Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

The Daily Beast:

If you were told a Republican has a 30-point lead in one of the two states that hold off-year gubernatorial elections, in the past you would have guessed Virginia, seat of the old confederacy, certainly not New Jersey. But the politics have flipped. Republican Chris Christie is cruising to victory in the blue state of New Jersey, and Democrat Terry McAuliffe has a big lead in Virginia, topping a ticket that could sweep enough Democrats into elective office to install a Democratic attorney general for the first time in decades and break the GOP’s lock on the Virginia General Assembly.

I’m not so sure, and the author may be whistling through the grave yard.  But continuing:

Seeing opportunity in this once red state on the issue New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg cares most about, gun safety, his Independence USA super PAC, which he founded last year, contributed some $2 million to McAuliffe’s campaign and to the Virginia Democratic caucus overseeing state legislative races. On Tuesday—just seven days before Election Day— Independence USA directed another $1 million into the race for attorney general, where Democrat Mark Herring has a real chance to defeat Republican Mark Obenshain. As a state senator, Obenshain voted to repeal the one-handgun-a-month law and to allow guns in bars and daycare centers. He also supports the bulk purchase of guns and opposes closing the gun show loophole.

If McAuliffe wins, as the polls indicate, he will break a long-standing curse that whatever party holds the White House loses the governor’s race in Virginia. And he will buoy hopes among Democrats that Virginia is reliably purple, if not blue, in the 2016 presidential election.

Seeing opportunity in this once red state on the issue New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg cares most about, gun safety, his Independence USA super PAC, which he founded last year, contributed some $2 million to McAuliffe’s campaign and to the Virginia Democratic caucus overseeing state legislative races. On Tuesday—just seven days before Election Day— Independence USA directed another $1 million into the race for attorney general, where Democrat Mark Herring has a real chance to defeat Republican Mark Obenshain. As a state senator, Obenshain voted to repeal the one-handgun-a-month law and to allow guns in bars and daycare centers. He also supports the bulk purchase of guns and opposes closing the gun show loophole.

If McAuliffe wins, as the polls indicate, he will break a long-standing curse that whatever party holds the White House loses the governor’s race in Virginia. And he will buoy hopes among Democrats that Virginia is reliably purple, if not blue, in the 2016 presidential election … The top three statewide candidates for the GOP are walking billboards for extremism, which gave McAuliffe plenty of running room, even among more rural voters, to the point where he could be more assertive on issues of gun safety than anyone had previously dared, calling for expanded background checks and limits on the size of gun magazines.

For my readers in Virginia, this is awesome.  This is where it’s at.  The fight is on your doorstep, and you must repel the invasion and take it to the enemy.  The State is where the battles for our liberty should be waged, and if you lose I don’t want to hear any bullshit excuses and plans for taking your loss of gun rights before the totalitarian federal court system and whining about the second amendment.

I don’t intend to sound unsympathetic or mean spirited, but if your state elects the ass-clown Terry McAuliffe to the office of Governor, you deserve everything you get.  Again, I’m sorry, but win or move.  The battle lines are drawn, and the federal leviathan will not help you maintain your rights.

Win the battles or move from Virginia and take everything with you when you go.

As readers know I’m usually bored with polls.  But The Washington Post had an interesting piece entitled The Start Divide Over Gun Laws – In Two Charts.

The best way to describe Americans’ overall attitude to current gun laws? One word — split.

A new Gallup poll shows that nearly half of adults say laws concerning guns sales should be tightened, while 50 percent say they should be unaltered or loosened.

Wait.  You mean all that stuff about 90%+ of all people wanting universal background checks was all just horse shit?  You mean they were just making that up because they know the GOP just sticks its fingers into the air to see which way the wind is blowing rather than make laws based on principle?  You mean the collectivists can’t be trusted?

Gosh.  It seems that someone should have said something about that before now.

Science Daily:

A string of public mass shootings during the past decade-plus have rocked America leaving policymakers and mental health experts alike fishing for solutions to prevent these heinous crimes. A Mayo Clinic physician, however, argues that at least one proposal won’t stop the public massacres: restricting gun access to the mentally ill. J. Michael Bostwick, M.D., a Mayo Clinic psychiatrist and author of the editorial published online in Mayo Clinic Proceedings today, argues several points including that mass shootings are carefully planned — often spanning weeks or months. There is plenty of time for a meticulous planner and determined killer to get a gun somewhere in that time, he argues.

Dr. Bostwick’s editorial is a commentary on an essay in the same issue of Proceedings titled “Guns, Schools, and Mental Illness: Potential Concerns for Physicians and Mental Health Professionals.” The authors focus on recent mass shootings and argue that these actions were not and could not have been prevented by more restrictive gun legislation. They further contend that a diagnosis of mental illness does not justify stripping Second Amendment rights from all who carry such a diagnosis, most of whom will never commit violent acts toward others.

Before reading the essay Dr. Bostwick — who is generally in favor of gun control — expected to disagree with its contents. Instead, he agreed.

“We physicians generally do not know enough about firearms to have an informed conversation with our patients, let alone counsel them about gun safety,” says Dr. Bostwick. “We also tend to ignore the reality that as long as the Second Amendment is the law of the land, the right to bear arms and therefore personal gun ownership, whether of long guns for hunting or handguns for personal protection, will be an integral part of the American scene.”

A few points Dr. Bostwick argues:

• Even if every mentally ill person in the country were registered, the system isn’t prepared to handle them — and only about half of the states require registration.
• Only about 10 percent of mentally ill people are registered — and these are people who have been committed, they’ve come to attention in a way that requires court intervention
• Literature says the vast majority of people who do these kinds of shootings are not mentally ill — or it is recognized after the fact
• The majority of mentally ill people aren’t dangerous
• Mentally ill people in a country with gun rights, still have rights.

So let’s see.  Mental illness isn’t a very good predictor of propensity to violence, especially mass violence.  Even if it were, doctors cannot diagnose it well enough to intrude on the rights of others.  Their record is comparatively poor.  Mental illness isn’t the hallmark of said actions – rather, it is pre-meditation and planning.

This seems rather important.  Someone should have talked about this before.  No, really.  I mean it.  I really mean it.

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.