Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

New York Magazine:

The Great State of Mississippi is offering an illustration of this principle as we speak with the march toward enactment of legislation to recognize a right of concealed-carry in churches. And the Republican salons, who are promoting the cause of honoring the Prince of Peace by insisting on the right to shoot and kill people right there in His sanctuary, are preemptively concerned that the godless socialists in Washington might interfere. So once again, they’ve gone back to that fine antebellum doctrine of nullification to deny the power of the Feds — or at least the executive branch — to regulate firearms at all.  The Jackson Clarion-Ledger has the story:

The bill would allow churches to create security programs and designate and train members to carry concealed weapons. It would provide criminal and legal protections to those serving as church security.

The bill also would allow concealed carry in a holster without a permit in Mississippi, expanding a measure passed last year that allowed concealed carry without a permit in a purse, satchel or briefcase, and another recent law that allows open carry in public.

The bill also seeks to prohibit Mississippi officials from enforcing any federal agency regulations or executive orders that would violate the state constitution — an attempt to federal gun restrictions not passed by Congress.

Senators argued whether this last provision would violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“Where did you go to law school?” Sen. Hob Bryan, D-Amory, asked Tindell during the debate. “Are they telling people there that the Mississippi constitution trumps federal law?

[ … ]

It’s also entirely predictable that people who think the absence of guns is more dangerous than their omnipresence would extend the principle everywhere, even to bars and, yeah, churches. Beyond that, we see the ongoing radicalization of Second Amendment ultras who think gun rights are not just part of the Constitution but fundamental to it and superior to any other provision — in effect, an object of worship. At some point, the Second Amendment could run afoul of the Bible’s Second Commandment against raising up idols.

The author, Ed Kilgore, doesn’t really believe the things he has written, any more than the Kos kids do when they write things like this.  Here’s how you know.  He doesn’t argue for a prohibition of law enforcement from killing people who are themselves trying to kill people in churches.  In fact, he argues exactly the opposite in his first paragraph, when he says “Of all the cultural divides in these allegedly “United” States, probably none is more stark than the chasm in attitudes toward possession of lethal weaponry. There used to be a general consensus that deadly force should, generally speaking, be monopolized by police officers; possession of, say, a handgun in one’s home, was an exception in recognition of exceptional circumstances. Shooting irons for hunting were another thing, but those were reserved for occasions when one was, you know, out in the woods hunting.”

There’s that notion again about the state having a monopoly of force.  Except in this context, he goes too far for his argument and betrays his plot.  Since he argues for the state having a monopoly of force generally, he has no right to connect it to being in a house of worship and attempting to argue theologically that there shouldn’t be means of self defense in worship.  In other words, the author tries to place himself inside your system, if you’re a Christian, and argue from your perspective, but he taints his argument with the broad appeal to statism and a monopoly of force by the state.  He didn’t stay disciplined.  Rarely do writers stay disciplined when they are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at you, a lazy version of the ten leaky buckets logical problem.

This is what happens when men pretend to be thinkers, try to enter systems they don’t believe, and convince others of world views outside their own when they give up before the end of their own arguments.  In the mean time, we have all been properly briefed on the theological basis for self defense, with worship being no different (man doesn’t suddenly cease being made in God’s image because he engages in worship).

On a related topic, I noticed that Reverend Franklin Graham told the Mohammedans that they would one day bow the knee to King Jesus.  True, that.  And they will confess with their mouths that their “prophet” is a sham and fraud before the Lord of Lords.  But in the mean time, Christians are being slaughtered across the globe because ignorant teachers have taught them that Jesus was a Bohemian hippie pacifist flower child who expects them to lay down and be walked on like rugs.  That’s what Kilgore believes about Christianity too.

Drink a good glass of wine tonight as a toast to a more robust and informed Christianity.  Remember Herschel’s Dictum: “There aren’t too many human interaction problems that can’t be fixed with a .45 ACP 230-grain fat-boy.”

In order to draw as much traffic away from Gawker as I can, I am using the same post title as they did.  In order to enable you to read the entire commentary, I’m reposting it here in full so you don’t have to visit their URL unless you want to.  From the depths of the sewer that is his mind, Hamilton Nolan gives us this.

We live in scary times: sharia law, foreigners, and rape gangs haunt the streets of this once great nation. Some old people believe that they must arm themselves in order to find peace and safety.

