Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Ammoland:

Kailua, HI -(AmmoLand.com)- The Senate Public Safety Committee, Chairman Senator Clarence K. Nishihara, will hold a public hearing on HB2632 March 17, 2016.

Please click on the bill number above for bill information and to send testimony.  HRA OPPOSES.

Deadline to submit testimony, 1:45 pm Wednesday March 16.

Requires the county police to seize all firearms from any person who is a danger to self or others due to mental health reasons and requires emergency hospitalization. Good idea! But where’s the due process?

The bill language in the present draft is unclear as to whether a judge’s order is required to seize guns. HPD thinks they won’t need one.

HRA remains STRONGLY OPPOSED unless the bill is amended to specify that a court order must be obtained for the hospitalization before firearms can be seized, as required under the 2nd and 4th Amendments and Hawaii State law: capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0334/HRS_0334-0061.htm.

MAHALO,

HARVEY GERWIG, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON and PRESIDENT, HRA

For more information, visit: www.hawaiirifleassociation.org.

Ah, mental health again.  So tell us, Senator Nishihara, all about the awful things you’re going to stop with this additional power and bureaucracy?  Remember that we’ve got mental health professionals on record stating that mental health maladies do not constitute propensity to violence, and that they cannot be predictors of violence with their profession.  So with that in mind, tell us all about how you’re going to stop awful things from happening?  We’re listening.  Tell us all about your scholarly prowess in mental health and how you know more than the professionals.

I’ve exchanged email with Harvey Gerwig.  Nice guy, and I hope Hawaii gun owners are able to wrap their arms around the problem of this terrible, totalitarian state government.

News from S.C.:

Sen. Floyd Nicholson, D-Greenwood, expressed a more general view of concealed-carry practices.

“Carrying weapons? I’m totally opposed. It’s just my personal opinion. I don’t own a gun. I am not a hunter, and I have nothing against those individuals who hunt. But just carrying a weapon around? I think we’re going back to the Wild Wild West,” said Nicholson. A portion of his district borders the Savannah River, and stretches across parts McCormick, Greenwood, Saluda, and Abbeville counties.

“Give everybody a holster and a gun and let them go, like they’re doing in Texas? I’m just opposed to this.”

We’ve already seen another of the jerk-offs in S.C., a communist by the name of Larry Martin.  It sounds like South Carolina voters have their work cut out for them.  They should stock up on tar and feathers.

Times Higher Education:

At the beginning of this year, the University of Texas began permitting guns on its campus, including in the classroom. In response, I’m beginning a personal boycott. I will not accept invitations to speak at any university where guns are allowed in class – and I’d like others to join me.

I have in the past given talks in US cities where guns may be carried, and sometimes where murder rates are high. Many Americans say that they feel safer when carrying a gun. There is ample statistical evidence that they are not. Being in the vicinity of a gun immediately increases your chances of being shot. I’ve been willing to take that risk to visit the US, but once one crosses the threshold of a university campus, one should be in a place free of weapons and any threat of violence.

There are a number of reasons for this. Some of them are practical. I would not want to speak to an audience whose members may carry guns. Academic debate can become heated. A good lecturer challenges the audience, pushing people out of their comfort zones. The presence of guns would almost certainly change that dynamic. Suppose I get a stupid question, delivered in an arrogant or aggressive way. The thought that the questioner might be carrying a weapon might well affect how I respond. Perhaps I would just let it go. But then my academic integrity and freedom to give an honest reply has been compromised through fear.

Even if I’m not provocative, I am still not safe in a university with guns. For a variety of reasons, people are sometimes dangerously unstable. The threat of violence is hugely increased if handguns are available. And any such threat falls disproportionately on the most conspicuous person in the room: the lecturer speaking at the front of the class. If anything did go wrong in the mind of a gun-carrying audience member, I could well be in the line of fire, no matter how polite my talk.

These safety concerns might or might not be empirically well grounded. But the bigger reasons for my boycott are philosophical; I might even say metaphysical. Guns and universities simply should not mix.

The most important role of the university is as protector and nourisher of civilisation and culture. This is in direct opposition to the idea that physical violence solves anything …

Balderdash.  Violence solves a lot of things.  Violence overthrew the Third Reich when collegial debate would not have sufficed.  Violence repels rapists and murderers, and without responding with violence in self defense, Christianity in Mesopotamia is now no more, with Christians on the run or perishing throughout the middle east and North Africa.

