Archive for the 'Guns' Category

Reuters:

New York state lawmakers are considering amendments to the state’s sweeping new gun control law, including repealing a ban on magazines that hold more than seven bullets, Governor Andrew Cuomo said on Wednesday, describing most of the changes as technical.

The law, passed January 15, a month after the massacre at a Connecticut elementary school, also requires gun owners to register most guns with the state and requires universal background checks.

[ … ]

Cuomo and legislators have been discussing “technical corrections” to the law, the governor told a news conference.

A provision banning magazines that hold more than seven bullets beginning April 15 would likely be repealed, as magazines generally hold 10 bullets.

“There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine,” Cuomo said.

Under the proposal, gun owners would be barred from loading more than seven bullets at a time, he said, unless they are at a shooting range or participating in a competition.

First of all, regarding this issue of seven cartridges in the magazine, Kimber makes plenty such magazines for their 1911’s.  Second, please stop saying that bullets go in magazines, you ignorant moron.  Complete cartridges go in magazines.

But to the substance of the report, take careful note again what the Governor said.  At shooting competitions (we can guess they mean IDPA or 3-gun competitions or some similar event), shooters could load more than seven cartridges in their magazines.  Likewise for ranges.  But if they’re home preparing to defend their families at night, it would presumably mean that gun owners would be committing a felony by loading more than seven cartridges.

This assumes that anyone would be willing to defend themselves from a home invasion and then rather than unloading the balance of the magazine, they admitted to law enforcement that they had more than seven loaded.  Of course, it might take more than seven to defend against the home invasion, which is the point of this ridiculous dance anyway.

Note again.  Voluntarily acquiescing to load no more than seven cartridges in your magazines when you need them, and loading them up to capacity when you don’t.

This has to be the most stupid law ever proposed by the most stupid people on earth.  But of course regarding the people, we knew that already, didn’t we?

This is what totalitarianism looks like in Chris Christie’s New Jersey – you know, the Chris Christie who could be the savior of the GOP if he weren’t such a gun-grabbing totalitarian, jerk and loud mouth himself.

Did this photograph spark a police action that tried to enter a New Jersey home without a warrant? That’s the story being told on a website dedicated to “Open Carry” in the state of Delaware. The title of the story, “The fight has officially been brought to my front door.”

The young man in the photo is the 11-yr-old son of Shawn Moore. The gun is a .22 rifle, a copy of the AR-15, but a 22 caliber. The photo was posted on Facebook by a proud father. That Facebook posting apparently triggered an anonymous call to New Jersey’s Department of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). On Friday night, March 15th, two representatives from the state’s social services office (along with four local police officers) came to the Moore home and demanded to see the family’s firearms …

Here’s what Moore alleges on the Delaware open carry forum:

• NJ’s Department of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) came to his home, accompanied by police officers. They claimed to be responding to a call about a photo of a young boy holding a firearm. (photo above)
• Without a search warrant, DYFS demanded entry into Moore’s home and access to all of his firearms. Moore was not initially there, but his wife called him.
• With his lawyer listening to the exchange on the phone with police and DFYS, Moore denied entry to his home and access to his safe where he stores his guns.
• When Moore requested the name of the DFYS representative, she refused to give it to him.
• After threatening to “take my kids,” the police and Family Services worker left — “empty handed and seeing nothing.”
• The DYFS worker repeatedly demanded access to the house and for Moore to open his safe where the firearms were stored. She said that the guns should be catalogued and checked to make certain they were “properly registered.” (NJ does not require registration, it is voluntary.)
• The four police officers acted professionally, they were there at the request of DYFS.
• The worker refused to identify herself. Mr. Moore demanded that she giver her name. She refused and ran away.
• As of Tuesday morning, Mr. Nappen believes that DYFS is still pushing for an inspection, “which is not happening.”

Did the poor nanny state trough-feeders run away scared?  Did they fail to get their intended, abused child to the right parents who could raise him without fear of the big, bad guns?  Folks, the only difference between this instance and the one depicted in this picture is that the New Jersey statists and nannies weren’t prepared for resolute action.

Denver Post:

Gov. John Hickenlooper signed bills Wednesday that place new restrictions on firearms and signaled a change for Democrats who traditionally shied away from gun control debate in Colorado – a state with a moderate streak and pioneer tradition of gun ownership and self-reliance.

Hickenlooper’s signature of the bills comes exactly eight months after dozens of people were shot in a movie theater in suburban Denver, the day after the executive director of the state’s Corrections Department was shot and killed at his home.