Wrong. Old people. Wrong. Want to find safety? Can you even “find [the] safety” on the handgun you’ve purchased? Probably not very quickly, with your poor eyesight and fingers ravaged by arthritis.

The Wall Street Journal reports that interest in guns among retirees is booming. In just the last five years, more old people are buying guns, training with guns, and cupping their hands over their ears to try to hear whether the instructor at their gun safety course said “Shoot” or “Stop.” In this day and age when you have Obama, ISIS, and Chief Keef, you—an elderly American—are thinking seriously about getting yourself a gun, for protection.

Might as well get yourself a dragon, or a unicorn trained to be your bodyguard. That would help you just as much.

When you’re old you’re slow as hell and decades of muscle erosion have made you weak. Pretty much any healthy young person can beat you up. Is a gun gonna even things out? Nope. In order for that gun to work you have to pull it out and aim it in a moment of crisis. While you’re fumbling to do that, all slow, a young person is just pushing you on the ground. And taking your gun out of your feeble hands.

Leave the guns to the young nuts, oldie.

Smoothly drawing a gun from a holster, aiming it quickly, and firing it accurately despite the kickback require a level of strength and dexterity that you just don’t have. I’ll lay 5-1 odds that any street criminal can kick you in the knee and chuckle as you roll around on the ground, grasping for the gun you dropped, as they rifle through your purse and then steal your gun, too. That gun you bought will end up in a pawn shop before you ever get to blow a hole in one of these disrespectful young menaces. Were you to somehow squeeze off a shot in the course of being attacked it’s as likely as not that you’d shoot yourself in the knee replacement as shoot the bad guy. It’s time to wake up and realize that though your irrational age-induced fear of the outside world may be here to stay, so is your physical inability to defend yourself. And where are you going anyhow that’s so scary? The grocery? Those teens may be delinquents but they probably aren’t a stickup gang. Please return that Beretta to the nice gun dealer before you mistake a stray rap lyric for a death threat and put a bullet in some poor C student cutting class. Yes, yes, Have Gun Will Travel was one of your favorite shows, but you’re no Paladin and there ain’t any bandits on horseback in your subdivision. Stop watching cable news so much. All it does is scare you. Failing to take your medication is the greatest threat you need to worry about now.

Your reflexes are faded as hell so you might as well just learn to get along with people. Who do you think you are, Charles Bronson? More like Charles Osgood. Stop acting crazy.

This is Hamilton Nolan.

Yes, that’s really him.  He makes this too easy, yes?

So this commentary is such sewage that it’s difficult to know where to begin, and I won’t offer a complete commentary on his evil antics.  Ignore for a moment what a steaming pile of shit Gawker is.  Ignore the falsity of this premise on guns and the elderly.  Those of us who do gun news searches every day, multiple times per day, know how much guns have helped the elderly and how they need them in an era of increased crime (especially in gang infested areas).  Getting into the details of his premise is what he wants you to do.  I want you to understand the boy, Hamilton Nolan.

How could such a monster exist, you ask?  Well, I am reminded once of a group of Deacons at a church (not mine) whom I overheard at work, and they were having to assist a divorcee woman whose husband left her because he wanted to screw around with a younger woman.  Their assistance involved moving furniture because she could no longer afford the home, repair to the home so that it could sell, and all manner of things families do when they are together.  They didn’t begrudge it, mind you, but every minute they spent doing this was a minute they couldn’t spend doing the same thing for their families.

They decided that they were going to track down this dude and whip his ass for what he did.  There are no longer consequences, they believed, and there had to be some.  No-fault divorce was for the piss ant court system.  They found fault, and they were going to enforce their punishment.  I don’t know what ended up happening.  In a way, Hamilton is like that adulterer husband.  Honoring your father and mother is one of the ten commandments too.  And recall what we’ve discussed regarding the ten commandments – it is called constitutional law, or the moral law.  All sorts of case law and other principles come from it.  So for example, we are told to “rise before the hoary head” in respect for our elders (Lev 19:32, or “stand up in the presence of the aged”).  Boy-Hamilton needs to have someone take him out behind the building and whip his ass.  It won’t happen of course, and that goes to show you how morally corrupt America has become.  In a morally upright America, Hamilton would get his ass whipped for disrespecting his elders.

