspace” are to blame. Have at it:

When the present controversy erupted a week ago, I was asked by Guns & Ammo/InterMedia management to write the following “clarification and elaboration” on the December Backstop column for use on the G&A website. I did so, but the decision was made to wait and see how the situation developed. I was also asked to hold off on making any comments in any other forum, and no other response appeared in any G&A/IMO forum at all. Then, after Paul Erhardt’s column appeared in the Shooting Wire yesterday, IMO was contacted by two major firearms industry manufacturers, stating that they would do no further business with IMO if it continued with its present personnel structure. Within hours, Jim Bequette resigned as Editor of Guns & Ammo, and my relationship with all IMO publications and TV shows was terminated . . .

How do I feel about that? Disappointed. If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer’s voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue . . . then I fear for the future of our industry, and for our Cause. Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech? Do Americans now fear open and honest discussion of different opinions about important Constitutional issues? Do voices from cyberspace now control how and why business decisions are made?

From its inception as “Cooper’s Corner” in 1986 the back page column in Guns & Ammo has been intentionally designed to address controversial issues, and to invite reader response. By that standard, the December edition certainly succeeded–some might say, too well. But our intention was to provoke a debate, not to incite a riot (which is illegal under laws regulating the 1st Amendment).

Read the remainder of Metcalf’s response at

Previous Post
Next Post


        • Actually, he does not get it. He’s just as ignorant about the issues as the gun-control crowd. The anger he is feeling is because the people who supported his magazine and who understand the historical and textual contexts involved expect that he would too. As such, he is seen as a betrayer and a back stabber because the gun-control crowd can now cites someone prominent from “our side” to support their arguments. That goes a long way with the LIV and the intellectually lazy.

          You may think the tone is too aggressive, but the emotional reaction is perfectly understandable. When you are right, but someone supposedly “on your side” helps to foster the impression that you are not, it is natural to be angry.

          He is even wrong about his First Amendment concerns. The government did not shut him down. The marketplace of ideas did. That is exactly how it supposed to work: if people don’t like his ideas (and the relevant market did not), he is held accountable. His “concern” for the First Amendment is nothing more than a rationalization. He would like to do what he wants without any consequences he doesn’t like. But it does not work that way, nor is supposed to. In any event, the First Amendment does not protect you when you offend your clients or subscribers and they can pressure your employer to fire you. And your employer is within his rights to do so, since you are hurting his business.

          His ignorance about the text of the Amendments and the historical contexts surrounding them indicate that he should, in all likelihood, either keep his mouth shut about such things, try to learn more about such things, or find somewhere else to work. However, he opened his mouth and now the choice has been made for him. He can always get a job with MSNBC. They’d probably love to trot him out on every gun control segment.

    • He sounds like a Scooby Doo villian, shaking his fist and grumbling that he would have gotten away with it, if it wasn’t for us meddling internet using gun rights supporters.

        • “Lol! Except there is no mask to pull off to reveal Feinstein underneath.”

          Give a warning next time! I about spewed my drink all over my monitor! LOL

    • Nope. He doesn’t understand the 2nd and by this whine, he doesn’t know what the 1st means either. The 1st doesn’t protect you from a private company kicking his worthless butt to the curb. Maybe he has dementia.

      • Exactly what I was about to say. The same rule applies here as it does there–it is a private publication and the First Amendment has no application at all. So all he has proved is that he should have kept his mouth shut in the first place since he has no clue what he is talking about. And he sure as shootin’ shoulda read Heller as to the meaning of the first clause of the Second Amendment before spouting his nonsense. Journalists are supposed to research before speaking, right? That means he was no journalist. He deserved to be fired for doing a bad job, and further deserved to be fired because his bad job threatened his employer’s income.

      • That portion of the First Amendment is very clear – it protects your right to speak freely, it does not offer ANY protection to you regarding results from what you speak. (Spake? Spoke?) Damned English.

        • Exactly. I don’t know where he gets off complaining that his 1a rights have been infringed upon… He’s still free to express his opinions in any way he chooses. He can start his own magazine and print whatever he wants. He can start his own blog. He can start his own YouTube channel… The list goes on.

    • Sure doesn’t.

      He’s going to be on GunTalk with Tom Gresham this Sunday, I’m hoping Mr. Gresham grills him real good.

    • No, he does not at all get it.

      “Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech?”

      He still doesn’t get that the Constitution restrains government.

      “But our intention was to provoke a debate, not to incite a riot (which is illegal under laws regulating the 1st Amendment).”

      He still doesn’t get the ‘falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater’ myth. You would think that since he was asked not to comment that he would’ve had ample time to read for understanding what people were trying to tell him. He apparently had time to check the veracity of what others were telling him too.

  1. Yes, if you think that Shall Not Be Infringed means that we should have discussion about regulation then please FOAD.

    • There are two ways to handle conflict: talking, or fighting. Note I said “talking,” not agreeing. If you’re not even willing to talk, you better be ready to fight, because large parts of the nation do not agree with your constitutional theory.

      I personally don’t really agree with Metcalf’s analysis but I think it is pathetic that the gun ‘community’ is so scared of an opposing view that they have to shut him up and, if the comments on forums and blogs are indicative, threaten him with violence. It kind of makes me wonder if maybe I should move back towards neutral on gun issues. Of course, to people here that makes me a heretic, FUDD, or whatever silly little acronyms get splurted out of the mental masterbation of an echo chamber.

      • Do as you wish but you could not be more wrong in thinking “…the gun ‘community’ is so scared of an opposing view that they have to shut him up.” We did NOT shut him up. We simply disagreed with his views. He still has the ability to make his views known and, if his employers are willing to lose the business that would be lost due to his continued employment, so be it. But they’re not.

        Mr. Metcalf exercised his 1A rights. The AI did the same. We didn’t “shut him up”. We merely expressed our opposition to his stance and his firing was a business decision. If you can’t see that then I feel bad for you. Words have consequences. And Mr Metcalf chose his words poorly.

