Archive for the 'Assault Weapon Ban' Category

As I had hoped, Beretta isn’t full of windbags and liars.  They are honest folk.  They said they would leave Maryland, and they are.

New legislation is forcing gun manufacturing company Beretta to uproot and take their business elsewhere.

Established in 1526, Beretta holds the distinction of being the oldest active firearms manufacturer in the world. The U.S. factory is located in Accokeek, Maryland, and has been a staple of the local economy for years.

Beretta warned that stricter gun control laws would push the company outside of state lines, but that didn’t stop Maryland legislators. Jeffrey Reh, a spokesman for Beretta who also serves as the President of Stoeger Industries under Beretta, announced that the company would begrudgingly uproot and take its business elsewhere. He said, “We don’t want to do this, we’re not willing to do this, but obviously this legislation has caused us a serious level of concern within our company.”

He added that Beretta paid approximately $31 million in taxes, employs 400 people, and had invested $73 million in the business over the past several decades. Despite being such a prominent player in the local economy, Beretta was unable to prevent legislators from passing tighter gun control laws. Ironically, Beretta manufactures some firearms that are now banned in Maryland.

Good.  I hope it’s painful and hard for Maryland.  I hope they lose business of all kinds, and I hope they feel it right in the pocketbook.  Take note of the next bit.

One legislator stated: “Other than target shooting, the only other reason [for a semi-automic firearm] would be for self-defense… [Why would you need a] rifle that accommodates 20 rounds semi-automatic for deer hunting? … It’s only very infrequently that someone commits a crime with an assault weapon – why do you need one for self-defense?”

Of course, it’s tempting to respond something like, “Well, if you weren’t such a dumb ass you would know that there have been home owners who had to use just such weapons with high capacity magazines to defend their very lives.  And you know, under duress you might miss.  And you know, multi-man home invasions are becoming the tactic of choice for criminals nowadays.  If you weren’t a dumb ass you would know these things.  Dumb ass.”

But tempting as it is, the best response is also the simplest: “I need all the high powered weapons and high capacity magazines I can get in order to hold tyrants like you accountable.”

Closer every day, inch by inch.

David Codrea links the text of the upcoming Connecticut gun law.  It’s long but I read the majority of it.  Taken as a whole, I must say that it seems to me to be the most restrictive gun law ever devised in American history.  One particularly salient feature is the new ban on magazines (see line 998).

Except as provided in this section and section 24 of this act: (1) Any person who possesses a large capacity magazine on or after January 1, 2014, that was obtained prior to the effective date of this section shall commit an infraction and be fined not more than ninety dollars for a first offense and shall be guilty of a class D felony for any subsequent offense, and (2) any person who possesses a large capacity  magazine on or after January 1, 2014, that was obtained on or after the effective date of this section shall be guilty of a class D felony.

So also with guns.  Read it for yourself.  So now, Connecticut gun owners.  All of those magazines and many of the guns you just purchased in expectation of the upcoming ban will soon be illegal.  Owning them will be a felony.

Tyrants in Connecticut have turned you from a law-abiding, upstanding citizen into a felon.

So what are you going to do about it?

Twitchy, quoting Jim Carrey:

‘Cold Dead Hand’ is abt u heartless motherf%ckers unwilling 2 bend 4 the safety of our kids.Sorry if you’re offended by the word safety! ;^}

Oh, don’t worry over me being offended Jimbo.  You didn’t even come close.  See, every time you wax on trying to be scholarly and serious, I just remember that you’re actually a no-talent Hollywood slapstick man who earns his living making juvenile faces.

And then presto!  No more serious.  Go back to your room in the Asylum Jimbo.  Let the serious people talk about serious things.  Practice making your silly faces, and pretend that what you think actually matters to anyone.

Prior: Jim Carrey On Assault Weapons

The CEO speaks, Courant.com.

Our customers are unusually brand-loyal. In many cases, they personally identify with the firearm brand they choose. Although our Connecticut heritage has historically enhanced our brand, that will change overnight if we ban the modern sporting rifle.

