Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

David Codrea:

So how smart is a gun that requires a separate and nearby fingerprint sensor/wristwatch to activate a chip, and has built-in lights to tell an aggressor where a defender in the dark is, and whether or not they that gun is enabled to fire?

Not very smart.  And we’ve discussed this before.

In a very important development, the Supreme Court is going through its backlog of stuff to consider, and rejects an important one.

The Supreme Court won’t review a decision upholding a Maryland gun law that requires residents to demonstrate a “good and substantial reason” to get a permit to carry a handgun outside their own home or business.

Allow me to summarize.  We’ve all noted that Heller and McDonald were weak decisions, and didn’t envelope carrying outside the home.  Many had suspected that the SCOTUS would continue to develop post-Heller case law that fleshed out Second Amendment rights.  This is important in that what the Supreme Court rejects is as important as what they decide.  In this case, they have decided that Heller doesn’t apply outside the home, or at least, they won’t intrude on decisions they will leave to the state.

Folks, if I’ve said it once I’ve said it a thousand times.  The Second Amendment frames or boxes in the federal government.  It is a mistake to look to the federal government to delineate your God-given rights at the state and local level.  All gun politics is local.  Marylanders, you must fight the fight where you are, or leave for a free state.

Thomas Sowell discusses the appointment of Janet Yellen to the federal reserve.  She is a true believer in Keynesian witchcraft.  Be careful.  Chicken bones flying around, thrown by Ms. Yellen.  You know, the thing that impressed me most about the article was his quote of Yellen.

Ms. Yellen asks: “Do policy-makers have the knowledge and ability to improve macroeconomic outcomes rather than making matters worse?” And she answers: “Yes.”

For those of you who have read Plato’s Republic, she appears to be a believer in the concept of philosopher-kings, just as is Obama.

Kurt Hofmann:

For one thing, while the supply of legal machine guns in private possession has been capped since 1986, with the (very questionable) passage of the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act, driving the price of the artificially limited supply well out of range of most gun owners, the number of suppressors in private hands has been spiking dramatically, according to the Wall Street Journal.

There is no rational reason to require CLEO approval for purchasing silencers (which Kurt correctly points out should be considered safety equipment).  I have worked in a plant environment all of my working life, as well as operated power equipment outside of work.  I love the fact that I can still hear (albeit less clearly than 35 years ago), and I want to continue being able to hear.  Prohibiting equipment that can protect hearing (part of your set of PPEs) is immoral.

John Jay gives us an update on the armored personnel carriers in Montana.

Finally, see my disapprobation of the federal leviathan from this weekend.

NorthJersey.com:

For years, they’ve existed only in science fiction and the archives of the New Jersey Legislature: handguns that fire only in the grip of an authorized user.

And yet these so-called smart guns soon could be the only kind sold legally in New Jersey under a state law that has languished on the books for a decade.

The law, which requires the state’s gun dealers to exclusively sell smart guns within three years after the first one hits the market, has been largely forgotten since the Legislature adopted it in 2002. But it could be dusted off as early as this year as technology finally catches up to the vision of lawmakers at a time when the debate over gun control is more combative and divisive than at any time in recent history.

After years of stalled and inconclusive research — hampered in part by political resistance from groups like the National Rifle Association — a German company called Armatix says it will introduce the first gun equipped with a user-recognition system within 45 days.

It is unclear whether that model, which will fire only within range of a sensor embedded in a wristwatch, will trigger the New Jersey regulations. But advocates predict that the first sale is likely to create a domino effect as other companies and publicly funded groups — including one at the New Jersey Institute of Technology — are spurred to bring their own prototypes to the market.

[ … ]

The NRA did not respond to requests for comment, but Scott L. Bach, the executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, said the technology is flawed, and could put gun owners in danger when it fails. He also questioned why law enforcement officers are exempt.

“New Jersey’s smart-gun law is as dumb as it gets,” Bach, of West Milford, said in a statement. “It forces you to use an unproven technology to defend your life, and then exempts the state from liability when the gun goes ‘click’ instead of ‘bang.’ If it’s such a great idea, then law enforcement shouldn’t be exempt, and the free market should be allowed to determine its viability.”

Oh, the free market will indeed decide what becomes of this ridiculous machine.  It will be laughed off the world stage when the first person attempts to defend his life with it and an electronic gadget interferes and causes someone to die at the hands of an assailant.

And the next time Chris Christie asks for your vote, remind him that he is governor of New Jersey, home of the some of the most draconian gun laws on earth.  Ask him if he is going to force all of his body guards and state police to use this silly piece of equipment?

