Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Guns.com:

An omnibus sportsmen’s package of legislation in the House that has drawn fire for its plan to curb regulations on suppressors may be reworked.

According to E&E News, an outlet that covers energy and environmental issues, the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act, or SHARE Act, is still a priority for Republicans but could see some modifications from the version that passed the House Committee on Natural Resources last month.

Sponsor of the bill, U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., said the most divisive of the 16 sections of the SHARE Act — removing suppressors from National Firearms Act control — may be dropped from the legislation while language addressing bump stocks may be added now that the bill is in a “sort of a cooling off period” after the Las Vegas shooting.

In the days immediately after the event that claimed the lives of 58 and sent hundreds to area hospitals, potential suppressor deregulation was a popular line in the sanddrawn by everyone from Democrats on Capitol Hill to frequent presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, even though the shooter did not use the devices.

In addition to the suppressor language, the bill in its current form would open the 11.7 million acres of land controlled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to concealed carry and protect travelers crossing state lines with firearms.

Other facets would cut the ATF’s authority to reclassify popular rifle ammunition as “armor piercing” and how regulators classify some shotguns, shells and rifles as “destructive devices” under the NFA. It also allows changes to the Pittman-Robertson Act to expand the allocation of already authorized funds for use in public shooting ranges while limiting restrictions on traditional ammunition and fishing tackle and scaling back protections for gray wolves. “There’s a lot of stuff in there for sportsmen,” Duncan said.

Good Lord.  They never miss a chance to ignore that “shall not be infringed” thing, do they?

No, representative, there isn’t a lot there.  Why is this so hard to understand.  NOT … ONE … MORE … GUN … LAW.  No.  We won’t accept further regulation of anything, and I won’t accept this for that, a trade for a trade.  Most of the rest of my community feels the same way.

Listen to me, Duncan, this is a chance for you to man up and dump your own bill if it becomes a catch-all for further regulation, spending add-ons, and earmarks.  We would respect you if you did that, knowing that you tried your best to give us what we wanted.  Instead, you may have to play hard ball with these demons, pit vipers and gargoyles.

If you want to see what my community has to say about this, see this Reddit/r/firearms discussion thread.  No, we’re not happy, and we’re not in the mood to compromise.

Vice:

At 6 AM, the sky outside my apartment is still purple-black. It’s too early. I stagger out of bed and stand under a scalding jet of water in the shower, trying to remember where I’ve been, where I am, and where I need to be. Oklahoma. Austin. Houston. In less than eight hours I have to climb a stage and tell a roomful of strangers my story. As far as stories go, it’s pretty interesting, I guess. It’s got thrills, heartbreak, what technically counts as crime, and even a little bit of vindication. But telling it wears me out. Living through it was more than enough.

Three years ago this month, thanks mostly to poorly written laws and a vindictive judge, I turned 27 while incarcerated in Mid-State Correctional Facility in Fort Dix, New Jersey.

I got sentenced to seven years in prison for legally owning guns. I had purchased them in Colorado and brought them with me to New Jersey, home to some of the harshest gun laws in the country, where I moved to be closer to my young son. I complied with all of the regulations, but one day the police searched my car and charged me with unlawful possession of a weapon—even though my handguns were locked, unloaded, and in my trunk. The court said it was on me to prove that I wasn’t breaking any laws, which obviously was very difficult. When Reason magazine covered my case, it wrote, “Even the jurors who convicted him seem to have been looking for a reason to acquit him. But the judge gave them little choice.”

[ … ]

Since I’m practically the only person in the room who’s not a lawyer, I realize there’s nothing I can tell them about my case they don’t already know from a legal standpoint. The only real value I can add is to tell them what it feels like to get caught in a patchwork of draconian gun laws. I decide to focus on the consequences I’ve faced as a convicted felon who has broken no laws.

I start with how a family court judge decided I wasn’t a fit parent and couldn’t see my son because of all of the (nonviolent and victimless) charges against me. I go on to explain how my record included so many weapons offenses, all for that one incident …

Did I mention how the judge refused to let the jury to consider the laws in my case? Did I remember to tell them how the jury asked three times what the exemptions to the law were that would have let me walk? Did I mention how I am not allowed to vote, or own firearms, or that my passport was revoked?