      • The “gun community” is not scared of a little debate. The “gun community” supports the 1st and 2nd amendments. The “gun community” doesn’t have to support, with their money, platforms that don’t agree with their position. So, I cancelled my subscription to G&A before the apology. The editorial was, in my opinion, egregious enough to warrant not supporting that periodical with my money due to its editorial position. Metcalf is free to have any discussion he wants on any platform that will support him. That is the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment does not require me to pay for your speech, only my own. As to a discussion on the 2nd amendment, when anti-gun publications, sites, etc start to editorialize about 50 state reciprocity, or other advancements of protecting our rights, then maybe we can have a discussion. But you can’t negotiate with yourself. The hoplophobes only want “the gun community” to compromise. There is never any compromise from the other side. So, yea, having a one-side discussion with our rights being given away with no movement from the other side is going to generate a lot of heat (as it should). It hurts worse to have your friend stab you in the back than have your enemy stab you in the front. At least with your enemy, you can see it coming.

      • We didn’t shut him up. We made a decision not to buy a product based on the political leanings demonstrated by those in charge of that product. They have the right to say and print whatever they like, hence them not understanding the 1st.

        And we have a right to purchase a product or not. G&A is a product. I don’t buy things made in China, for instance. And I don’t buy gun magazines who write columns I vehemently disagree with.

        Dick and the others can whine all they want, but at the end of the day it is about then putting out a product that people very strongly they did not want to purchase.

        Pretty simple stuff. The gun grabbers don’t like it but they are a bunch of crybabies anyway.

      • “I think it is pathetic that the gun ‘community’ is so scared of an opposing view that they have to shut him up…”

        Sir, I refer you to a recent controversy from Florida. A man freely and legally exercising his Second Amendment rights was attacked, pummeled, beaten, and finally to save himself he drew his weapon and shot his assailant to death. Was his being scared of Treyvon Martin’s “opposing view” pathetic, and so then was his effort to “shut him up” also pathetic, or was it justified self defense?

        The “opposing view” of the civilian disarmament proponents has been pummeling us against the Progressive sidewalk for a hundred years. We are in fear that if we do not do something dramatic to fight back they will succeed in taking the last vestige of our liberty, not just our RKBA. Just as Zimmerman was justified in using his weapon to end the “opposing view” straddling and beating him, we, prostrate, pummeled repeatedly by the media, the legislatures and the courts, are fully justified in being “scared” of this “opposing view” and using whatever weapons we have to “shut them up.”

        As for you, sir, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Neutral on this issue is, IMO, part of the problem.

      • He wasn’t just opening a discussion for the pursuit of truth or coming up with new ideas he thought everyone should be able to live with. He was being disingenuous about his understanding of 2A either in that article or in the past. Metcalf has sunk even lower by trying to call out anyone for an abuse of the 1A.

        Not supporting does not equal fear and it does not equal squashing the 1A. The people that were in fear were the ones worried about losing money at G&A. They have every right to publish what they want. We have the right to tell them we don’t like it and what we will legally do in response. They then have the right to ignore this response and defend their position or apologize with actions that show they mean it. 1A alive and well in this example.

  2. The guy got fired… I can understand his disappointment. But whoever let him run his column in G&A without any feedback? Yeah, that was a big FAIL too.

    • The guy got fired

      g, the guy fired himself. After the Zumbo and Tsai episodes, Metcalf couldn’t possibly believe that selling out would have no consequences.

  3. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from repercussions from foolish speech. Say something stupid that offends the people you’re claiming to be speaking to and for, and you’re going to feel the heat.

    Guess what – that’s freedom of speech in action also. Now Dick needs to get himself a copy of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and start educating himself on where he went wrong both then and now.

  4. Sorry, Dick. Where you’re concerned, this discussion is now OVER. Have fun fly fishing or whatever ex-pat gun writers do after mandatory retirement. Whatever it is, though, make sure you say there.

  5. Mr. Metcalf appears to be past the point where he is capable of carrying on a rational discussion, preferring instead to joust against windmills in his own imagination, rather than addressing the actual issues or arguments raised.

  6. Glad the fool is gone.

    1. They’ve given up their rights by becoming violent repeat criminals
    2. Yes
    3. Yes
    4. Violating? It’s the holder of the license forcing people to get licensed?

    Metcalf, suck it. You have a freedom of speech against the government, not a freedom from ridicule for talking out of your ass to the wrong demographic. You really don’t get it.

    • I have to disagree with the violent criminals having given up their rights. if they are walking around as free members of our society then they should have all of their rights intact. if you don’t like that then why are they not in jail until they have been “rehabilitated” and can walk around as a free member. if they can’t be “rehabilitated” then why are they sitting in jail taking up resources

      • I’ve made that same point many times. Those who disagree have yet to come up with a response.

      • As long as its not an ex-post-facto law, it’s just as due a process as if they were still in jail. Just because you get out of jail doesn’t mean the crime didn’t happen or that you weren’t convicted. Just because you aren’t wearing a jumpsuit doesn’t mean all restrictions have to be lifted.

        • But all the law does is stop a felon from legally acquiring a gun, it does not prevent them from getting a firearm. If you have cause to believe recidivism, don’t let them walk free, where they can get a gun (illegally.) If they’ve served their time, why deny the inherent right to self defense in a way that doesn’t send them back inside?

        • You Hannibal, are cruel, heartless and without an ounce of human compassion for your fellow man. To take any human being that has already paid their debt to society and then throw them out into the savage and brutal world without the legal ability to effectively defend themselves, thier family or friends is such a gross violation of basic humanity I cannot even comprehend how you can look at yourself in the mirror and not see a monster.

          I see the same of cruelty and savagery in those who support the murder of unborn children.

          It is these few examples, of many, of the inhumanity to man that tells me we as a people are just one step from those monsters from our past. This ability to take a group of people, like an unborn child or a criminal dehumanize them and then treat them as objects to be murdered or to deny the most basic of rights like self-defense, and feel justified in doing so is to me the heart of all mass murders, the horrendous history of slavery and the atrocities during times of war.

          This ability to dehumanize and objectify another human being, unless addressed, acknowledged and healed, will lead us once again down the path of mass murder and the brutality so common in our past as well as present.

