Archive for the 'Guns' Category

The Raw Story:

It is a sad fact of life that, in this world that the NRA has made, nothing brings out the hot gun lovin’ like a tragic shooting that happens to someone else at a good safe distance.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, while most American parents were pulling their kids a little bit closer and holding them a little bit tighter, NRA gun nuts reached for the closest AR-15 at hand, and stroked the barrel in an almost erotic fashion while softly murmuring, “Don’t worry baby, I’ll take care of you. Nobody will ever come between us.  I love you.”

Then this writer shows his disapproval for Pat Dollard (I like Pat), Katie Pavlich and Dana Loesch.  Then he gets all effeminate and offended over having his twitter posts blocked.  Goodness.  It got too emotional for me and I had to stop reading.  But I just have one question for this idiot writer.  Who’s he accusing of softly murmuring?

Politico:

Sports broadcaster Bob Costas is not backing down in the face of criticism for his outspoken advocacy of gun control. In fact, he’s challenging his critics to a bet.

Costas was asked about the controversial political positions he has taken on the air, including gun control, in an interview with “Late Night” host Seth Meyers, and said it’s very much an issue in sports that deserves to be talked about.

“Here’s what I would say to anybody who any time they hear the word guns automatically goes off, like, ‘Oh, they’re going to repeal the Second Amendment,’” Costas said. “Let’s make a bet, you and me. Let’s say over the next five years we’ll do a Google search. We’ll have an independent party monitor it. You keep track of how many good and constructive things are associated with athletes having a gun, and I’ll keep track of all the tragedies and criminality and folly. And let’s see who comes out ahead or behind as the case may be.”

Costas said regardless of Americans’ positions on gun control generally, it’s undeniable that sports has a “gun culture.”

“Sports has a gun culture.”  Well so does the South, Bob, and I can say that because I live here.  Why, just a few minutes ago I was shopping online at Hyatt Gun Shop (2330 hours) and more than 5000 people were online doing the same thing.  We don’t run around shooting each other like you seem to think athletes do.  What I think you’re really saying is that professional athletes can’t be trusted, and that makes you a racist.

Herald-Tribune:

In testimony Monday before a Senate committee in Tallahassee, Electra Bustle, lobbyist for the Florida Sheriff’s Association, clarified earlier remarks she made on behalf of her client, stating that the sheriffs realize Floridians have both a right to keep and to bear arms.

“The sheriffs in Florida support the Second Amendment, and we encourage law abiding citizens to take full advantage of their right to keep and bear arms.  I wanna take just a few minutes to clarify some remarks I made in the House committee,” Bustle said. “I tried to make a distinction between the right to own and bear firearms, and distinguish that from a concealed weapons permit, and unfortunately I used words that created a sound byte that now has muddied up the water.”

Bustle’s comments were made before the Senate Military Affairs, Space and Domestic Security Committee, which debated and then passed SB 296, a bill that allows Floridians to carry firearms during a declared emergency and mandatory evacuation.

In previous testimony before the House committee, Bustle told the lawmakers that “there is a difference between owning a firearm and carrying one concealed on your person. Owning a firearm is a right. Carrying concealed is a privilege, and it is a privilege that is earned by showing a higher degree of training and proficiency with a firearm.”

Bustle’s previous comments set off a firestorm of controversy, especially amongst the state’s 7 million gun owners.

“The only thing I was trying to say in the House committee, was there is a distinction in Florida,” Bustle said Monday. “We absolutely have the right, and the sheriff’s support the right, to own and carry firearms, but in Florida, we are a concealed weapons licensed state, and as a result there are certain eligibility requirements required of people who want to carry concealed.”

This is rich.  So she said that there is a distinction between the right to bear arms and the privilege to carry them with you based on approval by the CLEO.  Then in order to “clarify” her wording, she said, there is a distinction between the right to bear arms and the privilege to carry them with you based on approval by the CLEO.  There’s nothing like muddying the waters and then repeating yourself thus muddying the waters.