As a result Colt, as well as other Connecticut manufacturers such as Mossberg and Stag Arms will see immediate erosion in brand strength and market share as customers migrate to manufacturers in more supportive states. This will have consequences for dozens of Connecticut companies and thousands of workers. Connecticut will have put its firearms manufacturing industry in jeopardy: one that contributes $1.7 billion annually to the state’s economy.

Like every other precision manufacturer in Connecticut, Colt is constantly approached by other states to relocate, but our roots here are deep. Colt is and always has been an integral part of a state characterized by hard work, perseverance and ingenuity.

I know, however, that someday soon, I will again be asked why we fight to keep well-paying manufacturing jobs in Connecticut. I will be asked why we should continue to manufacture in a state where the governor would make ownership of our product a felony.

I will be asked these questions and, unlike in the past, there will be few good answers.

He’s right.  Some of the customer base will be faithful, but this issue runs deep, and many will abandon them.  We’ve also discussed how many will abandon Remington, too, for staying in New York and focusing almost exclusively on a new military contract.  It won’t work out well for Remington.

But the CEO will likely have to decide whether this is bluster or serious-speak.  The State of Connecticut won’t listen to him and will probably pass their ban.  When they do that, Colt will have to decide whether it is a Remington or a Magpul.  The choice is theirs, and no amount of posturing in local newspapers will delay or change things.

These are serious times for a lot of people.

Washington Times:

Spurred by the Newtown massacre, Maryland is poised to pass one of the strictest gun control laws in the country.

If Maryland does pass the legislation and Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley does sign the bill, as is expected, one of the largest gun manufacturers in the country Beretta USA is considering a move elsewhere, taking with it approximately 400 jobs. Republican Gov. Rick Perry of Texas has already put out the welcome mat for any gun manufacturers looking to move.

Beretta claims that the law that would forbid 10-bullet magazines would make the manufacture of their 9mm 13-bullet magazine illegal in Maryland. Beretta says it moved one of its factories to Virginia the last time Maryland tightened its laws.

Such talk, however, doesn’t faze the people supporting the new legislation. They see the new law as long overdue. Even before the bill passes, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence had ranked Maryland’s gun laws as the seventh strictest in the nation.

The new law, which will probably be passed this week, would also ban 45 assault-type weapons, set up licensing and fingerprinting of gun buyers, and ban sales to anyone who has been committed to a mental hospital.

I haven’t heard back from my inquiries to Springfield Armory or Rock River Arms, and Kimber and Remington (in New York) are playing coy right now.  But I have a feeling that Beretta will put their money where there mouth is.  Beretta is [rightfully] concerned about public reaction to this outrage.  The American civilian gun market is more powerful and wealthy by a long shot than police or defense contracts, and gun owners rarely forgive and never forget.  Just ask Smith and Wesson about the boycott that just about killed their company.

My message to Maryland?  Bring it.  Bring on the bans, let Beretta move and take 400+ jobs with them, and let gun owners like me work hard the rest of our lives to avoid doing business with Maryland ever again or even driving through Maryland.

Consequences are the best educational tool in the world.  Some people never learn that lesson as children.

Prior:

Letter To Rock River Arms

Firearms Manufacturers Boycott Anti-Gun States

Gun Companies Holding The States Accountable

Remington To S.C.?

It’s Time For The Gun Industry To Move South

Via Instapundit, Joe Manchin in his words:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Monday that he opposes an assault weapons ban.

Speaking on MSNBC, Manchin, who has an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association and in December called for federal action to reduce gun violence, said he thinks there’s a better way to reduce mass shootings without introducing new restrictions for gun owners.

“I do not support an assault weapon ban because the definition of assault weapon is still hard to come by,” Manchin said. “So I am not going to comment on people’s legislation. I do not support that approach right now.”

Manchin is part of a quartet of legislators working to tighten background checks required to purchase a gun. The other members of the group are Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

Of course, the fact that the definition of assault weapon is itself defined in the legislation (an example of circular reasoning) is a ridiculous reason for not supporting it.  But of course, Joe is lying.  The real reason that he isn’t supporting a new AWB is because it cannot pass.  The real reason he should oppose it is because it is unconstitutional and immoral, though Joe isn’t too worried about trivialities like that.

