Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

NBC:

The U.S. Park Police, the law enforcement agency responsible for safeguarding the National Mall and critical American landmarks, has lost track of a large supply of handguns, rifles and shotguns, according to a harshly critical report issued Thursday.

In the report, the Inspector General’s Office of the Department of Interior faults staff at the agency for having no idea how many weapons they control and says the department has no clear policies or procedures for investigating missing weapons. The office says top managers, including the police chief, have shown a “lackadaisical attitude toward firearms management.”

While surveying Park Police field office armories, investigators found more than 1,400 extra and unassigned weapons that were intended to be destroyed. They also found 198 handguns that were transferred from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and stored in an operations facility firearms room without being recorded in an inventory system.

There are also instances of officers storing service weapons at their homes, according to the report.

“We found credible evidence of conditions that would allow for theft and misuse of firearms, and the ability to conceal the fact if weapons were missing,” deputy inspector general Mary Kendall wrote to Jonathan Jarvis, the director of the National Park Service, in a letter that accompanies the report.

I’ve said before that I could be blindfolded and allowed to start at my door, and I could walk to every one of my guns in the house, put my hands on each of them, and tell you whether a round is chambered before I ever get there.  If you cannot do that, then you shouldn’t have guns.  It’s sort of like knowing where your medications are, whether the stove is on, or whether your doors are locked.

The only gun control I support is knowing everything about your guns, including how many you have.  This is the most basic of all responsibilities, and if the federal government cannot do this then they should be treated like children and shouldn’t have any guns.  In fact, given their history and tendency towards totalitarianism, maybe they shouldn’t have guns anyway.

Slate:

Handguns are the problem. Despite being outnumbered by long guns, “Handguns are used in more than 87 percent of violent crimes,” the report notes. In 2011, “handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents.” Why do criminals prefer handguns? One reason, according to surveys of felons, is that they’re “easily concealable.”

Mass shootings aren’t the problem. “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths,” says the report. “Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” Compare that with the 335,000 gun deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.

The author, William Saletan, stops short of calling for confiscation, but does want the CDC empowered to collect and analyze more information about gun owners, as well as heavier court involvement in the process of owning guns.  But on the whole, the author does better than many articles concerning at least feigning neutrality.

Communist China does not.

During the dispute, Fan grabbed a tool and bludgeoned his colleague to death. Fan then returned to the factory’s staff dormitory where he had stashed a hunting gun, retrieved the weapon and fled to Shanghai’s Pudong area in an illegal taxi. Fan then killed the vehicle’s driver and used the vehicle to drive back to Baoshan, where the factory is located, killing a soldier in front of a military unit’s barracks and thus obtaining an additional gun. With both weapons, Fan made his way back to the factory and killed another three employees, including the factory’s supervisor, before being subdued by a police officer who was patrolling the area. Four other people were shot and sustained injuries.

Gun control laws in China are some of the strictest in the world, making it difficult for most civilians to legally own firearms.  According to the South China Morning Post, an emergency meeting was held on Sunday by the Ministry of Public Security, which said it was planning to launch a more comprehensive campaign on gun management across the country.

Gun control is what communists do.  They do it reflexively, and it isn’t so much a response to violent incidents as it is refusing to let a crisis go to waste.  It’s all about ensuring a government monopoly on violence.

It’s the same for the very strange Richard Nixon, who, according to reports, was very anti-gun.

“I don’t know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house,” Nixon said in a taped conversation with aides. “The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth.” He asked why “can’t we go after handguns, period?”

Nixon went on: “I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it.” But “people should not have handguns.” He laced his comments with obscenities, as was typical.

Of course, Nixon didn’t seek to disarm his security staff, just the common folk.  As we’ve discussed before, it’s what the progressives (like the folks at Daily Kos) really want.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it.  The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.

Back to the Slate article, the author advocates a continuation of the national conversation on guns.  So be it.  But I think this has been a valuable installment.  Slate admitted that mass killings, while a media event, aren’t the “real problem” with guns.  The “real problem” is ownership of handguns at all.

Or in other words, gun control – making laws that only upstanding citizens obey – is the solution of all good social planners to ameliorate the sinfulness of mankind.  It’s what the communists do.

And the horrible Richard Nixon, a statist by nature, advocated exactly the same thing.  Concerning the recent gun control efforts, Senators Manchin and Toomey have seen the “bottom fall out of their approval ratings.”  We ate them for lunch.  It’s always a good palate cleanser to see progressives confess to the truth that in spite of the posturing, it was really all about government control.