Here’s the deal.  The waters aren’t muddied.  She said what the CLEOs think, and they think what she said.  She didn’t make a mistake either time.  The CLEOs continue to believe that they are “the only ones,” that special fraternity approved to be in charge of others.  But it goes beyond that.

When I took my concealed handgun permit class, I was already an experienced shooter, and was appalled at the horrible mismanagement of firearms by attendees.  Muzzle flagging and lack of trigger discipline were the order of the day.

It wasn’t like that in Colonial days, where men were required to bring their weapons to church and practice with them along with their families.  But do folks learn the lessons fairly well in lieu of the classes, or does weapons mismanagement cause untold deaths?

Well, let’s turn to Arizona where a law passed in 2010 recognized constitutional carry.  If these concealed handgun courses were so damned valuable, one would expect that the murder and negligent homicide rates would have skyrocketed after passage of the law.

They didn’t.  Turning to Arizona’s statistics (they included negligent and accidental homicide in murder), the numbers run like this: 2006 (462), 2007 (464), 2008 (404), 2009 (317), 2010 (343), 2011 (339), and 2012 (345).

Now let me explain in just a few words what this is really all about.  Revenue.  That’s right.  Money for the permits, financing expensive military toys and bloated salaries for LEOs.

David Codrea:

Acknowledging a necessary self-imposed silence as they marshal their legal resources following a March raid by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives in which polymer precursor receivers were seized, EP Armory (the manufacturer that supplied Ares Armor, itself the subject of ATF raids) issued a statement Monday updating customers and supporters on the status of their legal plight.

Drop by David’s place to read what they said.  They are in a fight against the forces of darkness, and I’m sure that the privacy rights of their customers has already been violated.  Copies have been made and filed, you can be sure.

Kurt Hofmann:

There’s a reason that the anti-self-defense zealots refuse to make a distinction between the concepts of “guns everywhere,” and “guns everywhere except where there is no potential need for them.” It’s because even they lack the audacity to try to dispute the fact that no such distinction exists.

Kurt’s love of logic is a wonderful thing.  Truly it is.

Does the new WV gun law cause confusion?

“I think the intent of that was to say that if the rec center has a place that would enable the person with a concealed carry permit to lock it away so there’s no way anyone else could get to it, then they can do that,” Palumbo said.  “Otherwise the gun would have to be locked in a vehicle.”

[ … ]

However, the National Rifle Association has an entirely different interpretation.  The NRA’s legal division said, “It is clear that a person with a concealed carry license can (emphasis added) carry a firearm concealed in a ‘municipally owned recreation facility’ even if the facility does provide for secure storage (emphasis added).”

Why is this so hard for everyone?  It isn’t hard for me.  Here’s the deal.  They are talking about recreational facilities.  Folks come in to play sports.  They cannot do that with a carry gun.  They need a storage location in order to secure their weapon.  For the folks who come in to manage, watch and score the games, if they have a permit they can carry on their person.  Again, what’s so hard to understand about this?  See also the emotional meltdown by anti-gunner Danny Jones.  It’s still good for a laugh.

Topeka Capital-Journal:

Good.  Kansas would then become an open carry state.  As I’ve also commented regarding preemption laws:

… in order to prevent local hicks, ne’er-do-wells and criminals from acting out their Napoleon fantasies upon other men, association with the state means that – assuming robust gun rights laws already exist – local municipalities and townships shouldn’t be able to preempt state laws.  The state is the right size for law-making and control.  Our founding fathers were wise.

And there are would-be Napoleons everywhere.  Experiences seems to tell us that localities are a good breeding ground for collectivists who want to control your lives and take your money.  The federal Leviathan is far worse.  The State is sometimes worse, sometimes not, but if robust state laws protecting our rights can be passed, it behooves us to prevent localities from interfering with those laws.

If I have any readers in Kansas, keep me posted on progress of this law.

Complete … total … unmitigated … emotional … meltdown.