The writer is a professor of Metaphysics at the University of Nottingham, but rather than believe he would get a stupid question from a student, I’m inclined to believe based on this article that he might be the one who poses stupid propositions.  And I’m not sure The University of Texas has lost much if Mr. Mumford cannot find it within himself to lecture there.  After all, they could always get Paul Helm, Alvin Plantinga or Nicholas Wolsterstorff to perform a visiting lecturer series.  It would probably be much better anyway.

But since we’re on this subject of metaphysics, and since Mr. Mumford has posed a number of problems associated with visiting the University of Texas, I have a little quiz for him.  He has pointed the finger of blame at the gun (presumably he wouldn’t also point to the reliability of the crystalline structure in the metal of the knife in the case of poor Lee Rigby – or would he?).  So what, Mr. Mumford, causes a person to pull the trigger?  Why would you be in any more danger around someone with a gun that any other time?  You may invoke the concept of immediate causes, secondary causes, or even launch into a discussion of evil, predestination, volition and theodicy if you feel froggy.

We’re waiting to grade the essay.

David Codrea:

For the second year in a row, West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin vetoed a bill that would recognize the right of citizens 21 and over to carry a gun concealed without permission from state bureaucrats, the Associated Press reported Thursday. Tomblin was flanked by “dozens of police officers and deputies,” there to provide PR support and imagery intended to “legitimize” the governor’s flouting of “shall not be infringed.”

What a putz.  I had covered this bill as if it had become law (I assumed that the legislature had overridden his previous veto), and I was clearly mistaken.  I hate that.  I hate it for the folks in West Virginia, and I hate it for the prediction I made.  I would love to use WV constitutional carry as a test case and flout my prediction (and resultant data) in front of the anti-gunners.

The Salem News:

CHARLESTON, West Virginia — The West Virginia Legislature has approved legislation allowing residents 21 or older to carry a concealed gun without first obtaining a permit or undergoing training.

The measure, passed on a bipartisan vote Wednesday, now goes to Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin for his review. He vetoed a similar bill last year.

Most states require concealed carry permits.

West Virginians between the ages of 18 and 21 could receive a provisional concealed carry permit and would be required to undergo training on proper use of guns.

Passed on bipartisan votes by both the state Senate and the House of Delegates, the proposed law includes a $50 tax credit for residents trained to carry a deadly weapon.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch Carmichael, R-Jackson, said credit would cost the state $3 million.

The bill was opposed by the West Virginia Sheriffs Association and the West Virginia Association of Counties.

Of course the bill was opposed by law enforcement.  Of course it was.  Here’s a prediction for you (and if we can remember it a year from now and find adequate data on this, we’ll assess my prediction).  Nothing will happen.  The doomsday predictions the LEOs most assuredly made will not obtain.  There won’t be any discernible change in the number of firearms related crimes as a result of the elimination of permitting requirements.

Who wants to call me wrong on this?

David Codrea:

LTC Robert Bateman presumes to lecture us on the militia and the Constitution, choosing Esquire Magazine as his forum so that, near as I can figure, we can also educate ourselves on the latest fashion tips for men, join in “progressive” attacks on conservatives, and catch up on all-important information about pop star Prince and his surprise concert tour. Bateman’s bottom line: The militia is what the government says it is, and if you join with others to defend against criminal acts of usurpation committed against you by those with government titles, you’re committing treason.

[ … ]

The Second Amendment only protects a well regulated militia, he argues. “As of 1903,” he maintains, “the ‘militia’ has been known as the National Guard.”

Actually, the resulting United States Code also recognized the “unorganized militia” to include “members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia,” but Bateman dismissed that, claiming, “Weapons are there for the ‘well regulated militia.’ Their use, therefore, must be in defense of the nation.”

There are two problems with Bateman’s assertions in addition to the obvious one that he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about: First, as the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate Ninety-Seventh Congress documented, “Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.”

There’s more.  Make sure you read David’s analysis.  We’ve run into Bateman before on issues of concealed (or open) carry, the offense he takes at seeing someone who carries, and his idiotic proposals for national gun control.  Finally, we’ve caught him lying about gun control during Operation Iraqi Freedom when my son explained what really happened there (I suppose Bateman didn’t believe anyone who was there would jump into the conversation to call him out).