I think that the court jester is lying when he says that there are five Senators who want to change their vote on guns.  But if he can round them up, we’ll eat them for dinner.  As for the continued national conversation, bring it.  But I know your real intentions, and I’ll keep my guns.

Politico:

Vice President Joe Biden said Friday that “at least five senators” have called him looking for a way to change their votes to support expanded background checks.

Speaking to the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Las Vegas, Biden said the 45 senators who voted to block the background checks deal brokered by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) have seen “the bottom fall out” of their approval ratings.

Biden said, as he did Tuesday during a gun violence event at the White House, that he has been fielding calls from senators interested in signing on to some kind of gun control measure. On Friday he offered slightly more specific detail about the number of senators and the difficult path ahead for gun control legislation.

“I’ve had at least five senators call me and say, ‘Can’t we do something about this?’” Biden said. “The calculus has changed, and so we’re in an effort to try to work out how we can provide another opportunity for those who voted no to change their vote. We all know that’s the hardest thing in politics, to change your vote. That’s why we’ve got to get a rationale, another reason why this could be done by changing the specifics of the legislation.”

Biden hasn’t conveyed which senators he’s spoken with or how the background checks bill might be altered.

Just like myth that 90% or more of all Americans wanted the Senate to enact more gun laws, this is the latest make-believe story.  The fairy tale du jour is that five Senators want to change their vote on gun control and see “the bottom fall out of their approval ratings.”

Here’s what I think.  The court jester is becoming increasingly delusional.  There aren’t five Senators who want to change their vote, and Biden never fielded any such phone call.

The Kansas City Star:

Some 30,000 people in the U.S. die each year by gunshot, and one reason there aren’t more effective efforts to stop the carnage is that “the faith community has been asleep — fast asleep,” says a pastor who has worked for decades to reduce gun violence.

PTR Industries released a statement not long ago that read in part:

With a heavy heart but a clear mind, we have been forced to decide that our business can no longer survive in Connecticut – the former Constitution state.

Furthermore, we feel that our industry as a whole will continue to be threatened so long as it remains in a state where its elected leaders have no regard for the rights of those who produce and manufacture its wealth. We are making a call to all involved in our industry to leave this state, close your doors and show our politicians the true consequences of their hasty and uninformed actions. We encourage those in our industry to abandon this state as its leaders have abandoned the proud heritage that forged our freedom.

This is a strong statement, and pertains not only to what PTR Industries intends to do with their own business, but their admonition to other manufacturers in Connecticut (are you listening, Colt and Mossberg?).  But now we know where they are headed.

Via David Codrea, N.C. Sheriffs on purchasing weapons:

The North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association (NCSA) is pressuring both House Speaker Thom Tillis (R, Mecklenburg, GRNC ****)  and NC Governor Pat McCrory (R, GRNC-***) to oppose GRNC’s repeal of the antiquated pistol purchase permit system that has been in place since 1919. As part of omnibus gun bill HB 937, which contains restaurant and limited campus carry, the purchase permit law would be repealed IF the House votes to concur with Senate improvements to the bill and IF Gov. McCrory doesn’t veto it.

The purchase permit law slated for elimination through HB 937 was designed to grant discriminatory power to NC Sheriffs and enable them to subjectively deny handguns whoever they consider “undesirable.” To this day, several counties abuse the permit system in ways that make it difficult for law-abiding citizens to rightfully obtain handguns.

Ironically, as documented by The Charlotte Observer, the law sheriffs defend is  letting untold numbers of felons bypass background checks to buy guns. Why? Because the untrackable slips of paper issued by sheriffs after background checks can’t be repealed and are good for 5 years. Eliminating the system would mean that checks using the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) would be done at the point of sale.

I don’t want to turn this conversation into one on open carry of firearms, but it’s relevant.  I’ve discussed before that I openly carry a weapon from time to time, mostly when I am trying to avoid sweating my weapon and don’t want to carry IWB.  The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police respect that choice, and smile and wave when they see me.

But it isn’t like that everywhere.  Even the CMPD has to be reminded of our rights.

Sean Sorrentino notes an instance where the 4th Circuit had to reprimand the Charlotte Police for using openly carrying a weapon as a reason to stop an individual, even someone who later turned out to have been guilty of a crime.  Even worse, I know individuals who live around the Lake Norman / Huntersville area (North of Charlotte) who openly carry, and one particular individual has been stopped by both local and state police.  Both times the law enforcement officer unholstered his weapon and pointed at my friend for doing nothing more than walking on the sidewalk.