Prior: Smart Guns Tag

David Codrea:

“So, this is a way to inch things forward on the gun control issue,” she observed. “You go to one of Vermont’s most liberal municipalities and you get a tiny bit, then maybe you inch forward.”

Death by a thousand cuts.  And what have I told you about gun politics being local?

Kurt Hofmann:

Isolate the Insurrectionists by embracing the self-defenders and the sporting gun owners.

Another incremental strategy, similar to the collectivists in Vermont?

John Jay is wondering why anyone associated with the government in Montana (or the feds) would need armored personnel carriers or grenade launchers?

Darryl Cannady in Charlotte, N.C., was pulled by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police because his car matched a profile description of one they were searching for.  The officer unholstered his weapon and held it pointed at Darryl for quite some time.  What’s really interesting about this case is the reaction in the comments, which seem to be on the side of telling this kid that racial profiling had nothing to do with it.  Get over it, kid.  It happens every day.  In reality, the officer had no right to unholster his weapon and point it at anyone unless his life was in danger.  I can’t do that, you can’t do that, and it would be called brandishing a weapon if we did.  Additionally, we would be charged with felony assault for such behavior.  But hey, even if the kid was in danger that day, at least the cop got to go home at the end of his shift, right?

Mike Vanderboegh is celebrating the fact that gun shows are the last bastion of a free people.  Well, sort of, but not exactly, and it all depends upon whether the collectivists have persuaded the free men to give up their rights.

A smiling Gabrielle Giffords toured rows of tables loaded with rifles and handguns Sunday in her first visit to a gun show since surviving a 2011 shooting, and pleaded afterward for people to come together to stop gun violence.

The former Arizona congresswoman visited the Saratoga Springs Arms Fair with her astronaut husband, Mark Kelly and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to highlight a voluntary agreement that closely monitors gun show sales in New York.

The trio mixed with a gun show crowd that was mostly welcoming — with a few hostile undertones — before calling for people to build on the cooperative effort.

“We must never stop fighting,” Giffords said at a post-tour news conference, her fist in the air. “Fight! Fight! Fight! Be bold! Be courageous!”

Giffords, a face of the national gun control effort, slowly walked hand-in-hand with Kelly through the large room where Winchester rifles, muzzle-loaders, antique knives and other weapons were on display and “Don’t Tread on Me” flags covered a wall.

They stopped at display tables, Kelly asked dealers questions about the weapons, and Giffords shook hands and smiled when people greeted her. “Good to see you looking good!” some said. Kelly bought a book on Colt revolvers, and said later he probably would have bought a gun if he had had more time. He said both he and his wife are gun owners.

The trio was greeted by light applause when introduced at the news conference, but some people booed from across the room. Dealer Joe Albano, who chatted with Kelly about his muzzle-loaders, later said the couple was nice. But he also said he was against New York’s recent gun control law, which is separate from the Schneiderman initiative.

“If she can help us, fine,” Albano said. “We’re doing everything right here. We’re legal.”

Under the agreements worked out by Schneiderman, all firearms are tagged at the entrances to gun shows. Operators must provide computer stations for sellers to do national background checks.

As they are taken away through a limited number of exits, guns are checked to make sure background checks were performed. No buyers can leave a show without documentation of a proper sale.

Schneiderman, who has worked with all 35 gun show operators in New York, showed the couple how the process worked.

“It’s great to see government and licensed firearms dealers working together to solve a problem,” Kelly said.

“Documentation of a proper sale.”  Folks, what have I told you?  The best way for the collectivists to formulate and parse their information is to get the free men to give it to them.  Gun shows are only for free men in free states.

The issue of universal background checks never goes away, and the collectivists never give up.

AS I WRITE this, there hasn’t been a mass shooting in weeks.

I’ll use the lull to shoot off my mouth about guns, divorced from the debate that usually follows a massacre in which both sides dance on victims’ graves for PR gain.

When President Obama tried early this year to get gun restrictions passed – including background checks identical to Pennsylvania’s current system – the vast majority of Americans wanted what he wanted. His most important goal was broadened criminal-background checks at the point of sale for guns. Despite overwhelming public approval, Congress chickened out, mainly because of opposition from the National Rifle Association that purports to represent gun owners (like me), gun sellers and gun manufacturers.

I am not a member – the NRA doesn’t represent me or most of my pistol-packing pals. Some of my NRA friends say it doesn’t represent them, either, on background checks.

A poll by Frank Luntz, who usually works for Republicans, reported that a majority of current and former NRA members favor background checks. “Majority” understates the case – it was 74 percent.

