Archive for the 'Guns' Category

Yesterday when the most recent shooting occurred in Texas, I remarked to a co-worker:

What’s the common element in all of these mass shootings?  Think about it.  A mall, schools, movie theaters and churches.  These are all “gun free” zones.  But they aren’t really gun free, because only the law-abiding citizens obey the law, and if you’re going to commit mass murder you are by the very definition NOT a law abiding citizen.  Laws stipulating gun free zones are by their very nature ineffective and impotent.  Get rid of the gun free zones and the calculus will change.

So David Codrea weighs in on this as well.

A shooting at a Houston college has left at least three people injured and at least one suspect in custody, The New York Times and other media sources reported today.

“Officials at the North Harris campus of Lone Star College announced an evacuation at 12:52 p.m. on its Web site, citing an incident involving ‘a couple of armed suspects,’” the report elaborated.

The suspects were in violation of Lone Star College policy and the law.

It is the policy of this System to prohibit the carrying of firearms, knives and clubs onto any of the System’s facilities,” the college’s weapons policy states. “The possession of firearms, illegal knives and prohibited knives on System facilities including parking areas and publicly accessed facilities is a violation of criminal law and Board policies. This prohibition includes licensed concealed handguns except as otherwise allowed by state law.

“Persons who violate the law and these policies will be subject to serious consequences, including referral for criminal prosecution, dismissal from school or discharge of employment,” the policy warns.

Read the rest of his report at Examiner.  Chance Ballew also weighs in with his characteristically accurate single line summary.

Field and Stream:

I heard the following story at SHOT from a friend in the industry:

A man walked into a gunstore looking for 5.56 ammo for his AR. As is not uncommon these days, the store was out.

“How about that box of ammo there? I’ll take it,” said the customer, pointing to a lone box of .416 Rigby on the nearly empty shelf.

“Do you have a .416 Rigby rifle?” asked the clerk.

“Nope,” said the man, reaching for his wallet. “I’ll take it anyway.”

Whether the story is true as in “it actually happened” I don’t know, but it rings true enough. There are lots of stories of people going to gunstores with $1,200 in their pocket looking for an AR. When they can’t find one they just buy a gun – any gun – a bolt action, a muzzleloader, whatever.

My local store has been out of Ruger 10/22 rimfires for months and can’t get more. There was a lone pink-stocked ugly duckling of a 10/22 that remained unsold after all the others were gone, but someone probably realized they could put an aftermarket stock on it and snapped it up. Or maybe they painted it or are just shooting it in the pink. Who knows?

The unfortunate thing from my point of view is, aside from guns for 3-gun, home defense and zombie shooting*, shotguns are not getting much love in this current buying frenzy. I did find enough to fill a gallery we’ll be posting soon, but rifles and handguns are where it’s at these days, sad to say. 

One commenter says “That’s because the nimrods out there buying ARs and high cap pistols don’t know much about home defense. If they did they would buy a short barreled shot gun and load it up with 00 buck. one of the very best home defense guns out there. This is just the start of what is to come. With all these dumbshits out there buying guns and have no idea how to use them. No training, no nothing !! BTW did any one see how high the prices are going?? Gun stores are making money by the handfuls, so thank-you Mr president.”

Well, yes, but also no.  The commenter isn’t aware of or doesn’t care to acknowledge that the AR is a legitimate home defense weapon.  But besides that, I’m not so sure about the author’s thesis.  If there was “no love for shotguns,” they should be more available than there are and still be about the same price.

A couple of months ago I stopped by Shooter’s Express in Belmont, N.C., to do some range practice with my daughter.  I had been looking for the best price on a Mossberg 930 SPX.  I found it at Shooter’s, for $620.  I was tempted to put down some money right then and get this on layaway.  But, I reasoned, it’ll be there in a month or two.

Right.  One of the worst decisions in recent memory.  The last time I checked they were asking around $1000 for this same shotgun (it’s probably gone today).  And as for availability, there isn’t a semi-automatic shotgun within 100 miles of here (I say 100 miles because I haven’t been beyond that).  None.  Not even at the best gun shops.