The final thing I want to leave you with is just what kind of boy Hamilton is.  Hamilton lives in a very dark world, where he sees himself aging (even though apparently at his age he still has acne, he will one day grow old).  He doesn’t want to age because he probably believes that when you die, your body cools to ambient temperature and that’s the end.  Hamilton probably never had a spanking as a child.  His mommy and daddy – if he had one – let him do whatever the hell he wanted to do.  He had no boundaries.  He needed boundaries.  He probably begged for boundaries.  But his parents probably listened to the progressives on family health.

The awful public school system taught him to hate everything and everyone, including himself.  His hatred is so intense, so sweeping and so ubiquitous that he hates the very predecessors who brought him into being.  He hates his elders because he hates who he is and wishes he didn’t exist, even though he wants the monster inside him to keep on living.  He wears effete, metrosexual clothing as an act of self deprecation, and his writing consists of venom to be spewed towards anything that gets in the way.

Hamilton is a sad, sad boy.  Don’t be like Hamilton.

Newsweek:

“Your argument is pure apple sauce. Enjoy your 20 seconds of fame, you fcuktard.”

A man named Jim is reading out some of the vitriolic abuse he’s received over the past few days via the Internet. Previously known only by his Twitter handle, @Hyperationalist, Jim last week launched a Change.org petition calling for the open carry of guns at the Republican National Convention, which will be held in Cleveland in July. The petition has ganered international news coverage and prompted responses from the Secret Service and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, as well as online haters.

David Codrea has some salient comments:

You have to give “The Hyperationalist” credit — his fake Change.org petition for open carry at the RNC Convention has been a highly successful exercise in both advanced trolling and in applied Alinksy Rule 5 ridicule. With over 50,000 signatures amassed at this writing, and noting all the major press coverage, a primary goal of going viral has unquestionably been achieved in a big way.

Of less certainty is how many people were actually taken in by a parody designed to embarrass and to exploit venue realities – besides all those “professional reporters” who got sucked in and treated it as real. Some of us figured we were being played from the outset. Of those who signed, how many actual gun rights supporters added their names is unknown, as many signatories are undoubtedly anti-gun/anti-Republican “progressives” gleefully piling on.

[ … ]

Carrying at the convention is a moot point anyway. Aside from it violating venue rules, the Secret Service flat-out won’t allow it. If they did allow guns, we’d have no reason to suspect the outcome would be any different than we saw play out at NRA’s Annual Meeting last year in Nashville. Almost 80,000 attendees gathered in a setting where lawful concealed carry was widespread.

David had him figured, and so did I.  The first time I saw this I was tempted to comment on it, but only for a split second.  This is the first attention I’ve given to this issue.  After blogging for ten years, I’ve become fairly skilled at spotting trolls.  Not perfect, mind you, but fairly skilled.  Look, if they want to have an intelligent conversation about guns, we do that every day around these parts.  Furthermore, I’m willing to engage smart debate with anyone over guns if they have clean motives, play fairly and are sincerely interested in learning.  Tell me the next time you see a progressive who meets those requirements.

The gun rights community is going to have to get better at spotting insincere overtures like this, trolls who want to make us look bad.  Put your thinking cap on, don’t jump at the first thing you see, and when you do engage, make it the person and venue of your choice.  That’s why, although I agree with Mike on 99.9999% of everything else, I didn’t like Mike Vanderboegh’s choice to go on the Alan Colmes show.  Colmes was never going to be anything but what he is, a dishonest and filthy rag.  As Sun Tzu teaches, pick both the battles and the time of engagement.

NBC:

Beginning July 1, Idaho residents age 21 or older will be allowed to carry a concealed firearm without a permit inside city limits.

Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter has signed Senate Bill 1389 into law. It will relax the state’s gun policy and remove permitting requirements for concealed carry. Prior to SB 1389, residents age 18 or older could carry concealed firearms without a permit outside of city limits. Open carry is already legal within city limits.

Beginning July 1, Idaho residents age 21 or older will be allowed to carry a concealed firearm without a permit inside city limits.

Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter has signed Senate Bill 1389 into law. It will relax the state’s gun policy and remove permitting requirements for concealed carry. Prior to SB 1389, residents age 18 or older could carry concealed firearms without a permit outside of city limits. Open carry is already legal within city limits.

“While S1389 is consistent with the U.S. Constitution, Idaho values and our commitment to upholding our constitutional protections from government overreach, I am concerned about its lack of any provision for education and training of individuals who choose to exercise the right to concealed carry,” the Republican lawmaker wrote.