NY Daily News:

In my “Albany Insider” column today, I wrote how Tom King, the head of the state Rifle & Pistol Association, was critical of the increasingly angry and inflammatory rhetoric at pro-gun rallies. King said he fears that the ugliness that has popped up at the rallies is actually hurting the pro-gun cause. He also said it’s time to stop the rallies, arguing that they won’t result in a repeal of the SAFE Act. He wants to instead focus on trying to get the law struck down in the court …

I won’t post his silly letter, but I thought it would be appropriate to highlight this paragraph.

Fellow gun owners I submit this to you for your consideration. We will never convert the 22% rabid anti-gunners, we don’t have to convert the 32% avid pro gunners but we must convert a sizable portion of the 46% of those somewhere in between if we want to retain our 2nd Amendment Rights long term. These are the soccer moms, the guys who say I’ve never shot a gun but would like to try it and the people worried about their safety. How do we do that? Not by standing on stage screaming obscenities at Cuomo and certainly at large rallies where people stand on stage, pound their chest and tell the attendees to prepare for war. That frightens the very people we want to attract to our side, the people who will insure (sic) 2nd Amendment Rights for our grandchildren.

As a sidebar comment, the people he wants to attract will not insure (sic) 2nd amendment rights for our grandchildren.  But second, this letter is as  emblematic of everything that’s wrong with the NRA as I’ve ever seen.  It’s the perfect example of how not to think about our rights.

The strategy he advocates is why we’re where we are, among other reasons like loss of our national moral conscience.  He wants first to turn to the black robes, and failing that (as it certainly will fail and has already failed), he wants to turn to popular opinion.

Like so many other NRA board members, he wants to be oh-so-respectable and loved by the people.  Don’t appear extreme and scary, says he.  Never mind the warnings that should be issued to the collectivists should they continue with their pursuit of confiscation and onerous laws and harassment.  Never mind that they could be declaring war as an unintended consequence of their lust for power.  Don’t be scary to the people we want to persuade.

I rarely cite polls or popular opinion because while they may matter to the exigencies of my life, they don’t matter to my rights.  I have weapons because God gives me the right to own weapons, not the second amendment.  The opinions of the people are as subject to the vicissitudes of ideology as the times in which they live, and the mind of man cannot be entrusted with the rights of mankind.  If Mr. King is placing his trust in the people, he is building his house on sand.

My rights are what they are by divine pronouncement.  It is righteous to own guns because it reflects the character of the Almighty.  Without this I’m no different than the statist thugs and collectivists who want to disarm me, except we happen to be on different sides of an issue.  It means everything … everything … to be right and righteous.

Until the NRA board of directors is as convinced of the foundations of their rights as I am, they will be a weak and neutered organization, fit for nothing much except a good magazine once a month.

UPDATE. David Codrea links some history on this.  Jacob is a real piece of work.  Come on into my house, Jacob, and let’s throw down.  I’ll call you out for being the sorry, pathetic, collectivist piss ant you are.  Or did I already just do that?

Kurt Hofmann:

It’s more than plausible that of the portion that would not be shipped overseas, at least some would end up in killers’ hands here in the U.S., available for appalling mayhem. Why, after all, would an arms smuggler just sit on the weapons, which would thus not be making him any money, and would instead just expose him to the risk of arrest and prosecution?

Does anyone think that had that indeed happened, Yee would not attempt to exploit the ensuing carnage as justification for more “gun control”?

Well, it seems to be the collectivist’s modus operandi.

David Codrea:

Case in point, since OSHA is mentioned as a possible catalyst in Thursday’s Bozeman raid by other agencies, this column warned back in 2009 that Obama’s pick to head the agency, David Michaels, was strongly anti-gun and committed to using regulatory schemes to get his way. At the time of his nomination, this column advocated organized opposition, including scoring confirmation votes against gun group ratings and contacting the appropriate Senate committee, even reminding readers of Michaels’ organizational connections with George Soros (himself a backer of draconian international citizen disarmament efforts).