      • The big American Exceptionalism is not gun control (before 1977, Canada’s laws were less strict than the U.S. Gun Control Act, and, prior to 1920, Britain’s laws made Vermont and Alaska seem restrictive), but the fact that a past conviction for a Felony (what we call an Indictable Offense) turns one into a lifelong second-class citizen. Even in Canada, someone who had a conviction for an indictable offense years ago can get a firearms license. But, in America, you can’t even vote. In most other countries, if you’ve done your time, you’ve done your time–period. By creating this permanent underclass, your country has created a host of social problems, and serious potential for abuse by authorities.

        • Interesting side-point. I’m still not sold on the complete restoration of a felon’s right to own, but I’m certainly willing to at least hear it out.

      • Nick, I agree with you. However, …

        The safety of society demands that we should not be releasing violent criminals who have not been “rehabilitated”.
        BUT WE ARE.
        Since we are, then it does make sense to prevent convicted violent criminals from getting a gun, which they will Probably use against some innocent citizen. This can be supported as a “Constitutional necessity”, based on the fact that people do have a right to be protected from criminal violence. Protection from criminals is one of the most basic reasons for the existence of government. (Read John Locke’s 2nd Treatise on Government.)

    • He wasn’t saying he had freedom from ridicule, or even that it was illegal to fire him; just that it’s disturbing that the gun community is refusing to even listen to different views.

      The 1st Amendment prohibits many forms of censorship by government, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t call it censorship with a private group does it. That’s what is going on here, and the anti-gunners are correct to point it out…

      • [Quote Hannibal] He wasn’t saying he had freedom from ridicule, or even that it was illegal to fire him; just that it’s disturbing that the gun community is refusing to even listen to different views.[Unquote]

        The “gun community” is not refusing to even listen to different view. Outside of the “gun” media that is all we here. When do the hoplophobes get to listen to different views.? When does the Brady Campaign publish an editorial calling for 50 state reciprocity? The compromise from the anti-side is always, always, the “gun community” having to compromise our rights or to listen to them lecture us why we need to compromise. When we can have a discussion and the other side also is actually willing to compromise then maybe we can talk. But “allowing” us to have a 10 round magazine (when we could have banned that too) is not a compromise from them.

        [Quote Hannibal]The 1st Amendment prohibits many forms of censorship by government, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t call it censorship with a private group does it. That’s what is going on here, and the anti-gunners are correct to point it out…[Unquote]

        You make me tired. Who cares if we call it censorship. The only legally prohibited censorship is governmental censorship. Do you call it censorship when the Brady Campaign doesn’t write editorials calling for the repeal of the NFA laws, or a 50 state reciprocity. Great, but who cares. Apple doesn’t have to write copy touting the Windows operating system – they can censor themselves and say nothing about it. If you insist on calling it censorship, fine, but every organization censors. They promote the ideas they believe in and attack or ignore the ideas they don’t believe. “Gun community” censorship is a tired canard. Let’s talk about anti-gunner censorship.

      • That the pro-2A community responded in the first place by trying to get Metcalf fired is PROOF that they listened to his opinion.

        Listening and agreeing are two totally different things.

      • I believe the controversy arose because G&A DIDN”T censor this editorial; they published it. They received heavy flack because of that. Firing an employee that cost your business customers and money is not the same as censorship. Hari Kiri by the editor who screwed this up in the first place was only honorable. Good riddance to both of them.

      • That’s just absurd. There are a near infinite platforms from which to speak anything you might wish to speak. When you’re a gun writer you don’t speak about siding with anti gun groups in a gun magazine, because you’ll be fired.

        If you worked for xyz company and told their customers that you didn’t believe in xyz’s product or service you’d be fired flatly. That isn’t censorship it’s business.

        This has absolutely nothing to do with pro 2a people being unwilling to listen to opposing views, it has to do with us being unwilling to pay to hear them. We pay G&A to tell us about guns, not undercut our position on guns. G&A is free to employ whoever it wants to write anything at all, and we are free not to buy it. In this case what was written wasn’t want G&A wanted, and so they fired the writer. No censorship, no refusal to listen to opposing view points, it simply wasn’t a product we wanted to buy if that’s what it was about.

        The alternative is that no matter what G&A published we should keep buying it. Would you force us to buy it if all the pages were blank or the magazine was never delivered? We were unhappy with the product and chose not to buy, G&A decided to change the product to something we might buy. If you can man more out of it than that you’re simply making it up as you go.

    • I agree Dirk, The guy writes for a magazine called GUNS & AMMO, not Home and Garden. And thinking that presenting the “other side” of the arguement in an article for GUNS & AMMO wasn’t going to light a lot of fuses shows he put zero thought into what he was doing. Same is true for the editor. If I want to read about having my rights infringed, all I have to do is pick up just about ANY non-firearm related magazine, newspaper, government press release, PTA newsletter, or church bulletin. I don’t need to read that crap in what is supposed to be a magazine SUPPORTING my rights. I wish Mr. Metcalf and his editor no ill will, just that they take their talents someplace else

      • If G&A thought for a minute it was a good idea to “present the other side” they really should have invited an editorial from an outside writer rather than their in house writers, and posted it as such. This would have prevented the backlash that came from the appearance that G&A and its writers agreed with the anti-Second Amendment position being presented.

    • I’ll give you the same example I gave Hannibal: It’s a product we don’t have to buy if we don’t want. If that’s what the product is going to be we don’t want it. Since G&A wants us to buy their product they have changed the product to something they hope we will buy. That’s not over reaction, it’s personal choice. I’d love to see an explanation of why I ought to keep paying to read something I don’t want to read. Just really any argument at all as to why I should buy a magazine that I don’t want to read. That’s all this is. We rejected the product and they changed it based on marketing feed back. What’s hard to understand about that?

  7. “voices from cyberspace” Do you mean “the consumer”?

    In that case the answer is yes, they do in fact “control how and why business decisions are made”.

    • It is a very typical legacy media response. They can’t stand that technology has made it easy for us common folk to communicate and disseminate ideas.

    • I’d argue that 1000’s of customers and potential customers voicing their dislike of the product in real time is good for the company. Given that the alternative is that they sit and stew, feeling like they’ve been betrayed, slowing telling all their like minded friends about it, feeling like their opinion doesn’t matter.