Police were searching for the person who killed Tom Clements, and trying to figure out if the attack was related to his job.

The bills require background checks for private and online gun sales and ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.

Hickenlooper was surrounded by lawmakers who sponsored the bills at the signing ceremony. Before signing the first bill, which requires purchasers to pay fees for background checks, he looked around with a solemn look on his face and then began signing it.

Every time he signed a bill, applause erupted from lawmakers and their guests …

So be it.  It’s now time for Magpul to leave and take its revenue and jobs with them.  When laws like this are implemented it’s always the duty of every individual to study the bill itself, sometimes including case law that ensues from the bill.  Gun forums don’t do justice to the complexity of most gun control bills, and every visitor to the State of Colorado is in danger of some sort of new violation of their laws, which most of the time would be felonies.  It just isn’t worth my time to study the law.

I have visited Colorado only once to ski in Breckenridge.  It was a wonderful experience, and sadly, one that will not be a recurring trip.  Not only will I not risk any sort of violation of their new law, but I won’t reward Colorado for their actions today.  I have friends and readers in Colorado and I don’t wish them ill.  But now that Colorado has been proven to be an anti-gun state, they will feel the wrath of gun owners and gun manufacturers.  They should consider their future through the lens of firearms at a time when their chief of the department of corrections was just gunned down.  Will the criminals have such a hard time getting what they want?

My treatment of Colorado won’t be any different than my treatment of other gun-control states.  I steadfastly refuse to drive through or even fly over New York, New Jersey, Illinois, or Maryland.  If I drive through with a weapon I must know their idiotic laws.  If I fly over with a weapon I might have to make an unscheduled landing in one of their cities.

I don’t take pleasure in seeing friends suffer under totalitarianism.  But when we look for work-arounds and fill in the gaps for others, we prevent the learning experience that comes from bad decisions.  Consequences bring the gift of wisdom.  For half a century now America has raised its children to avoid consequences, and partly for that reason we are where we are.

In this case, may Colorado get exactly what they have asked for, and exactly what they so richly deserve.   Tonight I will go home and order some Magpul hats, clothing and accessories (I already have their AR-15 magazines).  I will never again visit Colorado, and depending upon what other manufacturers do (Remington has made their bed, are you listening, Colt?  Rock River Arms?  Kimber?  Springfield Armory?), I will look for ways to reward the faithful and punish the wicked.  And there are millions of gun owners just like me.

The founder of Sandy Hook Promise weighs in on firearms technology.

At present, most gun marketing is predicated on power and machismo. But what if the unique selling point of a weapon became safety features, like a trigger that only works in the hands of the gun’s owner? That, in a nutshell, is the aim of the Sandy Hook Promise Innovation Initiative.

The initiative will pull together the tech and venture capital communities to form a Technology Committee to Reduce Gun Violence that will work to identify and foster innovations in gun and school safety and mental health research. The group will solicit proposals for the best ideas in these areas and award a prize to encourage the most promising innovations. The point is that making firearms safer could help the nation to reduce the 30,000 gun deaths a year, including nearly 19,000 that are suicides. But if that isn’t incentive enough, there’s the money, and the Volvo lesson, to consider.

Starting with the three-point seat belt in the late 1950s, Volvo introduced safety features, from head restraints to side impact protection systems. Sales grew tenfold. By the time the first mandatory seat belt use was enacted in New York state in 1984, Volvo’s market share hit a record.

Budding gun entrepreneurs could become rich by emulating Volvo’s golden years. Weapons manufacturers could first and foremost tout their products’ safety features. And public policy could guide them along that path.

New Jersey, for instance, has a law that would require smart gun technology in all new handguns sold three years after the state’s attorney general determines a prototype is safe and commercially available. Other states are considering similar rules.

As the Volvo story underlines, however, government action isn’t the only way to reduce America’s gun fatalities, which have remained stubbornly high for decades. The only thing more characteristically American than gun ownership is the impulse to create wealth in free and open markets. Let the innovation begin.

Yea, let the innovation begin.  But recall what we observed about the shotgun with a solid state circuit board in the stock?  Remember how obscene it was?  It is obscene because of any number of things, including control over that circuit board, traceability of that circuit board, and just as important, the introduction of a new failure mode.

Take it from a registered professional engineer.  You see that picture above with the solid state electronics inside the gun?  It is obscene.  Not only that, it’s stupid.

There are even old school shooters who don’t believe in such a thing as the grip safety (Beaver tail) on my XDm.  I am not among that crowd, but the notion that I would rely on a gun with solid state electronics for my own protection is absurd, leaving aside the problems I have with it being amenable to governmental control.