Bateman has a long history of telling you he is good at everything and that he is a scholar and historian and that he’s special.  But Bateman fails miserably on what constitutes the militia, and David provides him a bit of teaching.  To see just how badly David spanks him, read David’s piece, which is both educated and educational.

Perspectives from down under:

On a recent trip to the US while filming Unplanned America, we visited three groups of what some may call extreme gun nuts. And for a group of anti-gun Australians, we found them surprisingly hard to argue with.

[ … ]

When I popped my cherry and shot the vintage “Sten” sub-machinegun, the rapid pop pop pop of the bullets down the indoor range was deeply satisfying and the action movie-loving eight-year-old boy inside me was in heaven.

But when the next weapon came out, s**t got real and kick-arse elation turned to sickening shock. Legend has it that the Geneva Convention bans the Barrett M82A1 from being shot at human targets, due to it being a war crime. And while this may not technically be true, the US Army does train soldiers not to shoot it at personnel.

We were speechless. So why does the weapon exist, we asked? Tony replied that it’s to shoot at “material”. Like a building or vehicle or army equipment — even military issued zippers or military issued glasses. And if a human happened to be attached to that equipment, well it might be the case that the massive 50 caliber bullets accidentally ensure that human becomes nothing more than “red mist”.

One by one we leant over the huge weapon and pulled the trigger, and each time everyone within a two meter radius felt a shock wave from the barrel like a punch in the chest. Boom! And the chilling thought of a cloud of red mist left behind was felt in the pit of my stomach.

So why do Americans love guns? Why the hell do they need them? Why do they take such joy in owning and shooting these things, when so many Australians would be terrified to even touch them?

The way Tony explains it is that due to the prevalence of violent crime in the US, and given the remote location of his own home, he’d be crazy not to have a gun. He says if an armed intruder broke into his house to kill his loved ones, by the time the county sheriff eventually got there, he would be trying to solve a slaying, not prevent one.

Secondly, Tony says there are so many guns in the US it would take a government generations to entirely rid the nation of them. And most gun owners would never agree to it, indeed many would respond in violence.

This point is key. Once you consider that the guns might be here to stay, the issue gets infinitely more complicated.

Let’s stop and assess what we’ve read so far.  First of all, self defense is a legitimate reason for weapons ownership, and it’s partly why I own them.  But it isn’t the basis for the second amendment.  Amelioration of tyranny is the reason, but we’ll get to that in a moment.

Second, these authors need to get their information reviewed and checked before publishing it.  The Marine Corps Scout Snipers shoot the .50 rifle if needed, and some carry it as their primary weapon.  The Marines have two larger caliber rifles for this purpose, the .308 and the .50.  The Army uses a more filled out version of calibers, including the .300 Win Mag and the .338 (they also employ the .50 as needed, all calibers against personnel).  All of these calibers are used and have been employed for anti-personnel work, and the only reason the .50 is brought up as an anti-material round is because it is most effective for that type of work versus the .308.  Again, the authors need to get their stuff reviewed before publishing it.  Do they have editors in Australia?

The next group of presumed gun nuts we spent time with was the Virginia Open Carry group. Remarkably, in most states in the US it is totally legal to openly carry a firearm on your hip. Without a license of any kind. We could’ve even done it.

This immediately conjures up images of a lawless Wild West that has no place in a modern civilised society. But as we sat down for a lunch of BBQ ribs (what else) with the open carriers we found them to be intelligent and thoughtful in their views.

There was not a nut among them, but each was staunchly attached to their view and their gun and would never ever let them go. It’s the opinion of these guys that the tragic daily mass shootings in the US are the result of a mental health problem in America, not a gun problem and that the government misdirects the issue so they don’t have to tackle the more complex and expensive issue.

Where it gets tricky for our open carry friends however is that while they agree that psychologically disturbed people are the ones that carry out mass murders, they still believe they have a constitutional right to own a gun, and a God given right to privacy that means the government shouldn’t be allowed to dig into their backgrounds when they want to purchase a firearm. Tricky.

Stop it!  Just stop it.  Stop connecting violence to mental health.  We’ve discussed again and again and again and again how this just isn’t the case, so says mental health professionals.  It is counterfactual to say that when a shooter kills people, it was because of mental health issues.  And pimping this falsehood only leads to the conundrums that writers think they find in the gun rights community.  So just stop it.  Don’t do it any more.