Two things bear mentioning here.  First of all, always remember this case.  Never forget it as long as you live.  Do what I do.  I never go to New Jersey or even fly over or drive through New Jersey.  I will not even knowingly spend money that goes to a company in New Jersey.  I hope the state goes bankrupt.  The same thing goes for New York.

Second, this case was perfect for jury nullification.  No judge can put you in prison for deciding that the state didn’t meet their burden of proof.  Jury nullification is within your power as a juror.  Don’t ever let a judge tell you that you MUST decide something or other, or that you CANNOT consider something or other.  And you don’t have to tell them it had to do with jury nullification – you tell them, if it comes up, that the state didn’t meet the burden of proof, end of discussion.  Or better yet, keep your mouth shut.

If you are too stupid to know these things, please don’t ever allow yourself to be put on a jury.

Daily Beast:

Three weeks after the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history, efforts to pass even scaled-down gun-control legislation have effectively stalled on Capitol Hill.

Congressional aides and issue advocates say they see no viable path for passing even the most promising bill: an effort to ban the manufacturing and sale of bump stocks, which were used by the Las Vegas shooter to essentially turn his semi-automatic weapons into fully automatics ones.

“Depressing but not surprising,” is how one senior House Democratic aide put it.

“It’s pathetic,” said another.

The failure of lawmakers to move bump stock legislation comes despite the willingness of several House Republicans to sign on to the measure. A bill introduced by Reps. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) and Seth Moulton (D-MA) has 20 co-sponsors in total—ten Democratic and ten Republican. But aides say that there is no indication that the House Judiciary Committee is going to consider that bill, or a similar one signed by 173 Democrats. Democrats are expected to ask the Committee’s chairman, Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), to address the matter in the week ahead.

Prospects look bleak in the Senate too. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) bill banning bump stocks has 39 Democratic co-sponsors but not one Republican, though an aide said that she is still hopeful that she can convince one to sign on to the measure. Even were she to find a GOP co-sponsor there is no guarantee that the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley (R-IA), would bring the bill up for consideration.

Good.  I’m glad it’s depressing for them.  Nothing makes me happier than to see control freaks depressed.  But we’ll see if this lasts.  There is still the cowardice of the Senate who wants the ATF to do what it hasn’t the courage to do, i.e., ban the stocks by rulemaking and regulation rather than law-making.

If such an abomination passes into law or such a regulation hits the books, it’ll be the NRA’s fault.  If it doesn’t, it won’t be because the NRA didn’t try to undermine its own constituency.

Marc Thiessen:

Congressional Republicans are backing away from legislation banning “bump stocks” – devices used by Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock that effectively turn semi-automatic rifles into machine guns – and are turning to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to ban them by executive action instead.

“We think the regulatory fix is the smartest, quickest fix, and then, frankly, we’d like to know how it happened in the first place,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., said in a news conference last week.

Ryan is wrong. Empowering ATF to ban firearms devices without explicit authorization from Congress is a far greater threat to the Second Amendment than any legislation Congress could pass.

In 2010, under President Barack Obama, ATF ruled that “bump-fire” stocks were legal under current federal law, declaring in a letter to manufacturer Slide Fire: “We find that the ‘bump-stock’ is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.” This was a proper, limited reading of our gun laws.

So far so good.  He’s right, of course.  Asking the ATF to ban bump stocks is asking the ATF to take the fall for infringement of the second amendment, an action that neither the Congress nor the NRA wants to be responsible for.  That’s why both have asked the ATF to do their dirty work for them.

Now Republicans want ATF to simply overturn its 2010 determination that bump stocks are legal – effectively banning them by executive fiat. Do conservatives really want to set the precedent that ATF can ban firearms or firearm devices without explicit authorization from Congress? Imagine what Hillary Clinton would have done with that power as president.