What Joe is doing is working with totalitarians to enact universal background checks, thus setting up a national gun registry.  I expect this out of Joe.  I am saddened to see it out of Eric and Paul.

Wonders Norman:

After listening to most of the arguments concerning gun control, I have yet to hear an answer to this question: Why would any intelligent and reasonable person with a social conscience oppose a ban on assault weapons?

Bless your heart, Norman.  I’m sorry that no one is paying attention to your questions.  I will be happy to explain what would motivate someone to oppose a ban on “assault weapons.”

God.

Via David Codrea, international scholar Jim Carrey has escaped from the asylum and taken a formal position on assault weapons.

Any1 who would run out to buy an assault rifle after the Newtown massacre has very little left in their body or soul worth protecting.

Says the man with body guards.

The window was open and we could see everything because they were filming right below the window 20 ft. away. We could see Jim Carrey and hear what he was saying. It was so great. After watching for an hour, they stopped for a lunch break. His bodyguard drove a big black van right below the window and opened the car door. Jim Carrey walked over to the door. I leaned out the window and yelled, “Hey Jim Carrey!!!” and he looked up at me smiled, waved and said, “Hey!” I lost it and started screaming. It was the best thing that ever happened to me in my life.

Prior:

Sylvester Stallone On Assault Weapons

International scholar, Rocky, has some brain damage.

“I know people get (upset) and go, ‘They’re going to take away the assault weapon.’ Who … needs an assault weapon? Like really, unless you’re carrying out an assault. … You can’t hunt with it. … Who’s going to attack your house, a (expletive) army?”

Well, first I’ll answer on your level, dude.  Like, assault weapons are all cool and stuff, and you’re just being, like, you know, grodie to the max.  Dude.  Gag me with a spoon.  Just be awesome and chill.  Like, you know.

The next answer may require some reading.  Go read the Federalist Papers.  Then read the constitution.  Then read about Mr. Stephen Bayezes, who is alive today because he owned an AR-15 and used it with a 30-round magazine during a home invasion.

Finally, read all about the newest trend in home invasions all across America, i.e., 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-man teams of criminals to ensure the highest rate of success and safety for the home invaders, and lowest rate of successful resistance by the occupants.

Like really, dude.  Don’t be grodie to the max and stuff.

I had previously said “Universal background checks have nothing whatsoever to do with keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, or a reduction in violence of any sort.  The system, if set up, is a predecessor and necessary prerequisite to a national gun registry.”

Feinstein’s proposals:

The bill will exempt firearms used for hunting and will grandfather in guns and magazines owned before the law’s potential enactment. However, the grandfathered weapons will be logged in a national registry.

A national gun registry – it’s one of the touchstones of success for the statists.  And universal background checks and a national gun registry go together like a hand in a glove.  When they make laws they are looking long term.  In fact, take note of one part of her legislation.

The legislation being pushed by Feinstein — who has long history of calling for gun bans — would prohibit the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of certain firearms.

Neocon Charles Krauthammer (no friend to the second amendment) theorized the approach for them.

It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country but the frontier has been closed for 100 years.

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically.

It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic – purely symbolic – move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Its purpose is to spark debate, highlight the issue, make the case that the arms race between criminals and citizens is as dangerous as it is pointless.

De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades.

What needs to happen before this change in mentality can occur? What must occur first – and this is where liberals are fighting the gun control issue from the wrong end – is a decrease in crime. So long as crime is ubiquitous, so long as Americans cannot entrust their personal safety to the authorities, they will never agree to disarm. There will be no gun control before there is real crime control.

Universal background checks and assault weapon bans are mere window dressing.  The goal is to desensitize the public and cause this to occur over one or two generations.  You can keep the rifle you just purchased.  But you must register it with the federal government and you cannot bequeath it to your children or grandchildren.  Thus do they wish to accomplish confiscation by means other than sending SWAT teams into your home.  The question is, will you let them?