That’s an amazing statistic, but I have one (allow me to invent a word) that’s amazinger.

The Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, polled licensed dealers who sell more than 50 guns annually. It reported that 55.4 percent of the surveyed gun dealers support background checks.

I never believed those polls that say Americans want to go down to their local FFL and have to go through a background check to gift a 10/22 to their grandson under the Christmas tree.  And I don’t believe them now.  And of course FFLs favor more control – it increases their revenue by another transfer fee every time somebody comes in to transfer a weapon.  What’s hard to understand about that?

Let me turn my attention to the issue of debates and disagreements over the interwebz among gun bloggers that occur from time to time.  I don’t do that scene.  To me it comes off like church members who agree that they must all agree on paragraph 5.3.6(c), subpart 3.1.6.9 of Section 86 of the book of church order blah blah blah, or else they must separate and cause schism.  Again, I don’t do that scene.  I don’t have to agree with everyone all of the time.

But on this issue I’ve made up my mind.  Universal background checks would do nothing for crime fighting, but everything for the totalitarians.  Universal background checks aren’t about crime.  They’re about state control, and the state does indeed want to control you – every aspect of your life.

So let’s put this in context.  Let’s say that gun rights writer, advocate and reliable journalist and friend David Codrea wrote me and said, “I’ve decided that I am going to support universal background checks, and I think I can talk everyone else of our ilk into the same idea.”

Well, David would still be my buddy, but I would speed up my loosely planned meetup at his place for liquor and cigars over a fire pit, where I would get him loosened up and then say, “So brother David, what gives, and can I persuade you to see it otherwise?  Let’s talk.”

My belief system is what the philosophers call “incorrigible.”  I cannot be changed.  That means that I won’t ever change my mind.  And that, dear reader, means that the NRA will never, never be alone in advocating for freedom and against tyranny, even if I’m the last one on earth who opposes universal background checks.

The commentator is wrong, and one of their favorite tactics is to make you think that, “Hey, everyone else thinks I’m an unsophisticated redneck, so maybe I am.  Maybe I should reevaluate my positions.”  They think that will suffice to persuade you to change your mind.  Everyone else is doing it, so it must be okay.

I repeat.  If I am the last person on earth to oppose universal background checks, I will never, ever, ever change my mind.  To my liberty loving readers: you are not alone.

UPDATE: It looks like Kurt and I were thinking along the same lines last night (Although sometimes I have to wonder about Kurt and if he’s just doing all of this for the largesse – David has written before about the huge money and free beer that Kurt gets for writing for Examiner.  Must have been a note, since I cannot find it in David’s posts).

David  Codrea:

NFL rule bans off-duty cops from bringing guns into FirstEnergy Stadium,” Brandon Blackwell reported Friday on Cleveland.com. “A new NFL policy will keep off-duty cops from taking guns into FirstEnergy Stadium, according to an internal Cleveland police memo.

“The rule, which police said took effect Sept. 11, applies to all NFL facilities and all off-duty federal, state and local law enforcement officers,” Blackwell explained, adding “Off-duty officers who attempt to bring firearms into an NFL facility will be denied entry.”

I wonder if that’s all they’d do to a mere citizen. Still, Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association head Jeff Follmer does not like the change one bit.

Yea.  I’m sure the “only ones” don’t like it.  I took a similar position over at reddit/guns when it came clear that retiring California LEOs wanted to keep their issued “assault weapons” even after the ban.

No, no, and a thousand times no!  It doesn’t work this way.  So there is some utility in so-called assault weapons having nothing whatsoever to do with the official duties of being a law enforcement officer (such as home defense), or the retired LEOs wouldn’t want to keep them.

The collectivists at reddit were aghast at my position.  But this issue about the oath not expiring when the officer isn’t on duty is a crock.  Don’t buy it – not for a single second.

I’ll tell you what.  You go and compare the oath that a law enforcement officer takes with the one taken by men to protect and defend their families, and then tell me that we shouldn’t also be allowed to carry weapons into large gatherings if off duty cops are allowed to carry.

Hey, also think of that issue in terms of active duty officers who are pulling security for the game itself, and then you may have something.  One takes an oath, the other takes an oath.

Read the rest at Examiner.

First, there is this from The Gazette:

Hunters who threatened to boycott Colorado if gun control legislation was approved may have been shooting blanks.

Indeed, so far, numbers are up about 4 percent on draws and sales of leftover licenses have been on target with expectations, said Randy Hampton, spokesman for Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

Actual numbers, however, won’t be available until about mid-November, he cautioned.

“The majority of non-resident hunting occurs during our second or third rifle seasons,” Hampton said.