      The way it is, G&A was able to rapidly recover from the misstep, fix the issue, apologize and hopefully/likely pull back from the abyss. Is it better to die a slow death, not knowing why, or be wounded once and obviously and be able to react effectively?

      The very notion that the AI somehow harmed Metcalf or even G&A is preposterous in the extreme. Metcalf has harmed himself, and G&A has received a substantial and timely feedback allowing them to correct the issue before it became catastrophic (maybe).

      If being responsive to customers isn’t something you’re into your business will fail. How real time feedback from customers is a bad thing is absolutely beyond comprehension.

  8. He should’ve been fired for stupidity alone.

    It’s like a writer at Road and Track advocating a national 55-mph speed limit.

      • Actually, both Road & Track and Car & Driver have asshats like that arguing for higher gas prices. They seem to think they’ll still have a job if people can’t afford gas or cars that use gas. Idiots.

        Maybe HuffPo should be forced to accept editorials and front page stories from Rush Limbaugh telling them that they are wrong? That’d be the same as what G&A did.

  9. Is having a concealed carry license violating the constitution? What the hell?

    Since when is a citizen exercising their rights a violation of anything? It is the GOVERNMENT requirements and infringements on our rights that violate the constitution. Playing within the system under penalty of armed thuggery via state agents does no more violate the constitution than our expression of disgust at the total lack of understanding of our rights and their origins that Metcalf has displayed.

    • I believe there’s a legal principle here, though I can’t recall it at the moment. But if you enter into a contract, and portions of the contract are found to be in error or unenforceable, the remainder of the contract is not void. So, Mr. Metcalf, just because I acquiesce and submit to obtaining a CCW in order to carry my sidearm doesn’t mean I have to agree with the concept, nor does it somehow void my Constitutional rights, which, by the way, are not Constitutionally granted at all, just recognized as a natural right that exists just because I happen to occupy this planet.

      • Well said. Can some legal eagle expand on this contract law? I might want to use it in discussion at some point.

      • Actually, in a contract, an invalid provision could make the whole thing invalid, so that’s why you’ll see a severability clause in most contracts, which will specifically state that if any part of the contract is found voided or in any way deemed unenforceable, the rest of the contract will stand as signed.

        This is specific to contracts though, and has nothing to do with the Constitution.

  10. The Bill of Rights worked as intended. He was free to write what he wanted, his editor was free to publish it. No .gov censor meddled with the content. Then his readers were free to eviscerate him, exercising those very same freedoms. He didn’t have to ask permission to write his article, and no governmental agency required that he have a minimum level of training to spew those words. He didn’t have to select from a government approved list of words, nor was there any count made to ensure that he didn’t use too many words or type them too quickly. His 1st Amendment rights were in no way infringed.

    Now – let’s give the 2nd Amendment the same level of respect.

  11. 1. A convicted criminal has lost his/her natural rights as they have not exhibited the responsibility required. After they have payed their resetituion to society, their rights should be restored.
    2. Yes. If CCW was proven to pose a real and proven threat to public safety, then I would concede to a public carry license.
    3. Yes. I promise to do whatever it takes to get home to my family. That includes staying out of jail.
    4. This is of course a loaded question. I have not violated the constition but rather given up a portion of my rights protected therein. Does that make me a Hypocrite? Probably, but I’m a work in progress.

    • “1. A convicted criminal has lost his/her natural rights as they have not exhibited the responsibility required. After they have payed their resetituion to society, their rights should be restored.”

      This is difficult and controversial to refute, but here goes:

      Conviction of a crime DOES NOT cause you to lose your natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to defend your own life. Is a convict in prison required to put up no defense during a beat-down or attack with a “shiv”? What if a CO goes after him with a baton, must he simply stand there and take it? Ridiculous. While in our custody we may, for his safety and our own, limit his access to dangerous weapons (arms), but we have not taken away his natural right to self defense. There is no portion of this natural right that requires anyone to exhibit responsibility in its exercise.

      As for “paying restitution to society”, I don’t think that’s really what incarceration is all about. It is an attempt (often futile) to convince the criminal to not continue in behaviors that will result in the temporary loss of liberty of being imprisoned, and the protection of society at large for a certain period of time from a person who has demonstrated a disregard for the life, liberty and property of others. When that period of incarceration ends the former convict retains his natural right to bear arms whether or not society agrees. He may have trouble “legally” exercising his rights, but you can rest assured that he will not be dissuaded from exercising them by any laws.

      Since this is, by definition, a NATURAL right belonging to each and every person as a pat of their existence, the right cannot be “lost” nor modified nor taken away by any government institution or authority. It can only be “lost” by some other person protecting themselves from you with greater force. Only when you screw up badly enough to be dead are your natural rights forfeit.

  12. Dick, you decided to make your opinion’s known on G and A’s opinion page. The 1st amendment triumphs.

    Now you have the opportunity to write for another magazine whose market is more in tune with your opinions. The responsibilities inherent with the 1st amendment triumph.

  13. 1. Yes. If a man can’t be trusted with a gun, that man should not be trusted to walk this country free. Free men own guns. That’s what makes us free.
    2. Yes
    3. Yes
    4. No. Obviously I believe it is unconstitutional for me to be required to get a permit. But I’m not the one violating the constitution, I’m simply doing my best to live within the unconstitutional confines my predecessors left me in.

    Very good effort, though… You’ll understand this whole ‘logic thing’ eventually….

  14. I used to think laws barring ex cons from owning a gun were reasonable. Lately, I’m not so sure. I mean, once they have been released from prison they have paid their debt to society, right? But on the other hand, if they are too dangerous to be allowed to own a gun than they are too dangerous to be allowed to walk freely among the rest of us. Your thoughts?

    • Personally, I don’t think they’ve paid their debt. Society gets charged $30-40K / year for the typical inmate. That’s a lot of money. Still, I’m on board with rights being restored, but perhaps not immediately. Recidivism happens quite a bit.

      As to those who’ve never been in, or who shouldn’t be in (smoking weed, etc.), their rights should not be infringed. At all. Guns & Ammo outta know that.

      • Part of why the recidivism rate is so high is because ex-cons are literally second class citizens and it makes it very difficult for them to get a job. If the government no longer actively sabotaged their lives after they are released, the likelihood of them committing future crimes would decrease.