David Codrea has weighed in before (and also links a related NPR article), and Bob Owens weighs in as well.  Read them both.

I’m simply not smart enough to know whether violent FPS video games have any affect on the player in this context.  I’ve seen them before, and they bore me.  I tend to think that they cannot have an affect on the person if the tendency to violence isn’t already there.  The problem is evil.  Evil is in the heart of man (Jeremiah 17:9 and Mark 7:21), and only God can change the heart.

For me it’s simple.  Maybe I am looking at this as a firearms purist, but as I said before, I’ll purchase such a gun when hell freezes over.

Manufacturers Dabble In Smart Guns

More On Smart Guns

The CEO speaks, Courant.com.

Our customers are unusually brand-loyal. In many cases, they personally identify with the firearm brand they choose. Although our Connecticut heritage has historically enhanced our brand, that will change overnight if we ban the modern sporting rifle.

As a result Colt, as well as other Connecticut manufacturers such as Mossberg and Stag Arms will see immediate erosion in brand strength and market share as customers migrate to manufacturers in more supportive states. This will have consequences for dozens of Connecticut companies and thousands of workers. Connecticut will have put its firearms manufacturing industry in jeopardy: one that contributes $1.7 billion annually to the state’s economy.

Like every other precision manufacturer in Connecticut, Colt is constantly approached by other states to relocate, but our roots here are deep. Colt is and always has been an integral part of a state characterized by hard work, perseverance and ingenuity.

I know, however, that someday soon, I will again be asked why we fight to keep well-paying manufacturing jobs in Connecticut. I will be asked why we should continue to manufacture in a state where the governor would make ownership of our product a felony.

I will be asked these questions and, unlike in the past, there will be few good answers.

He’s right.  Some of the customer base will be faithful, but this issue runs deep, and many will abandon them.  We’ve also discussed how many will abandon Remington, too, for staying in New York and focusing almost exclusively on a new military contract.  It won’t work out well for Remington.

But the CEO will likely have to decide whether this is bluster or serious-speak.  The State of Connecticut won’t listen to him and will probably pass their ban.  When they do that, Colt will have to decide whether it is a Remington or a Magpul.  The choice is theirs, and no amount of posturing in local newspapers will delay or change things.

These are serious times for a lot of people.

Good grief.  Heritage again.

On February 26, the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Center for Human Rights issued a white paper on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which concludes that “the proposed ATT is consistent with the Second Amendment.” This conclusion neglects important facts about the treaty and the processes surrounding it, which we have explored in this four-part series.

We have shown that while we agree with several of the ABA’s contentions, it ignores the fact that the ATT—like many treaties—is not designed for a nation with a federal structure like the U.S. The ABA also ignores the fact that the ATT goes beyond import restrictions on firearms by requiring signatories to prevent the domestic diversion of imports. The treaty may also invite the executive branch to take executive actions to restrict and control the import of firearms into the U.S., imports which comprise about 35 percent of the new firearms market.

Finally, the treaty raises broader concerns about the application of transnational law to the U.S. These concerns are heightened by the fact that both foreign nations and some prominent legal scholars have identified treaties like the ATT as a mechanism to pressure the U.S. to change its domestic policies, and even to change the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

The question, then, is what the U.S. should do about this. The U.S. is sensitive to allegations that it is failing to fulfill treaty commitments, and it rightly takes its treaty obligations seriously. Because the ATT is a process that is designed to evolve and grow, it is impossible to know where it will lead.

A new ATT conference begins today in New York, and we will be blogging from the conference.

Supporters of the ATT frequently defend it as entirely unrelated to the Second Amendment. Some opponents of the ATT criticize it as a nefarious plot against the Second Amendment. The truth is more complicated …

Listen carefully.  No, the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty isn’t really that complicated.  It is a nefarious plot against the second amendment.

We’ve covered this in detail before.  All that rubbish and claptrap about the treaty excluding civilians because it excludes civilian arms is a ruse.  What it does is what Feinstein and Obama want to do within the framework of U.S. law, and distinguish between so-called “military weapons” and “civilian weapons.”  Again – it doesn’t distinguish between you and a member of the professional military, it distinguishes between military arms and civilian arms.

It would make illegal all sorts of firearms currently in circulation, as well as subject you to a set of rules, licensing and governmental checks that would make what Obama has proposed look like free utopia.

Some things really are as they seem.  Can Heritage at least try to get it right next time?  Otherwise, it’s just wasted space and bandwidth.