If ATF takes such action, it could set a precedent for other executive action on guns without explicit congressional authorization. A future Democratic president could use this precedent to have ATF reclassify all semi-automatic weapons as machine guns. They would argue, correctly, that you don’t actually need a bump-fire stock to produce a bump-fire effect. It can be accomplished with rubber bands or a belt loop, or even without any external device by a skilled marksman.

So, gun-control advocates could argue, all semi-automatic weapons are really in fact automatic guns – and thus banned under the 1986 Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. They could use an ATF ruling banning bump stocks as precedent for a back-door reimposition of the so-called assault weapons ban.

For the party that railed against Obama’s unlawful executive actions on immigration and other issues to now urge President Donald Trump to take unlawful executive actions on guns that even Obama refused to take is stunning.

The better option is to pass limited, carefully crafted legislation to ban these devices. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and 38 Senate Democrats have introduced the Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act that would “ban the sale, transfer, importation, manufacture or possession of bump stocks, trigger cranks and similar accessories that accelerate a semi-automatic rifle’s rate of fire.” According to Feinstein, the bill “makes clear that its intent is to target only those accessories that increase a semi-automatic rifle’s rate of fire.”

Oh, well if she said it, it must be true.  The progressives really don’t want to target anything else beyond bump stocks.  And of course, Marc Thiessen was the former Bush speech writer.  Neither Marc nor Bush are conservative, any more than the “conservatives” he criticizes in his commentary.

And it’s no accident that you see a former Bush speech writer aligning himself with a proposed bill by Dianne Feinstein and other Senate democrats.  But we should thank Marc for the commentary.  At one and the same time, he demonstrated both the cowardliness and the traitorous spirit of “conservatives” in America.  Afraid to do what they want, and wanting to infringe on the only covenant that binds the nation together.  What a loathsome bunch.

Sebastian:

Joan Peterson’s shout out in frustration should be exhibit A for why nothing changes after public mass shootings:

The cynical and evil leadership of the NRA suggested that they may be able to support a ban on bump fire stocks. NOT. Not even that very small measure will pass muster with this group of disingenuous group of guys who represent the industry that sells these things.

There’s not even an acknowledgement that perhaps your side has drafted something that’s very broadly worded, and sweeps up far more items than merely bump stocks. Some will no doubt argue the broad language is done out of malice rather than out of ignorance. But whichever way it goes, the language of these bills is unacceptable. Show me some acceptable language, and we can make a deal. But with this? No deal. They honestly can’t help themselves:

So Speaker Ryan and Republicans in control of our country- what say you? Shame on them all. We need much more than a ban on bump fire stocks.

What we need is a comprehensive bill to make America safe again, including a ban on bump fire stocks, a reduction in the number of bullets in an ammunition magazine, a ban on certain types of assault rifles and the accompanying features that can be added to make them more deadly, universal Brady background checks, research into the causes and effects of gun violence, adequate funding for the ATF, stronger straw purchasing and gun trafficking laws, mandatory training before owning or carrying a gun, mandatory secure storage of guns, child access prevention laws, gun violence protection orders, limiting who can carry a loaded weapon around in public, and yes, perhaps even a system of gun registration.

Remember what I predicted in the beginning? A deal will be offered. The deal with be rejected, because whatever X is offered isn’t what the other side really wants. It will force them to show their hand, it will fire our people up and they will get nothing in the end.

After Sandy Hook, gun folks put out an initial offer on universal background checks, that would have provided a technological means for private parties to conduct them. That offer was rejected, and they overreached, got defeated, tried to put together that last-minute awful compromise in the form of Manchin-Toomey, and by that time the issue was so toxic, the only thing that could be agreed on was nothing.

So I predicted the same thing would happen this time. The gun control people were offered bump stocks, because we don’t really care that much about them and we have a stalled agenda we really do care about. But they aren’t interested in bump stocks. They want the whole kit and caboodle, and they can’t get it, they’ll take their ball and go home.

Well, we’ll see what happens.  The GOP is weak and spineless, along with having no moral constitution, scruples or coherent world view.  But in my estimation it’s always wrong to compromise on a right.