Note to law enforcement in North Carolina.  The answer above by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police (“not breaking any laws …”) is the right one.  You cannot lawfully detain or arrest someone for openly carrying a weapon.  It is legal in North Carolina, as North Carolina is a traditional open carry state.  LEOs need to know and understand the law.  If you continue to unholster and point your weapons at someone who is behaving legally, an innocent person will eventually be harmed or killed and you will be responsible for it.  Don’t be ignorant.  Be thinking men and women.

Isn’t it ironic that the only ones who want final say over who can carry a weapon are some of the very ones who will unholster their weapons and point them at law abiding citizens?  I would be arrested and charged with brandishing a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon (assault can mean perceived intent), and a host of other things if I did that.  But then again, I don’t get to argue in front of the court that I wanted to make sure that I “went home at the end of the day.”  Only LEOs get to do that.

Local LEO approval of firearms purchases is a throwback to Jim Crow laws, plain and simple.  Their approval does nothing that form 4473 doesn’t accomplish.  And LEOs who point their weapons at law abiding open carriers should be prosecuted for crimes in court.

Ms. Magazine:

My hands are shaking; my adrenaline is surging.

No, it’s not from the latte I just inhaled or because this is the first time in two years I’ve been in a Starbucks since declaring a boycott on its open-carry gun policy.

What’s got me jittery this morning is the 9mm Glock that’s holstered on my hip. Me, lead gun policy protester at the 2010 Starbuck’s shareholder meeting. Me, a board member of the Brady Campaign. Me, the author of a book about the impact of gun violence, Beyond the Bullet.

Yes, I bought a handgun and will carry it everywhere I go over the next 30 days. I have four rules: Carry it with me at all times, follow the laws of my state, only do what is minimally required for permits, licensing, purchasing and carrying, and finally be prepared to use it for protecting myself at home or in public.

[ … ]

It was obvious from the way I handled the gun that I knew nothing about firearms. Tony sold it to me anyway. The whole thing took 7 minutes. As a gratified consumer, I thought, “Well, that was easy.” Then the terrifying reality hit me, “Holy hell, that was EASY.”  Too easy. I still knew nothing about firearms.

Tony told me a Glock doesn’t have an external safety feature, so when I got home and opened the box and saw the magazine in the gun I freaked. I was too scared to try and eject it as thoughts flooded my mind of me accidentally shooting the gun and a bullet hitting my son in the house or rupturing the gas tank of my car, followed by an earth-shaking explosion. This was the first time my hands shook from the adrenaline surge and the first time I questioned the wisdom of this 30-day experiment.

I needed help. I drove to where a police officer had pulled over another driver. Now, writing this, I realize that rolling up on an on-duty cop with a handgun in tow might not have been fully thought through.

I told him I just bought a gun, had no clue how to use it. I asked him to make sure there were no bullets in the magazine or chamber. He took the magazine out and cleared the chamber. He assured me it was empty and showed me how to look. Then he told me how great the gun was and how he had one just like it.

The cop thought I was an idiot and suggested I take a class. But up to that point I’d done nothing wrong, nothing illegal.

On the contrary.  She’s done everything wrong, from refusing to get adequate training on her firearm and the laws of her state, to asking a cop about anything.

The drama is exhausting and breathtaking.  But the thing that really worries me isn’t that she has a gun.  It’s that bimbos like this can purchase an SUV the size and weight of my Ford F150 and drive it down the road with screaming kids in the back whilst jabbering on the cell phone attached to her ear, after qualifying with a driving test that a monkey could be trained to take.

Makes you stop and ponder, no?  It’s one reason I drive so defensively on the road nowadays.

ABC News, Denver:

GREELEY, Colo. – Weld County commissioners have voted to unanimously to approve an ordinance restricting the creation of local gun control measures.

The County Commissioners object to gun control measures passed during the most recent legislative session and signed into law by the Governor. Among other things, the new laws limit the amount of ammunition in magazines, adds a background check requirement for private sales, creates a fee for background checks and requires concealed carry permit classes be taken in person.

Although the county commissioners can’t override state law, all five commissioners voted to approve an ordinance that prevents the county from further restricting gun rights. The protections in Weld County Code Ordinance 2013-4 establish tit for tat protections directly opposed to the new state laws.

“What we did today was take the strongest action legally according to our county attorney that we could take,” said Commissioner Sean Conway. “I think it’s a start. I think it tells our citizens that this board is very concerned with the action that was undertaken by the legislature and was signed into law.”