“Such a safeguard would seem to be part of the Second Amendment’s ‘well-regulated’ standard. What’s more, the addition of a simple training requirement in this bill could have addressed the concerns of our valued law enforcement leaders and others who cherish both the shooting culture and the safety of shooters and non-shooters alike.”

Trying to play both ends against the middle, huh Governor?  This is just rich.  He admits that the new law is consistent with the provisions of the second amendment, but then essentially says that he doesn’t think the second amendment goes far enough because of the need for education and training.

Then he switches back and reverses his position, saying that a requirement to get training and education is consistent with the notion of “well regulated.”

“Well regulated” has nothing to do with governmental control via regulations, it has to do with accurate and effective fire control.  Furthermore, I’ve warned about the dangers of seeing the second amendment as a political treatise on the foundation of liberty.

The governor is just frightened.  He’ll be better once this has time to soak in and become the standard.  It works in other constitutional carry states, and it’ll work in Idaho too.

David Codrea:

“‘cause in rural America, there are a lot of folks — Sen. Enzi knows this — they might be out huntin’ gophers and go in to pick up the mail, and they got the gun sittin’ in their pickup — it’s just a matter — it’s a tool to do their work with,” he explained.

You jerk off bigot!  I know your type and I loath you.  Your antics don’t amuse me.  As for the pathetic republican cowards, how about shutting down the government over shit like this?  Oh, I forgot.  Ted Cruz already tried this and you hung him out to dry.  So come to think of it, I loath all of you.

One day at the great and awful white throne judgment when the Lord of Lords sits and examines everyone, someone will answer for the thievery of Fifth generation warfare and the waste associated with the F-35.

Pat Toomey gun control ads.  Good grief.  The man cranks it up again.

Effects of universal background check laughable.  So why did you support it, Dave Workman?

Don’t do this.

HBR:

Absent from much of the discussion, and President Obama’s recent Executive Order in particular, is any role for the gun manufacturers. When it comes to guns getting into the wrong hands, the President’s executive order frames it as a dealer issue to be addressed by expanding the capability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). When it comes to technological development for safer guns, it is a task assigned to the Departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security — not to the U.S. based firms who have been designing and manufacturing guns since the Civil War. So it’s natural to ask: Where are the gun manufacturers?

To understand why they’re absent from any discussions of gun safety, you have to both grasp how the gun industry works — and go back about a decade to a landmark piece of legislation.

None of the “Big 3” sell guns directly to consumers. Ruger sells exclusively to a small set of wholesalers, each of which are licensed by the federal government. Remington sells to both federally licensed wholesalers and directly to some federally licensed retailers (Walmart being its largest retail account). In each case, the company uses this buffer of its distribution structure as a disclaimer of any responsibility for the ultimate use of their weapons. For example, in the wake of Sandy Hook where one of its Bushmaster assault rifles was used for all 26 killings, company management issued a statement saying the company: “…does not sell weapons or ammunition directly to consumers, through gun shows or otherwise. Sales are made only to federally licensed firearms dealers in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.”

Statements like this seem to suffice as legal protection for manufacturers due to the 2005 passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act, which the National Rifle Association referred to as its “number one legislative priority and a monumental victory for the Association…” The Act grants broad immunity to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and even industry trade associations. No action can be brought as long as the product functioned “as designed and intended” and there is no evident negligence. Since the act’s passage, no case has been successfully brought against a gun manufacturer. So without the threat of litigation, the manufacturers’ stance has been to protect the status quo – no matter how unhealthy that status quo is to the public.

“Obey the law” is generally good business advice. But gun manufacturers, guided by senior leaders trained at some of the best business schools in the country, are quite capable of more.

[ … ]

Step one is for manufacturers to adopt the role of steward for the entire gun marketing system, all the way to the buyer. This would include not only efficient distribution within the legal channel but directing meaningful effort to minimize the flow of guns from legal to illegal channels …

Step two is to monitor and stop selling to “problem” dealers …

Step three is to put some portion of the research and development spend — about $25 million in 2015 for the Big 3 — in technology-enabled gun safety to direct a new generation of guns to consumers.

There you have it.  Three easy steps to business success!  First, do the job of law enforcement.  Second, be intrusive into the lives of their customers.  Third, invest money into things (smart guns) that no one will buy, no one wants, and no one will use.