I don’t recall there being any discussion about whether the gun owning community at large likes or dislikes a particular product being the basis for our rights, or whether we think it can be used accurately to shoot anything.  Likes, dislikes, accuracy and functionality – these are all the things of free market capitalism, not law.

I doubt Sebastian would be so willing to compromise on something he cherished that others didn’t particularly like, just because they didn’t feel the same way he did.

The Daily Journal:

Radio talk show host and TV commentator Hugh Hewitt is among a growing number of conservatives calling for monitoring the stockpiling of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices similar to how Sudafed is controlled.

Hewitt calls for photo IDs and records of purchases on firearm ammunition following the Oct. 1 shootings in Las Vegas that left 58 dead and 489 people wounded.

“If people buy a lot of ammunition in a short period of time, this should trigger a red flag with law enforcement,” said Hewitt on the NBC “Meet the Press” show on Oct. 8.

Monitoring ammunition stockpiling would be a way to let stockpilers know that law enforcement is keeping an eye on them. However, no guns or ammunition would be confiscated.

Officers who entered the room of the 32nd hotel floor used by the shooter were shocked to see the amount of weapons and ammunition the shooter had stockpiled. His victims were those who gathered nearby at the Harvest Country Music Festival.

Sudafed is regulated because pseudoephedrine, the active ingredient in some forms of medication, can be used to create the street drug methamphetamine, or crystal meth.

The federal act sets daily and monthly limits on how much of the active drug a person can buy.

When it comes to firearms and ammunition, there is no federal limit to how much a person like the Las Vegas shooter can buy, nor is there a national database of purchases.

A 1994 federal law, which expired a decade later in 2004, defined a large-capacity ammunition feeding device as a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

“Gun control won’t work but ammo monitoring could,” says John Carnes, conservative author and firearms expert.

Twice you read it in the commentary above.  “Conservative” host Hugh Hewitt.  “Conservative author and firearms expert” John Carnes.  Actually, he somewhat misrepresents the gist of John’s article, who says this.

People should oppose gun control restrictions and registration requirements, but we shouldn’t let these turn our eyes from the existential threat of ammunition control. If ammunition printing ever becomes as cheap and effective as printing firearms parts currently is, then we can all rest assured that the right to keep and bear arms will never again be as infringed as it is today. Until that day comes, ammunition controls may be the most effective form of gun control.

He didn’t misrepresent Hewitt, apparently.  I never really thought Hugh Hewitt was a conservative.  But it does go to show that even the supposed conservatives are giving you up (case in point, the NRA, whose willingness to compromise empowered the controllers, who saw nothing but weakness).  They don’t care about your rights, whether firearms or the ammunition to use in them.

I know, I know.  The Supreme Court may block such rules and regulations, but they may not.  They didn’t block the assault weapons ban, and Heller was a weak enough decision that it may even be used to bolster the ammunition control case.

I think a lot of people sense that the one weakness our community has is ammunition.  This isn’t any different than it’s always been.  Consider this report, the only significant piece of information in an otherwise stupid article.

“Everybody I know is stockpiling ammo,” said Allen, who came from Sacramento, as he carried a plastic bag bulging with bullets and gun parts. He declined to give his last name.

Sure, fight this in the political arena, fight this in the courts, and fight it in the town square and court of public opinion.  But never assume you’re going to win.  If at first we lose, the winning will come later.

Prior: Gun Control Through Ammunition Control

David Codrea:

Focus the protection of the Second Amendment on keeping nonmilitary arms at home for self-defense, while putting an escalating standard of protection on other kinds of arms and uses …  If individuals want to own semi-automatic assault weapons, either as collectors or for practice shooting, then enforce a provision that such weapons can only be kept at legally registered shooting ranges or other registered depositories, and cannot be removed from the designated premises.

To the author of this silly piece, Jeff Sachs, I only have one thing to say.  Any time you feel froggy.  Go ahead and come after my guns any time you feel like you have a chance.  Oh, I see, you intend to send others to do the dirty work for you?  That “enforce” thing might get a lot of people in serious trouble, and I don’t mean us gun owners.