The second season runs from Oct. 19-27 and the third season runs from Nov. 2-10.

The biggest negative impact on license sales may come from flooding in northeastern Colorado.

Then there is this from Red State, albeit a couple of months ago:

The recent gun control measures approved in Colorado have already taken a toll on local individuals, businesses, and  communities throughout the state. Those who work in the outdoor recreation industry, along with entire towns and counties that center around hunting and fishing, have been the first to experience the real economic effect of the new firearm regulations.

Tom Bowers is an outdoor recreation guide and the owner of Colorado’s High Lonesome Outfitter & Guides located in Yampa. Bowers shared with Media Trackers Colorado how the new gun legislation has already affected his business.

“Many of my hunting, fishing, horseback riding, and rafting clients are choosing to recreate in other states because of the new laws. Before the [gun control] legislation passed I got 15-30 calls from potential clients a day, now I get less than 5.”

Eric Layman with Western Colorado Outfitters in Montrose experienced the same drop off in business bookings, reservations, and correspondence as Bowers.

In a normal year, Bowers and his High Lonesome Outfitters guide between 35 and 40 big game hunters. This year, he said he would be lucky to get 20-25. One big game client, whom he has served as a guide for 15 years, told Bowers that he will not be rebooking or coming back to Colorado. Bowers recalled the conversation with the client, who told him: “It is not because of you, it is because of your Governor. I am not giving any money to that state”.

Bowers’ clients who booked before the new laws still plan to come this season, but many of them have told him it will be the last time they come to Colorado for any kind of outdoor recreation, even beyond hunting.

As such, Bower’s losses are not limited to hunting, as he attests to the fact that many of the fisherman and rafters he guides will no longer be returning to Colorado to recreate either.  He explained:  “Now we are a gun control state. My type of clients think if they come to the state of Colorado they are going to be violating gun laws.”

Layman, from Western Colorado Outfitters, echoed the fact that the boycott is spreading far beyond the hunting crowd, saying that while “the hunter forums show comments indicating that the boycott is in full effect, even summer visitors and skiers are joining in.”

I wouldn’t otherwise even bring this up, except that the Gazette article comes off as so snarky, superior and insulting that it caught my attention.

It might be difficult to tell at this stage of the season, but I would appreciate any input from readers (in the comments or send me an e-mail) with either anecdotal evidence or statistical information concerning the boycott.

Reason:

California Gov. Jerry Brown will soon decide whether to sign a bill that expands his state’s “assault weapon” ban to cover any centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine. That’s a very broad category, the National Rifle Association notes, since “millions of semi-automatic rifles have magazines that can be removed with the push of a button,” including “classic hunting rifles like the Remington Woodsmaster, Browning BAR, and the Ruger 99/44, among many others.” The actual language of the bill, S.B. 374, refers rather confusingly to “a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds.” The NRA argues that the bill’s definition of a fixed magazine—”an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action”—is ambiguous, since “‘disassembly of the firearm action’ is undefined and nobody (least of all the legislators who voted for it) knows what it means, or for that matter even what a firearm ‘action’ actually is.” But the intended target seems to be any rifle with a detachable magazine that fires rounds of a caliber bigger than .22 (generally the upper limit these days for cheaper, flimsier rimfire cartridges). Hence Fox News says the bill “exempts .22-caliber rim fire rifles,” although the legislation does not directly address caliber.

The author, Jacob Sullum, isn’t kidding.  Read the sentence lifted directly out of the bill.

A semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds.

They’ve put a double-negative into the sentence.  What this sentence means is anyone’s guess, and yours is as good as mine.  Farther into the bill, they’ve outlawed pistol grips on shotguns.

But back to the issue of hunting rifles, presumably (since the bill is a mass of confusion and no one knows for sure), bolt action rifles are “assault weapons” if they have a detachable magazine (and some do).

Hey.  No one said totalitarians were smart people.  They’re just control freaks.

Kurt Hofmann:

Indeed, Mr. Gelman, by all means, re-brand the position of forcible citizen disarmament advocates as a demand for “no guns.” Boldly acknowledge what the gun ban groups no longer dare admit.

Kurt deals with a writer who advocates the complete ban on guns.  The Washington Times carried something similar (one wonders if these kooks plan their attacks or if this is just happenstance).

Why don’t we just take guns out of the picture entirely?

Why don’t we just halt the possession, manufacture and importation of firearms altogether? But not just for civilians, for everyone.

The writer goes on to advocate the absence of firearms for the police, armed forces and  all hunters.  The police won’t need firearms if the public doesn’t have any.  The armed forces won’t have to repel invasions – we haven’t had to do that for hundreds of years.  Hunters will learn to use bows.