The media outlet biases the report for the readers:

It’s a case where it appears concealed carry worked.

West Allis Police confirm that early this Tuesday a man used a gun to stop an attack on a woman.  That man had a concealed carry permit for the weapon.

A man who knew that victim was attacking her near 102nd and Lincoln.  The good samaritan happened on the attack.  He jumped into action, pulling out his gun.  He never fired, but he used the gun to hold the suspect until police arrived.

“It appears to have worked well where nobody was injured as a result of the use of the weapon,” West Allis Police Chief Charles Padget told us.

Police arrested the suspect and the woman is recovering.  The chief says it appears the good samaritan did everything right.  The District Attorney’s office will still review the use of the weapon.  The DA will also investigate the original attack.

It’s amazing, no?  It’s actually a case where “concealed carry worked.”  First of all, the tools that write this claptrap should read a little more.  Guns are used every day in America to stop crimes and save lives.

Second, concealed carry only worked because this person happened to be concealing his hand gun.  Wisconsin is a traditional open carry state, and it’s possible that the perpetrator wouldn’t have even committed the crime had he seen someone openly carrying a weapon.  It would have “worked” equally well if the individual had been openly carrying and had used his weapon to stop the attack.

The hint in the article is also that it “worked” because the weapon wasn’t discharged.  Let’s be clear.  If the perpetrator had attacked the person with the weapon and he had discharged the weapon in response, it still “worked.”

It always “works” when a weapon is used to stop a violent crime, as long as we stipulate that a life was in peril.  That’s the point.  The only thing he couldn’t do – and neither can the LEOs because of Tennessee Versus Garner – is detain the perpetrator by discharging his weapon.  And he didn’t.  So that worked too.

It “worked” all around, and it does in American every day.

Liberal rag The Raw Story has a piece on Ted Nugent.

Gun rights activist and musician Ted Nugent claimed in a radio interview on Monday that he killed more than 450 pigs with a machine gun while shooting from a helicopter. According to the website RumorFix, Nugent made the claim in an interview with Brett Winterble on Sirius XM Radio and said that he dedicated the kill to HBO host Bill Maher and “all those other animal freaks out there.”

“I took my machine gun in the helicopter — in the Texas hill country – me and my buddy ‘Pigman’ … his name is ‘Pigman’ – I’m the swine czar,” said Nugent. “I killed 455 hogs with my machine gun. i did it for Bill Maher and all those other animal rights freaks out there.”

Boasting that the weapon he used fired 750 rounds a minute, the right-wing provocateur said, “My haters will hate me more for that.”

According to the Associated Press, the state of Texas awards prize money during an annual three-month event in which hunters are urged to kill as many feral pigs as they can. The animals have bred out of control in the Texas wilderness and cause millions of dollars in crop and property damage every year.

“We saved the environment from the destruction of these out-of-control pigs,” said the Michigan-born rocker, “and I’m not talking about Washington D.C. or San Francisco … I’m actually talking about actual pigs.”

He went on to say that “we distributed tons of the most delicious pork to the soup kitchens and homeless shelters of this state. Everything we did was perfect – win win win. I had to adjust my halo as I was machine gunning hogs.”

Given the blight on the landscape that feral pigs are, Ted did a good thing, of course.  But take a look at the comments.

Ah.  To be so hated.  One can only admire and hope.

The Obama administration is planning never before seen intrusions into the private affairs of U.S. citizens.

The Obama administration is drawing up plans to give all U.S. spy agencies full access to a massive database that contains financial data on American citizens and others who bank in the country, according to a Treasury Department document seen by Reuters.

This will split our fiber backbone signals and dump every 1 and 0 that transverses it into government computers.  Every detail of life of all citizens is now subject to inspection and assessment by government overlords who can and will make decisions as to so-called “terrorist activity,” which could be al Qaeda or perhaps unorganized militia who prepare for any threat against the U.S., foreign or domestic.

This knowledge should be coupled with another stunning intrusion into our God-given rights we learned about today.  Bob Owens has a report for us.

Chuck Schumer’s S. 374, the Orwellian “Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013,” has been an empty shell… until he slipped in Amendment ALB13180 (PDF) today, which shows the “teeth” of the bill.  It is an extremely aggressive attempt to destroy the Second Amendment by isolating and criminalizing extremely common behaviors among gun owners.

Doubt me?

Take a looking at a sampling of what it Sebastian notes it would outlaw:

• If you leave home for more than 7 days and leave anyone at home, that becomes a felony illegal transfer. 5 years in prison for each of you.