    • once they have been released from prison they have paid their debt to society, right?

      No. “Debt to society” is a bogus idea. I checked the criminal code of every state and couldn’t find it. I did see a few paragraphs on “restitution,” which would entail criminals making their victims whole. Which never happens. Ever.

      Violent criminals should never have their gun rights restored. The argument that they can get guns anyway is a straw man.

      Nonviolent criminals should have a path to gun rights if they make full restitution to their victims (assuming that there’s any restitution to be made).

      • If you don’t believe that a person who committed a violent crime can be reformed, then why release them to commit more crimes?

      • I have to agree with TG. If a particular violent felon cannot be trusted to bear arms upon his release, he should not be released. Ever. All others must have their civil rights restored immediately. To do otherwise is tyranny and breeds recidivism.

      • Ralph, “debt to society” doesn’t even pretend to be a legal concept. It’s a SOCIETAL concept.

    • Concur re violent felons, but there are quite a lot of offenses these days that IMO should not be felonies. IMO it would be appropriate for non-violent felons to have full rights restored (voting, 2nd A, etc) once they serve their sentence and probation and make their victims whole.

      • but there are quite a lot of offenses these days that IMO should not be felonies

        Absolutely! In fact, there are quite a lot of felonies that shouldn’t even be crimes.

      • Plenty of non-violent felonies–just for instance in some jurisdictions possessing a magazine (gun, not printed) of “too high” (in fact meaning “less inadequate”) a capacity.

    • Do you actually think that an ex-con is going to buy a legal gun at a gun shop? Just look at NYC, Chiraq, Detroit, DC, LA, Boston…

    • There’s that whole “allowed” thing again. Where in the Second Amendment is there any discussion of who is or is not is “allowed” to keep and bear arms? It says, “…the right of the people…” Nor is there any part of the amendment that gives anyone or any government agency the power or authority to determine who is or is not “allowed” to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected RKBA.

  15. 1. Yes, there should be no regulation on the 2nd amendment. Infringement means – “the action of limiting or undermining something.” Thus if you say there are restrictions that put limits on firearm ownership, you are limiting, thus infringing on someones right to keep and bear arms. Yes, the act of serving jail time should rehabilitate the person. Should a criminal also have limitations on the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc? There are no are limits on the Bill of Rights of convicted felons that have served their time. Yes. Will the laws be repealed, no they won’t.

    2. Yes, see the definition of infringement.

    3. Yes

    4. Please explain how these are mutually exclusive. If I believe I have the right to keep and bear arms, and carry concealed without a permit, thus potentially breaking laws if I don’t have to use it, no one should know. On the other hand, you can look at a CCW permit as minimal insurance (if you want to look at it that way). The state is saying that yes, we believe you are of good character and we are going to say yes you can carry. Having a permit can help take pressure off if you have to interact with police, but that is about as far the permit will take you. If you don’t have it, then there could potentially more trouble.

  16. Metcalf complains about his 1A rights being regulated by the free market, and then advocates that our 2A rights should be regulated by Big Brother. His “explanation” is the very definition of “navel gazing.”

    But to the manufacturers who threatened to cut off all their business from IMO publications — Bravo Zulu! I don’t know who you are, but you deserve our respect. I’m guessing that, since you’re big enough to scare the crap out of G&A, you already have our business.

    • Metcalf used his First Amendment right to whine about his customer base using our First Amendment right to criticize his use of his First Amendment right. I think it worked out just as intended.

  17. “Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech? Do Americans now fear open and honest discussion of different opinions about important Constitutional issues? Do voices from cyberspace now control how and why business decisions are made?”

    Not only do we believe in freedom of speech, we exercised it. Voice of the Customer always control how and why business decisions are made. Those that ignore the Voice of the Customer are doomed to be writing whiny letters from the unemployment line.

    “Even the Supreme Court’s widely applauded Heller and McDonald decisions affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ Moore ruling overturning the Illinois ban on concealed carry, specifically held that other firearms laws and regulations do pass constitutional muster.”

    No, it held no such thing. The decision mentioned that it did NOT TOUCH those other regulations, it did not rule them constitutional nor did it rule them unconstitutional.

    Only the second amendment states, “shall not be infringed.”

  18. For someone that supposedly taught constitutional law, he doesn’t seem to have a good grasp on how the 1st amendment works.

  19. Do I think convicted violent repeat offenders should have their rights restored and be able to again posses firearms?

    What kind of dumb @ss question is that, why are convicted violent repeat offenders not in jail or in a grave?

    BTW Mr. Metcalf, you’re welcome so say whatever you want (including yelling fire in a crowded theater) but you are not welcome to believe that there will be no repercussions.

    • I have reservations.

      If one of them turns out to be the Freedom Group, I would be obliged to admit there’s something that doesn’t suck about that outfit.

      Might be for the best if they remained anonymous. 😉

  20. ^this sums it up perfectly.

    Dick, you’re falling victim to the Barbara Streisand effect by attempting damage control. Just go away quietly.

  21. The first amendment doesn’t protect you from getting fired after writing something so demonstrably stupid. It only protects you from the government harassing you. Even that only on paper, looking at the Obama/Holder/IRS thug government.

  22. “Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech?”

    Of course they do, they used that very freedom to air their disgust with your article.

    I don’t know of anyone who is for violent felons owning firearms, the thing is, Dick advocated for more than just that, and that’s where the issue is.

  23. Ralph can educate us on the case law of the situation, but as I understand it, there is no Constitutional right or case law that prohibits an employer from sacking an employee who said something that causes the employer harm. A contract might have provisions therein that prevent dismissal for such actions, but in an “at will” employment situation, I don’t see how there’s any Constitutional issue here.

    Now, as to the “regulation of the Second Amendment” issue: Yes, we know about the current regulations restricting the Second Amendment. Many of them are offensive. There’s no point in writing an editorial justifying more regulation, much less excusing the current level of regulation and infringement. As for felons being allowed to own guns – hey, there are campaigns all over the country to reinstate the voting rights of felons. So… why is the Second Amendment special? If we’re going to make it a priority to restore rights that aren’t enumerated in the BOR, why not rights that are?