It’s a sad day when a Harvard Business School professor ignores business realities and teaches vapid tripe in order to push a political agenda.  The business realities of his suggestions would certainly be harmful to firearms manufacturers, but of course, that’s his intention, yes?

And how much does it cost to attend Harvard Business School?  Couldn’t you just take that same amount of money, invest it in firearms manufacturers and be much better off?  How is that for business advice professor?

Ammoland.com:

Our firm regularly prepares employee handbooks that include policies against violence that are protective of employers while allowing employees to carry their firearms to work. If you are an employer and would like to implement such a policy, here are a few

1. Screen your employees before you hire them, and always, always, conduct a thorough background check. A safe workplace begins with the hiring process.

2. Set requirements for training—if your state laws allow you to do so. At a minimum, require that your employees have a state concealed carry permit, which means they have passed a background check conducted by law enforcement.

3. Establish requirements for storage and control of the firearm. Leaving a firearm unattended inside the workplace where it is accessible to others is grounds for termination without discussion.

4. Ensure that employees have read your firearms policy and have had an opportunity to ask questions.

5. If not prohibited by your state’s law, implement a reporting system for employees who carry. Employees should at least annually update you with proof of their training. They should also at least annually sign a declaration stating they are not a prohibited person under state or federal law.

6. Have a self-reporting policy that requires employees to report immediately to their supervisor if they become a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

7. Make sure you have a procedure for other employees to report threats of violence.

My company already has most of those things since I work under a fitness for duty program that meets the requirements of the code of federal regulations.  I’m not sure what she intends for number 2, but I put more rounds downrange than most LEOs.  I shouldn’t have to demonstrate over and over again at a cost to me that I know how to safely and effectively operate my firearms.

On the other hand, if the company wants to rent out a range for a day and have employee fun day at the range with a qualification supervisor watching, I’m all in for that.  I’d even buy my own ammunition.  I just don’t think I should have to go pay a state-approved CHP instructor every year for this.

What’s not to like about this?  It’s a win-win, and as few of those that come along in life, you have to grab them when you can.

Inquisitr:

Senator Coleman Young II introduced Senate Bill 851, which is a bill to amend the insurance code of 1956, to the Michigan State Senate this month. The bill would add a new chapter to Michigan’s 1956 PA 128 that would require Michigan firearm owners to purchase firearm liability insurance if they want to legally own guns.

Coleman Young II is the son of former Detroit Mayor Coleman Young, who was booted from the UAW, according to Powerline, for being too radical. Sen. Coleman Young II is a Michigan State Senator for the 1st District in Michigan. Opposition to SB 851 in Michigan note that one of the state senator’s biggest campaign donors is the insurance industry, which donated over $11,000 to Young over the years. Young also recently made the news when he introduces a bill that would eliminate exemptions that allow lawmakers and the state’s governor from being subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

SB 851 would also establish a Firearms Claims Association as an unincorporated, nonprofit association. According to the terms of the proposed amendment, an insurer that would provide the firearm liability insurance required by Michigan firearms owners would be required to be a member of the Firearm Claims Association. The Firearms Claims Association would establish procedures by which insurers would report claims that would involve the Association paying out insurance.

Additionally, in Michigan, a Firearms Authority would provide financial support to the Department of State Police and to local law enforcement agencies for the creation of illegal firearm enforcement teams that would work to reduce the number of illegal firearms. It would also provide financial support to local prosecutors for programs that are designed to reduce the number of illegal firearms in communities. It would also provide financial support for educational programs about firearm safety and firearm insurance.

This is all the rage now among the statists, i.e., raising revenue on the backs of gun owners.  We’ve just recently seen with the bill in Oklahoma to remove permitting requirements for open carry that the singular objection in the legislature appears to be that the permitting revenue stream will be lost, thus necessitating a hard look at the future employment of those doing the permitting.

In this case, the statists are going for all the marbles.  Not only does the state itself stand to gain from this, but crony corporatism is alive and well in Michigan.  Can you imagine the astronomical cost associated with insuring gun owners, how much the corporations stand to gain from this, and how little gun owners will benefit?  What would an insurer do – assure a gun owner of never being charged with a crime?  Of course not.  This is a money laundering scheme run by the best criminals in the business, the government.

And it’s all on the backs of gun owners.  The statists kill two birds with one stone.  They raise largesse, and they enact gun control without calling it gun control.  What do you want to bet the NRA won’t even score this or take a stand on the issue?