• if you take a friend shooting and allow him to fire your gun, that is a felony illegal transfer. 5 years in prison for each of you.

• If you have a gun lost or stolen and don’t report it within 24 hours, you’ve committed a felony. 5 years in prison.

• If you lend a gun to someone for to try out at the range, provide a loaner for a student in training, let your son shoot a rifle you purchased while hunting, or provide a gun to a woman for self-defense, you’ve committed a felony. 5 years in prison for each of you.

Bob ends his assessment with the following almost desperate interdiction.

It’s inching closer.

May God have mercy on us all.

See also reaction at WRSA.  It’s possible, of course, to forestall such an eventuality, even if unlikely.  For example, the states who are currently considering or have passed laws against enforcement of federal gun laws could actually take their state laws seriously.

If such a federal law were to pass, a state could decide to confiscate and immediately destroy all form 4473s in all FFLs in their state, and warn FFLs to contact state police if any ATF agents enter their premises.  State police could arrest any federal agents who attempted to enforce federal gun laws and place them into the general prisoner population in state penitentiaries.  Threats to arrest state police or stop these actions could be met with National Guard troops to further effectuate the arrest of federal agents and enforce a cease and desist action to all federal employees, including federal judges who moved against such actions.

But this would have to happen all across the nation for it to be effective, and I find it unlikely that a governor would take these actions, regardless of the posturing that we currently see by the states.  The concept of States’ rights has fallen too hard and too far, and federalism has lost its appeal in the U.S.

Short of something like this, I am becoming increasingly pessimistic about a possible recovery of our national character.  When the people demand cradle to grave security and overwatch, the state responds with cradle to grave demand for omniscience for itself and cradle to grave compliance by the people.  It’s a deal with the devil for our soul, and America has made it a long time ago.

If this sounds judgmental, then I plead guilty.  Based on religious doctrine, which the epistemologists might call strongly held truth value, or incorrigible beliefs, I hold that gun control is evil.

The Bible does contain a few direct references to weapons control. There were many times throughout Israel’s history that it rebelled against God (in fact, it happened all the time). To mock His people back into submission to His Law, the Lord would often use wicked neighbors to punish Israel’s rebellion. Most notable were the Philistines and the Babylonians. 1 Samuel 13:19-22 relates the story: “Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!” So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plowshares, mattocks, axes, and sickles sharpened…So on the day of battle not a soldier with Saul and Jonathan had a sword or spear in this hand; only Saul and his son Jonathan had them.” Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon also removed all of the craftsmen from Israel during the Babylonian captivity (2 Kings 24:14). Both of these administrations were considered exceedingly wicked including their acts of weapons control.

Gun control is like control over everything else.  The key word here is control.  It is at one and the same time a function of wicked rulers and a benchmark, or barometer or gauge, to measure their wickedness.  God doesn’t cede or relinquish rule over His creation for mankind, and totalitarian governance usurps the authority He demands over the actions of mankind.  God will not be mocked – He does the mocking.

God sits in the heavens and laughs and scoffs at the designs of man (Psalm 2:4).  Here is a warning to totalitarian rulers.  “Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way.”  Judgment will come, here or in the hereafter, and perhaps sooner and more unexpectedly than you think.

The only explanation for Senator Schumer’s totalitarian dictates is that he believes that Americans will go along with it.  To be sure, there are many who will … who will take measure of the situation and decide that they value peace and security over measurements of right and wrong.

But there are many who will not go along with such laws.  They will not allow themselves or their children or their friends or loved ones to be imprisoned for failing to take their weapons to a public armory when they go on trips, or loaning a rifle to their son to learn to shoot at the range.

We have covered this ground before.  Bob reacted the way he did because he understands in a way that the totalitarians and wicked rulers in Washington do not.  These measures will not stand.  They will fall, one way or the other.

Will our wicked rulers turn back before it’s too late?  Only God knows, but only time will tell us.  Here is a final warning: do not cross lines from which there is no return.

In the mean time, this isn’t your father’s country.  Welcome to Amerika!

UPDATE: Thanks to David Codrea for the attention.

The professor:

WOULD MANDATORY GUN OWNERSHIP violate citizens’ constitutional rights? No, because it’s an exercise of Congress’s power to arm the militia under Article I, section 8. In fact, the Militia Act of 1792 required adult males to own guns and ammunition.

I would also point out that it wouldn’t diverge at all from common practice during colonial America.

In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statues comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.  When the British government began to increase its military presence in the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, Massachusetts responded by calling upon its citizens to arm themselves in defense.

The seventeenth century was a long time ago, no?