    And on a common sense issue: How could anyone writing for G&A not think that the VPC, Brady, MDA and all the other anti-gun groups would seize on this op-ed? You really have to live in a complete political vacuum to not foresee what would happen here. And that’s what really drove the fury of “social media” folks.

    • An “at will” employee can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, except that certain reasons are prohibited. Termination based on race, religion, age etc. are typically illegal under state laws as well as Federal laws.

      Basically, an at will employee can be terminated if the boss doesn’t like the way he licks stamps.

      Different rules apply to employees who have a contract or to Union member employees.

      • Yeah, but if you fire an employee for not liking the way that he licks stamps and he fits in a protected class, you’ll wind up paying him a lot of money. Employee: I was really fired because of X protected characteristic. You: That’s bull. I fired him because I don’t like the way he licks stamps. Judge: That’s absurd. A reasonable juror could find you terminated him because of X protectect characteristic. Summary judgment denied. Now go have fun presenting that idiotic explanation to a jury. (Point: It’s always a good idea to have a reasonable basis for firing someone. G&A did, so they’ll be good.)

  24. “Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech?”

    “Do Americans now fear open and honest discussion of different opinions about important Constitutional issues?”
    There are very important constitutional issues out there and we don’t mind discussing them in the least. The 2nd amendment is not an “issue.” It is a natural, human right that predates a constitution which merely describes it. Your words represent an appeal to limit our liberties and therefore represent a betrayal of this community. You deserve to die penniless as a result and I hope you do.

    “Do voices from cyberspace now control how and why business decisions are made?”
    Check, as well they should. Free market buddy. By the way, the speech to incite a riot is protected. It is only the consequences of that speech that will get you into trouble as you well know.


    • “You deserve to die penniless as a result and I hope you do.”


      You ran that one up the flag pole. I am saluting.

  25. As I have said before, this was as well advised as someone in a similar situation at High Times editorializing about the wisdom of legalizing pot given pot can be a “gateway drug” to worse compounds. If he felt the need to write that, send it off to the NYT or WaPo or other publication. But to push such notions into the faces of a single-interest community showed incredibly poor judgement. As for his 1A rights, he seems to forget that the 1A is designed to protect people from being silenced by their government, not one another. The 1A does not apply to private citizens or private publications from taking issue with the speech of others. Dick is welcome to go out and say whatever he wants in whatever other forum he chooses, just don’t sh!t in the place where you “eat”.

  26. Hey old man! Stop digging if you ever want to have a job again. Don’t blame the people you pissed off for being pissed off.

  27. Poor Metcalf, having to live in a world where voices from cyberspace (you know, the people buying the products he advertises…I mean, “reviews”) have control of the discussion, rather than respected, elite level magazine editors like him. Herst might be rolling in his grave, but Cooper is laughing his ass off.

  28. Oh shut the F up. Crying about free speech? Please. Now he demonstrates as much ignorance of the 1st as he did of the 2nd. We’re not the goveenment. We do not have the legal right to initiate violence against anyone, as the government does. We are not silencing or censoring you by force or threat of force. We’re exercising OUR rights to free speech and free association by calling you out and calling for your ouster. Now quit crying like a titty baby. Geez, no wonder you’re so comfortable with surrendering other people’s rights. You’re only a Constitutional fan when it serves your purpose.

  29. All that Idiot did was give more reasons for the anti’s to pass more illegal gun regulations,and the anti’s don’t care about facts or debating,all they want is for you the’ ignorant gun owner ‘ to throw your guns in the ocean and get ‘common sense’.Bloomberg/Feinsteinoneans DO NOT CARE AND DO NOT WANT DEBATE,they just want you to forget about your 2nd Amendment Rights, get killed and be happy about it.So what Metcalf did was give them a reason to say;SEE EVEN THE GUN MAGAZINES AGREE WITH US .They bring that convoluted crap to Capitol Hill and it’s over,BOZO the newbyDemocatic Senator from California[or originally from there and now starting CANCER somewhere else] gets on the bandwagon,have Bloomberg buy off assembly people ,Pay the third party candidate money to run [as he did in Virginia]to split the vote and WA -LA we now are banning and registering guns ,gee kinda like Hitler did,and look how well it worked for him!

  30. “At the same time, how can anyone deny that the 2nd Amendment is already regulated by innumerable federal, state, and local statutes, and always has been? […] Do we all agree with every part of those rulings? Of course not. I personally do not. But these are laws; now part of the organic fabric of the Constitution, and we ignore them at our peril. Should we now hold that those rulings themselves are unconstitutional?”

    Yes. We should. Just because unconstitutional laws are created and enforced doesn’t make them Constitutional. The Constitution isn’t organic. It either means what it says or it’s simply a nice tradition and doesn’t matter a bit. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t love the Constitution and in the next breath side with unconstitutional measures. You can’t be pro-gun and talk about regulation and confiscation. Metcalf deserved to get fired.

  31. Should’ve just stuck to glowing reviews of every new firearm that comes to market, that’ll learn yah.

  32. Little dick just plain doesn’t get it. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he’s got a mild case on dementia. Or the early onset of Alzheimer’s.
    If memory serves right, Coopers Corner did deal with controversy. Things like .45 versus anything, whether or not females should be cops, his definition of a scout rifle and why everyone else’s version was wrong.

  33. “From its inception as “Cooper’s Corner” in 1986 the back page column in Guns & Ammo has been intentionally designed to address controversial issues, and to invite reader response. By that standard, the December edition certainly succeeded–some might say, too well.”

    One-you have some real nerve comparing your metric ton of anti gun basura to the spirit of Jeff Cooper,Mr Metcalf.

    Two-thank you for proving our point, because G&A used to edit out JCs more colorful articles.Apparently hypocrisy comes as natural to you as literary mendacity.You can say whatever you like, but what you write has consequences.

    Take your punishment like a man, and enjoy your job at Cuomos campaign office.

  34. I could not care less and have no sympathy for this guy whatsoever. He should have been fired.

    In this day and age of the destruction of the rule of law in America and our Liberties being flushed daily down the toilet by the globalist’s political puppets and with the 2nd Amendment barely respected by the tyrants shoving their police state tyranny down our throats, the last things we need are commie sympathizers or “2A infringers” within our ranks.