The final group we shot the s**t out of a bunch of cans with were the ones we were most scared of before we met them. They were the Texas State Militia — a self-styled army consisting of ex-military men who have armed themselves to the hilt to protect the American way of life.

We were expecting racist rednecks, paranoid about Muslims and Mexicans taking over their country. This was far from the case. When we spoke to Matt, the young leader of the 1100 strong group we found an ex-soldier who feels deep guilt for the things he did in Iraq and thinks that the US wars in the Middle East are based on government lies.

His group for now however is still keen to work with the government like a terrifying Neighborhood Watch, until such a time where the government stops respecting the rule of law.

And herein lies the crux of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, the part that most Australians don’t understand.

All of those we spoke to believe that it is a citizen’s duty, as explicitly stated in the founding document of the United States, to be armed in order to keep the government in check. They say that the country was founded after their British rulers became corrupt and an armed uprising saved a whole nation from tyranny. They say it will happen again, and they’re ready to protect their freedom if and when it does.

And they might stand a decent chance, given there’s more guns that people in the US right now.

So we are at the crux of the issue, yes?  These folks explained why the second amendment exists, and why we will never give up our guns.  That would run contrary to the very justification for having them in the first place.  As to the soldier who feels guilty for his participation in the war, I wish I could talk at length with him and explain why he has no reason for such guilt.

If only they could find a way to stop turning their weapons on each other. Ending gun violence is one of the most serious and complex problems this country faces. And the most unique to the “land of the free”.

As a note to the authors, in case no one talked to you about this, the gun violence America faces is primarily an inner city black-on-black problem due to the breakdown of the family caused by entitlements (see here and here).  Guns aren’t responsible and bear no relation to the problem.

News from the misplaced Northern state:

Usually when the NRA and other gun groups say jump, the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature says, “How high and how many guns should we carry when we do it?” But a few gun fantasies are just a bridge too far for even some Floridians.

Yesterday, Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, a Miami Republican and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, announced that bills to allow “open carry” and another that would allow guns in Florida airports are dead.

As chair, Diaz de la Portilla basically has the power to kill any bill that comes through the committee by refusing to bring it up for a hearing. Bills in the Florida Legislature must pass three committees before making their way to a vote before the full House and Senate. The open-carry bill had already passed in the full House earlier this month.

Open-carry laws allow gun owners to basically walk around with guns on themselves and totally visible to the public. In some states, that right has led to bizarre sights, such as people toting around large, high-powered machine guns inside Target and Starbucks locations.

Florida’s proposed law would have allowed those who already have a concealed-carry license to openly carry their guns. Since Florida’s concealed-carry license laws apply to only handguns, open carry would still not have applied to larger guns.

“Open carry is not going to happen; it’s done,” Diaz de la Portilla told reporters yesterday, according to the Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau.

Diaz de la Portilla also killed a bill that would have allowed guns in airport terminals. Earlier this session, he dealt the same fate to a bill that would have allowed people to take their concealed weapons onto college campuses.

Gun-rights Republicans have tried several times in previous sessions to pass similar bills, but the efforts have almost always been killed in the Senate by more moderate Republicans.

This is the same thing that happened in South Carolina.  State Senator Larry Martin is head of the judiciary committee and single handedly killed open carry in S.C.

As for those moderate republicans, you mean communists, don’t you?  And as for the man who did this, Diaz de la Portilla, he seems rather proud of himself, doesn’t he?  Hey, that name … that sounds Hispanic.  I thought all of those Hispanics were going to be conservative rather than anti-gun?  That’s what they told us, anyway.

So what are you Floridians going to do about Diaz de la Portilla?

We’ve discussed it in the context of Jackson, Wyoming, where an out-of-control town council banned firearms in the city in spite of state laws.  It’s happening in Asheville, N.C. as we speak, where posting against carrying firearms in Asheville parks violates state law.

Now we see that a proposed bill in Massachusetts would stop this behavior.

BOSTON — Gun-rights advocates are rallying behind a bill in the state Legislature that would prevent municipalities from imposing their own regulations on who can possess a firearm.

Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners’ Action League, an association working to protect Second Amendment rights, said communities are “essentially creating a patchwork of laws across the state, and soon it will be untenable if (the state doesn’t) get in control of it quickly.”