Forget the Pollyanna universe in which this pitiful soul lives, the one in which he can remove all sin by removing machines from our lives.  We would need to ban assault hammers too.

One paragraph sticks out and bears debunking for readers.

Using the term “high powered” rifle is also ineffective and incorrect. The “high powered assault rifles” are mainly 5.56×45 chambered weapons, which is a round designed by NATO to allow for low recoil, making soldiering easier for smaller framed individuals in NATO allied militaries to wield the rifles. These weapons were designed to wound so that other enemy soldiers would be forced to tend to their fallen comrades, effectively taking them out of the fighting.

There are so many problems with this paragraph I don’t know where to begin.  First of all, I don’t own an assault rifle because mine doesn’t have selective fire.  Second, we are led to believe that we use the 5.56 mm because of the “little people.”  This is so absurd as to be laughable.

The point of the cartridge is moderate recoil which makes it easier to obtain proper sight picture for the next round, especially with selective fire weapons.  Finally, as we have discussed before, the 5.56 mm round yaws in flight, shattering upon impact to leave multiple wound tracks.  To say that the intent was to wound rather than kill is patently false and silly.

When gun grabbers attempt to discuss guns they look silly and sophomoric because they don’t know what they’re talking about.  But it’s nice to have some honesty.  As we’ve also seen, an outright gun ban and confiscation is what the folks at Daily Kos want as well.

UPDATE: Kurt points out that the Washington Times piece was parody.  Very good parody.

The New Yorker:

Two more thoughts about gun control: one practical and immediate, the other more abstract and academic, though with a practical fork in its tail. The practical comes from a recent discussion with my father, about, of all things, shooting raccoons. The Gopnik family seat, such as it is, is nowhere near Manhattan, Upper West or East Side, but rather a farm in remote rural Ontario, where my parents live surrounded by crops, animals, and pests—and indeed by farmers who need and use rifles. When I was talking to my father there last weekend, we discussed a recent raccoon infestation, and how he had called on a neighbor with a rifle to hightail it over to shoot the five unfortunate masked marauders beneath the back porch. (My dad buried them afterward, further proof that English professors can be eminently practical people.) My dad is actually a pretty good shot, and could have done it himself—but he had not finished the paperwork for his gun.

What onerous tasks are involved in getting a gun for the necessary work of rural life in Canada? Well, you have to do that paperwork, fill out an application for a license, take a gun-safety course, and then you have your raccoon-shootin’ rifle for the grim work of keeping off pests. (There are some other “controls”; if you have a longstanding dispute, for instance, your spouse is informed.) Does anything in this interfere with the liberty of the individual or the exigencies of rural life? No one disputes that there are sane reasons for ordinary people to need a rifle. But there is no imaginable, meaningful sense in which Canadians, or Australians, are “less free” when it comes to guns because they have to take a safety course before they use one. People who really need guns—and many, my folks among them, do—can get them and use them safely, while there are hedgerows, so to speak, against impulsive purchases or unsafe or frankly homicidal use.

What we can learn from Canada is how to legislate common sense without violating anyone’s liberty—unless you imagine that anyone’s liberty depends on having as many weapons as he wants whenever he wants them.

Why yes, Adam, and I don’t have to imagine it.  I should be able to have as many weapons as I want, whenever I want – and I should add, whatever kind I want.  It goes hand in hand with my liberty.  My liberty also includes things like not having the federal government collect my wages by the power of a badge and gun, not having to disperse my hard-earned wealth to those who don’t work, not bailing out fat cats and corrupt cities, not having my e-mails and phone coversations reviewed by government employees, and not having my medical care dictated to me by government bureaucrats.

Justice Stevens and I don’t see eye to eye.

Justice Stevens, in his eloquent, essential dissent in the Supreme Court’s “Heller” case, shows that the history of the Second Amendment “makes abundantly clear that the Amendment should not be interpreted as limiting the authority of Congress to regulate the use or possession of firearms for purely civilian purposes.”

Adam, you think this dissent is essential because you’re a totalitarian, and I’m not.  Progressives are totalitarians, each and every one of you.  You and he can twist words that read “shall not be infringed” and turn it into “may be infringed at any time and in any way because we want to.”  Stevens and you are liars, Adam.  At the root of things, you’ve just dishonest.  And that bit about “purely civilian purposes” is important.  In order to be consistent, Stevens would have to say that Congress does not in fact have the authority to regulate weapons not for civilian use.  There is no check on the executive under his schema.

Do you understand this essential point, Adam?