I’ve warned you about the executive branch of the government and legislating by federal register notice.  This is a corollary.  They send the regulators in and fine you, shut you down, and make it impossible to do business.  They may even send an armed team after you for breaking the rules they wrote without the consent of the Congress.

Visit Mike Vanderboegh’s Crisis City for a view of where we’ve been, and where we’re going.

PTR makes its first rifles in South Carolina.  If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a thousand times.  Smith & Wesson, Rock River Arms, Remington, Mossberg … what are you waiting for?

Some genius named Rachel Stella is asking about Georgia’s new law, and whether it’s okay to have guns on God’s property.  I’m in favor of guns on God’s property, and oh, by the way, the posing of the question assumes a chasm between the sacred and secular.  The Psalmist says that the “cattle on a thousand hills belong to God” (Psalm 50:10), or in other words, we’re just stewards.  He owns everything.  So that about covers it for me.  Guns everywhere.

WSJ Law Blog:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday bolstered federal efforts to keep guns away from domestic abusers, ruling that even a misdemeanor conviction involving minimal force can trigger a ban on firearm possession.

A Tennessee man argued that his misdemeanor conviction for causing “bodily injury” to the mother of his child shouldn’t bar him from keeping guns because it wouldn’t qualify as a violent crime under other federal statutes.

The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the nature of domestic violence justified stricter efforts to prevent conflict between intimate partners from turning deadly.

“’Domestic violence’ is not merely a type of ‘violence’; it is a term of art encompassing acts that one might not characterize as ‘violent’ in a nondomestic context,” she wrote, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

Justice Department documents say most forms of domestic violence are “relatively minor and consist of pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. While those might not be serious offenses in other situations, things are different in the home, she continued.

“The accumulation of such acts over time can subject one intimate partner to the other’s control,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. Moreover, she observed, traditionally battery was defined as any “offensive touching,” whether or not it caused physical injury.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote separately, agreeing with the outcome in Wednesday’s case but calling for a narrower definition of “physical force” that excluded “the slightest unwanted touching” and similarly minor offenses.

Does anyone else consider it rather creepy that the SCOTUS justices are writing things down about “unwanted touching?”  You’d better mind your p’s and q’s in the future if your children go to any of the public communist schools.

One report about a spanking might bring the SWAT teams down on your home.  And I’m sure that no man will feel like he is being targeted just because he is a man.  That certainly won’t happen.  And I’m sure false reports won’t be filed.  And I’m sure the local courts will be more than amenable to vacating bad judgment on the part of the local LEOs.  After all, they’ve always been on our side in the past, no?

Remember when I asked this question?

When will you be adjudicated mentally defective because you believe that being armed is the surest way to ameliorate tyranny in America?

Now we know the answer.  Via Uncle, The Washington Post:

[Plaintiffs allege that, as] of February 3, 2011, Plaintiffs possessed FOID cards, owned firearms, and kept their firearms in their home. At some point before February 3, 2011, David expressed “unpopular political views … about his support of Second Amendment rights” to “a locally elected official.” That official, somebody in that official’s office, or one of the individual defendants falsely construed David’s comments “as evidence that [he] had a mental condition that made him dangerous.” On February 3, 2011, [Illinois State Police] Lieutenant [John] Coffman wrote a letter to David revoking his FOID card under § 8(f) of the Act based on the false and unreasonable assertion that David had a “mental condition” within the meaning of that provision.

On February 5, 2011, with Lieutenant Coffman’s approval, Agents Pryor and Summers entered Plaintiffs’ home without a warrant or consent, conducted a search, and seized Plaintiffs’ firearms, which Plaintiffs used for personal protection, hunting, investment, and enjoyment …

Simply because local LEOs wanted to, the Plaintiffs had their weapons confiscated, and the LEOs ignored constitutional protections regarding illegal search and seizure.  The case has to do with residents of Illinois, but it could be anywhere.

Now someone spend the time and expend the effort to explain to me how mental health checks are going to keep guns out of the hands of “dangerous criminals.”  Go ahead.  I’m listening.