    The Republic is one the verge of annihilation by the globalist, marxist, socialist, fascist scum that have taken over Washington D.C. and virtually every State government.

    I am a lifetime NRA member and there is no room for mamby-pamby in this fight!

  35. Where is the freedom of speech issue exactly? He was free to make stupid comments, and he did. Now he needs to put on his bigboy pants and deal with the consequences.

  36. I kind of agree with the man. Calling for a sacking over something like this seems like… overkill… It’s bullying.

    I dunno. He did screw up, though. Badly. I won’t miss him. :p

    • He was a writer for a gun-rag and more or less toed the CSGV/MAIG/MomsDemandPonies stance. The fact it was instantly picked up by said groups should be a good indicator.

      Heck, from a strictly financial point of view I don’t blame them for firing him.

  37. If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer’s voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue . .

    How disingenuous. Even a left-wing law journal would expect a contributor to note, when making such an argument, that his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment’s “well-regulated” phrase does, by the way, contradict a currently effective SCOTUS precedent. Having said that, he would be free to give his reasons, though not free to claim freedom from full-voiced criticism. G&A isn’t an elementary school musical. It’s the big-leagues of gun media.

    As for his bewilderment about the power of “voices from cyberspace,” well, that’s stunning. We file our pleadings over cyberspace. Many of us buy or price most of our goods in cyberspace. Google, Amazon, and Facebook aren’t mega-corporations because they merely complement our dead-tree information hunts. They are the very locus of our information hunts. Cyberspace is where the world learns, compares, solicits, purchases, communicates, discusses, and, indeed, vents its shock upon learning that a gun writer for a gun journal wants to drag 2nd Amendment ‘discussion’ back to a pre-Heller statist interpretation of a key Constitutional provision. To say he is surprised is to say he is oblivious, and reveals that he longs for the days when a magazine or newspaper received feedback, if any, via snail mail, mostly for storage in the circular file cabinet.

  38. I think that there is something else going on here because I just don’t get it. Both Metcalf and the editor knew what the result of their article was going to be before it became public. Anyone with a remedial understanding of the RKBA and modern politics would know what was going to happen. Metcalf’s response, falling back on the 1st amendment, makes sense but doesn’t really explain why he wrote what he wrote and I’m not buying the ‘help starting a healthy debate’ thing. This looks more to me like those two were trying to harm Guns and Ammo. Maybe they had a score to settle or really hated their parent company. Otherwise, if you believe their explanations, then they were hopelessly naive and not very bright.

    • Yeah, I agree it doesn’t make sense. Not sure about your theory, but there’s some hidden dimension to this affair.

      • I think they’ve been hanging out with brainwashing liberals.

        They were somehow convinced ($?) to test the waters. They found out the water was not fond of being pissed on.

  39. Freedom of speech just means that the government can’t arrest for what you are saying, it doesn’t mean people can’t disagree.

    As for G&A’s part in all this, I think what we’re witnessing here is the end of an era of Fudd-driven politics around gun ownership. We aren’t just talking about protecting your rights to go duck hunting folks. If you aren’t willing to go to bat for all types of gun ownership in this day and age you should probably step aside and let the next generation of activists take over. (NRA, are you listening?)

  40. Freedom of speech is specifically to protect the governed from having their speech stifled by the governing. A private entity has the right to terminate an employee who tarnishes their reputation. He really doesn’t get it, and his response goes to show that he wasn’t trying to spark debate, he just doesn’t get it.

  41. Dick apparently doesn’t understand that, though he is always entitled to publish his opinion, the First Amendment does not require that we pay him to do so.

  42. This is starting to sound more like the Jerry Sandusky case at Penn. I’ve read several other long time writers who said “they never knew”. I kindof doubt that. I guy who has been around for 30 years and then ALL OF A SUDDEN pops up with his CPUSA membership card? And nobody ever knew he had no respect for the 2A? Who had little to no respect for gun owners? Who “questions” the RKBA?

    I be thinking that all the intrenched gun media flacks are sensing a sea change. WOW, they can actually get Zumbo’d also? It wasn’t a one off thing? I think little beads of sweat are forming on the foreheads of more than one “gun expert” who makes his livelyhood off of the masses guzzling up their drivel.

    • Sandusky was procuring kids for certain politicians – the political elite. That’s why those people claimed they knew nothing about it. They’re sure not about to admit they did.

    • Mostly this, you reap what you sow.

      If you dont like what you get, dont plant it again. Not that he will ever be given that chance though.

  43. His argument in this “response” is essentially, “We’ve already allowed them to trample our rights, why not allow some more…”

    What a crock.

  44. Seriously? How did he think this would go?

    After what happened at Recoil magazine – how did he think any of this would go?

    The reasons Metcalf was fired had NOTHING to do with the second amendment. It was because he wrote an editorial that he knew (seriously, he had to know) would raise the anger of his readers and subscribers.

    In any magazine, whether it be about guns or about farming equipment – this type of editorial would get you fired.

    After what happened with Jerry Tsai at Recoil magazine, Metcalf showed a lack or professional competency in not knowing how this would play out,

    However his employers also bear some responsibility for allowing this to go to print in the first place. Metcalf may have write it – but they published it.(and proofed it)

    Don’t bite the hand that feeds you …. or if you do, don’t expect to keep your job.

    Its journalism 101.

  45. 1. It is correct that his firing has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. The only employment rights he could have would have to stem from a written employment agreement. Assuming G&A didn’t breach any agreement, there’s no issue with him losing his job.

    2. Nevertheless, most of you are missing his point. Whether the traditional 2A view of most people in this forum is right or wrong is not the issue. I can read the amendment, and I fully understand the conclusion that many of you have reached based on its language.

