Why don't they endorse Phrenology along w/ it?

Along w/ Cam Edwards list of Joyce Financing of the report and the link to actual report on David Hardy's , I just can't help to think that the gun banners realize that they're in desperate straights but are completely out of touch.
Really. The fawning support of Ballistic Fingerprinting years after even the most stringent Anti states have dropped the idea shows that these bought and paid for "chiefs" have absolutely no clue what they're talking about and are only parroting whatever the Joyce's tell them. Kind of like Gonzo.

Besides the minor media coverage this will get that we'll have to listen to PuSH'ers repeat over and over, the one I'm sure the Brady's et al will jump all over will be BATFE Acting Director Sullivan's attendance at the conference. Even though he's on record for supporting the Tiahrt Amendment, it goes without saying that they'll claim he endorses the report. They do have a history of that. And, once again, we have it on record that the Brady Bunch supports gun bans as "reasonable" no matter how many times they say they're "not for banning guns":

"The police chiefs have set out a strong, reasonable, agenda for action," Helmke continued. "

It puts the onus of crime on the the citizen and not the criminal. Don't believe me?
"Elected officials should mandate safe storage of guns and impose criminal penalties when individuals fail to comply and when improperly stored guns are criminally misused or result in accidental death or injury."

So in other words, if you're victimized by having your house robbed, you will be further victimized by the authorities if they feel you didn't store your firearms properly in your own home.

That's "reasonable", isn't it? Crime is your fault. Not the criminals who commit the crimes. No more 4th Amendment for you.

The Chiefs/Joyce's also show they haven't kept up with SCOTUS decisions on "protective orders":

"State, local and tribal laws should be enacted to authorize law enforcement officers to remove all guns and ammunition from the scene of a domestic violence incident and at the time a domestic violence protective order is served."

Even though the police have no obligation to enforce a RO/PO even when law requires it.

Are there sections in there about better training of police officers? Sure, but they're written so as to sound secondary to the numerous gun bans they call for as well as providing an out if the agencies don't comply. How does it do this? It doesn't say anything about the agencies wasting the current funds they have on interior decorating, but asks for even more to "properly train" the police. So when the various legislatures don't provide that funding, it can all be blamed on the "undue influence" of the "gun lobby". So in reality, no-one's ( including the police or legislatures) going to pay any attention to those parts. They were put in there to make the report sound a little respectable and less biased.

I actually like it when they come out with these reports. It neatly lists how organizations like these are less in the business of "crime control" than they are interested in banning guns. Were the Brady's Blog still accepting comments, there would already be a hundred posts skewering the report w/ one or two by Kelli and Macca worshipping at the altar. So we should do what we do best:
1.Fisk the living hell out of it.
2.Make sure we provide the resources to eachother.
3.Keep an eye out for articles and blogs supporting it.