Here is a broad ranging discussion thread where the commenters throw down with each other, referencing an AR-15 discussion thread where Mark LaRue apparently hinted at the willingness to accept gun control.  Some commenters at reddit think not, but here is what he apparently said.

“Like I said, if I come up with a way to use a waterhose to shoot up all your ammo faster, does that mean waterhoses are protected by the second amendment?”

He also apparently said this in support of the NRA.  Now, I have to admit that the comment makes no sense and seems to me to be nonsensical.  It could have been clear and made sense if it just included a typographical error, and should have read … “does that mean waterhoses aren’t protected by the second amendment?”  It would make sense because it would be using a superlative to make a point, or arguing a fortiori, from the lesser to the greater [why stop with bump stocks, ban waterhoses too], or even reduction ad absurdum.

But what he may be doing is lampooning gun owners’ reflexive tendency, as he sees it, to defend anything under the rubric of the second amendment.  In fact, I think this is close to the truth.  Mark LaRue goes on to release a statement correcting himself, but it may be too little, too late.  He also uses obscenity against a member of the AR-15 forum later on in the discussion thread.

What is the matter with these guys?  Seriously, what’s wrong with their thinking?  Why not say nothing at all, and do your best to serve the gun community with high quality products for as cheaply as you can sell them?

Well, I may be in the market for a high end AR-15 first quarter of next year.  I think LaRue Tactical is off my short list.

SunSentinel:

There are approximately 300 million guns presently in the United States — probably much more if you count the illegal weapons. Even if the most stringent laws regarding gun control were passed, we would never see our country unarmed.

There is a simple solution that is largely ignored: Guns do not kill people — bullets do. Bullets are not good forever — guns are. The average life of a cartridge is 10 years; after that the primer is no longer dependable. Why can’t we limit the ownership of ammunition to a reasonable amount and strictly regulate the sale of bullets? Since the right to bear arms in the Constitution doesn’t state “and ammunition,” it would probably also hold up to challenge by the NRA.

Right now we strictly regulate the sale of narcotics and give hypodermic needles away to addicts. Hypodermic needles are the guns and narcotics are the bullets.

How do you like being compared to a drug addict?  Still, there is wisdom is listening very carefully to your enemies.  I think Sun Tzu said something along those lines.

As gun control goes, if the collectivists want to get the biggest bang for their buck, ammunition is the way to do it.  Plan and act accordingly.

Cincinnati.com:

But since the Las Vegas shooting, Massie has taken his Second Amendment support to a new level, setting himself apart from his Republican colleagues and even the NRA.

The Kentucky congressman, who holds a concealed carry permit and says he is generally armed when he’s his home state, has questioned whether bump stocks truly made last week’s shooting in Las Vegas more deadly.

“Needs to be discussed: Murderer probably could have fired more rounds conventionally instead of dealing with misfires caused by #bumpstocks,” Massie tweeted on Oct. 7.

He has castigated his GOP colleagues for suggesting they would be willing to consider a ban on such equipment.

“Obamacare repeal and tax reform can’t happen in 9 months, but now some GOP signaling they’re ready to immediately work on gun control?” he blasted in another Twitter message.

[ … ]

Proposed “bump fire stock” ban is a red herring that would lead to ban of other firearms and accessories. See videohttps://t.co/e47eg9QcPN

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) October 5, 2017

“There are at least a dozen ways to make a semi-automatic firearm more quickly,” Massie told the Examiner. “There is no way to ban bump fire.”

Not surprisingly, gun-control advocates vehemently disagree.

“We’ve regulated machine guns in this country quite carefully for the last 80 years,” said Avery W. Gardiner, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “Why should an accessory that turns a gun into the functional equivalent of a machine gun not be regulated in the same way?”

Because it’s not a machine gun, and machine guns shouldn’t be regulated anyway.

As for representative Massie, he shows the way to do it.  All you have to have is a soul, a little bit of guts, and a moral compass.  Unfortunately that’s lacking in most politicians today.

Congratulations to representative Massie.  We’re in your corner.  Stay the course, and keep up the good fight.  If the demons, gargoyles and pit vipers in Washington don’t listen to you, at least someone is listening, and He will judge them all one awful day.