    But step away from the substance of the argument for a minute and realize that Metcalfe’s point is about zealotry and its consequences. Zealotry stifles debate and breeds closed-mindedness and self-righteousness. Throughout history in its most extreme form, it has repeatedly led to violence and totalitarian views on both ends of the political spectrum. Remember how the most ardent voices of the French Revolution — screaming Liberty, Equality, Fraternity — used violence to achieve their means? Zealotry (as distinguished from having deep feelings) is dangerous. Other than “pro-lifers” and the most zealous religious groups out there, is there a more zealous group than 2A supporters? So zealous that they almost instantly skewer anyone in the group who veers from the party line? Seriously: the parallels to some very scary groups and historical events give me pause. And it doesn’t make me feel any better that the “cause” is freedom and individual rights either. If you’re willing to ostracize anyone who does’t think and act just like you, like Metcalfe I question your dedication to freedom and worry about the day in the future when zealotry fuels violence.

    • Interesting; well written but at the same time devoid of substance. If there were no safe harbor from which to espouse dissenting viewpoints about the RKBA you’d be absolutely right. However, given that the outlets for anti RKBA speech grossly outnumber those for it, what you suggest is a self-evident absurdity.

      If Metcalf was seriously concerned about the situation he was in fact sleeping with the enemy by writing for the wrong publication. He could either toe the line his audience set and keep his job, or he could ignore their wishes and lose it. He chose the latter and there is nothing wrong with it. However if he acted from a conscious conviction then he must also accept the consequences for his position (in this case fired and made a pariah in the RKBA community).

      In a time when regulations need to be rolled back and the RKBA has been so badly infringed for so many in so many ways for Metcalf to say what he did indicates that he is a traitor to our cause and has rightly been ostracized.

  46. He is right, we do believe in the first amendment. He can now stand in front of his house and talk to anyone who cares to listen, now that he is unemployed.Everyone should realize that while we do have a right to free speech, an employer has the right to get rid of you when your speech harms their business.
    No he will also have the right to ask if I would like “fries wit that” at his next job.

  47. If the discussion is actually a case for capitulation of a fundamental
    freedom, darn right I consider it controversial.

  48. Whiny liberal bitch whining. Anyone surprised?

    Seriously, by twisting facts and ignoring logic, Metcalf is just digging himself deeper.

  49. 1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?
    Convicted violent criminals should be locked up until rehabilitated. Once they are rehabilitated, they can go about their business, armed. If they can’t be rehabilitated, continue to lock them up, or execute them.

    2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?

    3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?

    4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?

    “Right to keep [own] and bare [carry] shall not be infringed”.

  50. Freedom of speech, yes. That the constitution requires your audience to like what you have to say and continue to listen to you, no.

  51. Suck a fat CHOAD Dick Metcalf. you talked smack and got sh*tcanned and yer ass handed to you for being a ZUMBO/T’SAI/RECOIL wannabe..
    EFF YOU A-HOLE, I never liked you or your stupid commentary in GUNS & AMMO anyways.. you sanctimonious pr*ck.

    • Love it when people make my point for me. Your abbreviations and asterisks don’t do much to hide your zealotry and hatred. See my earlier comment.

      • You’re telling us that this persons disgust with Metcalf’s article is evidence of zealotry? I suggest to you that it demonstrates only how horribly misguided Metcalf had to be to have penned it since this is a fairly typical reaction. That’s not zealotry, it’s righteous indignation at having someone paid to talk to us about guns and by extension support our RKBA turn coat and suggest that we ought to be even more onerously restricted than we currently are. It’s ok to be absolutist when it comes to natural rights, in fact you should be. It’s also alright not to associate with people who aren’t dedicated to the preservation of those rights. It’s certainly fine to be angry when someone suggests depriving you of your rights.

  52. He’s actually saying that the people who spoke out against him don’t respect Freedom of Speech? He had his freedom to say what he wanted, and they had the freedom to say what they wanted. And as it happened, they said that they wouldn’t pay money to someone who said something they disagreed with most vehemently. As I sometimes say, the freedom of speech includes the freedom for one person to tell another to shut up. They can’t use force to do so, and the government can’t do it, but we are well within our rights to say it.

  53. 1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?

    YES! No free man should denied the right to bear arms.

    2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?


    3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?


    4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?

    No, Idiot. The Constitution restricts the Government, not the people. How can the people violate their own rights by exercising them?

  54. I believe in the freedom of speech. I do not believe in the freedom from responsibility for said speech. He made his opinion known and paid the price for it.

  55. Hey Dick – tough luck.

    You can’t straddle the fence when there’s a war going on!

    Our god-given rights to keep and bear arms was supposed to be uninfringable – guaranteed by the constitution no less. Instead they’ve been whittled away from a fully-grown tree to a couple of matchsticks.

    You made a conscious decision to promote the further erosion of those rights… You did this while holding a position where you appeared to be speaking for the rest of us.

    You’ve just found out that actions have consequences. Deal with it.

  56. For Metcalf to compare his ignorant, traitorous and wrong-headed article to anything that Jeff Cooper wrote is, for me, magnitudes worse than what he has already done. For his article he was rightly fired, for his attitude he is likely and rightly blacklisted from gun writing and for the comparison to Col. Cooper he ought now be horsewhipped.

    Perhaps it is dementia, it seems that the more he writes the worse off he is.

  57. The First Amendment is a limitation on Government, not Private Citizens. Dick(less) needs to take Remedial Constitutional Reading immediately.

  58. How can an individual, other than an agent or representative of the State, violate the Constitution? The Constitution tells the federal governement what it can and cannot do, not the individual. How can this guy claim to teach the Constitution? Has he ever really reflected on it’s meaning? The more Metcalf tries to justify his opinion, the more ignorant he sounds.

  59. Her A hole. When you show that you are a fox in a hen house. The fox get eliminated. Tuff sh. it. Now you can side with the grabbers which is what you are.

  60. Hahaha whines about his first amendment rights for getting fired for writing a column in which he said that there are limits to first amendment rights exactly like the reason he got fired.

    What a moron.

  61. The first amendment guarantees his right to say it, not that there will be no consequences of him saying it. But it’s pretty obvious that he’s not really clear on the constitution anyway…

  62. At least he clarifies that he thinks the 16 hour course is onerous. Too bad he did not say that in his article.

    Metcalf also needs to ask himself maybe we should back up one 4th and 5th Amendments too. If the cops could search anytime they wanted to, you might reduce crime. Does that seem a public safety concern?

Comments are closed.