State Rep. James Miceli filed a bill that would ban municipalities and counties from “passing or enforcing ordinances or regulations concerning the lawful ownership, use, possession, transfer, purchase, receipt or transportation of weapons, antique weapons, ammunition or ammunition components.”

“I filed this bill because a lot of the Legislature strives for a balance between towns and the state government,” the Wilmington Democrat said. “There has to be uniformity. No one twisted my arm to do it. I think the bill makes sense.”

Supporters cite a new gun-licensing policy in Lowell that requires applicants to complete an approved safety course that includes a “live fire” component. Applicants seeking unrestricted licenses to carry their weapons in Lowell must also provide a “submit a written statement providing specific reasons why they want to be granted unrestricted access.”

Recall we discussed this, where collectivist police chief William Taylor of Lowell wants to review an essay you are forced to write before granting you the privilege of a handgun license.

This is why it matters.  When a state recognizes certain freedoms, the only action a city, township or municipality can take if allowed to make rules of their own contradicting state law is to get more restrictive.  State preemption is necessary to prevent more restrictive gun laws.  Another way of saying it is granting permission to cities to make regulations more restrictive than state law can only result in one thing, i.e., regulations more restrictive than state law.  This always means a loss of recognized rights.

Sadly, I predict the bill will fail.  After all, this is Massachusetts.  And when, for heaven’s sake, is Smith & Wesson going to leave that awful state?

Bloomberg:

With Hopkins’s approval, I spend three days observing from behind the counter at Westside Armory, on the condition I won’t risk driving away customers by interrupting to ask to quote them by name. On the floor, I listen to the sales patter and consumer comments. I observe diligence, for the most part, about following the rules. And yet I also witness some troubling slip-ups, including one that leads to a visit to the store by two agents from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “We’re not perfect,” Hopkins says.

Yea, that’s right.  A Bloomberg hack was allowed in the building to write his propaganda.  One thing that struck me was the nexus of memes.

The persistence of demand for firearms in the U.S. becomes the subject of a get-together at the store with Stuart Anderson Wheeler, a visiting fellow big-game hunter who runs an eponymous business in London that manufactures bespoke hunting guns. Anderson Wheeler finds American gun culture perplexing, especially the shrill tone of the National Rifle Association. “I mean, all the talk of terrorism and shootings—it’s pretty extreme. Can they be serious?” he asks.

“They know what sells,” says Hopkins.

“I’m all for guns,” Anderson Wheeler responds. “But how many does a person need?”

“You Brits don’t have our traditions,” Hopkins says. “To Americans, owning a gun is a connection back to the settling of the Western frontier: cowboys and Indians and all that.”

“And fear,” says Anderson Wheeler.

The store owner and a hunter (not just a Fudd, but a British Fudd), engage in a bit of condescending snark towards American gun owners.  “Fear.”  “Extreme.”  “They know what sells.”  That’s right, Hopkins.  It’s the extreme language of the NRA or the NSSF which convinces us to buy guns.  If it weren’t for them, we’d just park our ass on the couch and watch sitcoms at night and football games on the weekend.

Truthfully, it’s folks like these who don’t understand how the NRA and NSSF is being dragged kicking and screaming into the twentieth first century.  They are even less informed than the progs, because at least the progs get the significance of their gun control schemes and why we buy guns.  Their (NRA and NSSF) irrelevance to the current trends is missed by the Fudds and the sellouts like Hopkins.

David Codrea noticed this (I couldn’t bring myself to read this far).

Like many FFL holders, Hopkins would have no objection to universal background checks for all gun transfers. 

David comments:

Anyone in the business who’s not leading in the fight against universal registration, especially now in the time of great need, and actually telling that to a Bloomberg reporter, deserves to have his business go belly-up as far as I’m concerned. And the FFLs who look forward to it as a new business opportunity are no better than damn kapos.

Yea, Hopkins just went from being a stooge to being an enemy.  Understand, Hopkins, that universal background checks will bring out the guns, and not in a good way, if you know what I mean.  That is a line that cannot be crossed by anyone.  It won’t happen, and your willing adultery with the Bloomberg position is most disappointing.  As for this particular shop, I would drive hours before I would do business with them.  I hope the good folks in Nevada read this article and adjust their business practices accordingly.