The article is a little short on details, but it would be nice if they would disavow any lawsuit and focus not on what they can’t do, but what they can do.  They can dispatch the local sheriff to prohibit enforcement of the new state law and let the chips fall where they may.

ABC News:

Connecticut lawmakers who passed strict new gun control measures in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre approved a package of revisions Monday to reduce confusion about the new rules and expand the list of officials who can legally possess restricted firearms.

Both chambers of the state legislature voted to adopt changes and exemptions to the bipartisan deal that strengthened the state’s assault weapons ban and banned the sale of high-capacity magazines.

The legislation emerged from a bipartisan working group that sought to refine the original gun control bill, which proponents hailed as one of the most far-reaching in the nation, in response to ambiguity that came to light in part through feedback from constituents and gun owners. A spokesman for Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said he supports the changes.

The new bill allows individuals to possess and register assault weapons they purchased or placed on consignment prior to or on April 4, the day the gun control law was passed, but did not receive until after that date.

The bill also clarifies the status of .22-caliber rimfire rifles, defining them as assault weapons when fitted with a detachable magazine and more than one of several features including a folding or telescoping stock, bayonet mount or flash suppressor. With passage of Monday’s revisions, the firearm so constructed will no longer be available for sale in Connecticut, but consumers who purchased it since April 4 will be allowed to register and keep it.

The revisions expand the list of inspectors and enforcement officers who can legally possess and purchase the banned firearms to include sworn and certified officers at the department of motor vehicles, the chief state’s attorney office, the department of energy and environmental protection and some constables with police certification. It exempts such officers from the certificate requirement for long gun ownership, and allows them to maintain possession of assault weapons and large capacity magazines after their service ends by registering them.

Like the State Department of Energy or EPA needs weapons!  So it looks like this bill expands the list of state employees and former state employees who can own banned weapons, and then puts .22LR rifles in the same category if they have scary features.

Hey.  It’s Connecticut.  What do you expect?  I hope the state of Connecticut fails as badly as I hope that the state of Colorado fails.  Utterly and completely.  There is no better or surer teacher than consequences.

Denver Post:

In time, President Barack Obama and Gov. John Hickenlooper may be considered the greatest gun salesmen since Remington and Winchester. And, in turn, they could be viewed as colossal contributors to federal and state habitat and wildlife programs.

According to a Congressional Research Service report published this spring by natural resource and economic policy specialists M. Lynne Corn and Jane G. Gravelle, fears spurred from “recent debate over guns, gun rights and gun-related violence” have generated a spike in sales of guns and ammunition. As a result, the federal excise tax known as the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, which funds state projects to benefit wildlife resources and hunter education, reached a record $555.3 million in fiscal year 2012, an increase of 43 percent over the $388 million generated the year before.

“With reports of surges in gun sales due to current controversies over guns rights and gun-related violence, substantially more funds seem likely to be available in FY2014,” the report states.

Funny enough, the previous single-year record for the excise tax placed on guns, ammunition and archery equipment was $474 million in 2009-10, which was credited primarily to Obama’s first election.

There is a poetic justice, from the wildlife management perspective, in record funds appropriated to our state in the face of a threatened boycott of hunting in Colorado this fall in protest of gun control laws recently signed by the governor. Even after accounting for a 5 percent federal cut because of sequestration, Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s slice of the Pittman-Robertson pie will bump up from $9.3 million in 2012 to $13.1 million in 2013.

Although any impact of a boycott isn’t likely to be known before next year, the current gush in gun and ammunition sales offers promising compensation for any loss of income from licenses. It is important to recognize, though, that Pittman-Robertson funds must be used specifically for projects benefiting wildlife resources and hunter education programs.

This is a fascinating analysis on multiple levels.  To the author, it’s “poetic justice” that Colorado would benefit from the gun laws and boycott.  But only someone who thinks this way would even consider equating justice and economic benefit with revenues to the government for hunter education programs and one department’s slice of the pie versus other departments.

To be sure, there are many small businesses who will suffer in the wake of the boycott, which is more far reaching that the author admits or perhaps even knows.  Additionally, people are purchasing guns for reasons that the author would find troublesome rather than for hunting.

But time and change will serve to educate both the author of this analysis and the authors of the new gun laws.  I am double minded concerning the courtroom challenges to the Colorado gun laws.  On the one hand I want them to succeed, and on the other hand I want Colorado to fail in the wake movement towards totalitarianism.  I am not saying that I want Colorado gun laws to fail – I am saying that I want Colorado to fail.  There is no better or surer teacher than consequences.