I might go to the upcoming gun show to see what’s there, but you know how that goes.  Ninety nine out of one hundred shows are worthless, and you have to have money anyway.  I’m tapped out.  But I still want my Mossberg 930.  I really do.  The only way I’ll ever have a Benelli is if they give me one for doing a review for them.  This blog has a page rank of five.  If it was ten, maybe I’d stand a chance at that.

We previously discussed Sheriffs making moral, rather than self-preserving, decisions concerning the recent threats of unconstitutional gun controls by the federal government.  Sheriff Peyman is an example for others to follow, as are many other Sheriffs.  In Arizona:

From Oregon to Mississippi, Sheriffs are going on record saying “don’t tread on our people.”  Of particular note is this letter from the Utah Sheriff’s association.

We respect the office of the President of the United States of America.  But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the constitution.  No federal official will be permitted to descend upon constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights – in particular Amendment II – has given to them.  We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.”

This is a powerful note from honorable men, the only problem to my thinking being that the constitution didn’t give me the rights enumerated therein.  God did, and the founders recognized and codified them.

There are also legislators who have submited bills within their respective states making it a crime to enforce [upcoming] federal gun control.  The most recent example is in Arizona.

With the threat of new federal gun control laws and regulations looming, a state legislator wants to provide legal cover for Arizonans who do not want to obey them – and penalize federal officials who try to enforce them.

The proposal by Rep. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, makes it illegal for any public servant to enforce “any act, law, statute, rule or regulation” of the federal government relating to personal firearms or accessories within the boundaries of Arizona. It defines public servants to include not just state and local employees but also legislators, judges, jurors, witnesses and consultants who perform government functions.

Well enough.  But then the equivocation begins.

Smith conceded in a conflict between federal and state laws, the federal is likely to prevail. Where he said his measure may be more effective is on any action the president takes on his own.

Obama announced he is issuing executive orders dealing with background checks, doing studies on gun violence and taking steps toward what could be new safety standards for weapons. Smith said in those cases, were the president is acting on his own with no specific law backing his position, a state law would have more effect.

No, no, no.  Listen to me, boys and girls.  The legislators needs to reach a moral decision point just like the Sheriffs have.  This isn’t a game, and the Sheriffs have said that they will lay down their very lives.  Don’t pass laws that you aren’t willing to enforce by the power of the state police and national guard if necessary.  If you don’t want to put DHS agents in the state penitentiary, then don’t waste your time.  You will leave yourselves with no moral authority whatsoever with the federal government or your own constituency.  You will look like cowards, and maybe you are.  Leave the moral tests to the real men and stay out of the way.  Courtroom brinksmanship is for the faint of heart.

In the mean time, Sheriffs in North Carolina have some soul searching to do in light of the leadership shown around the country by other Sheriffs.

Hundreds of people met Wednesday evening to talk passionately about the Second Amendment and their rights to bear arms.

Three local sheriffs, including Wake County’s Donnie Harrison, took part in the minutemen’s discussions in Zebulon. The meeting came just hours after President Obama unveiled his gun control plans.

A boiling point in the meeting came about midway through. When dozens inside and dozens more outside of the Fargo Cattle Company Steakhouse bristled about a possibility that the federal government could violate their Second Amendment rights.

“I don’t think that was answered correctly, or really answered at all,” said Wake County resident Jamie Miller.

“What we didn’t hear is that it doesn’t matter what they say, we’re not going to come and get your guns,” said Wayne County resident Adam Drissel.

What those in attendance heard repeatedly from Sheriffs Jerry Jones, Carey Winders and Donnie Harrison, respectively from Franklin, Wayne and Wake counties, was very similar.

“I’ll quit first, but nobody’s going to take your guns,” said Harrison.

“I don’t see any sheriff going house to house taking weapons,” said Winders. “Folks, there’s more people here than I got deputies. I’m going to tell you that.”

[ … ]

Each sheriff pledged to uphold the U.S. Constitution, but stopped short of addressing a hypothetical scenario. Instead, they urged the gun advocates to take their passions to lawmakers.

Take note of the reasoning: ” … there’s more people here than I got deputies.”  This is entirely a pragmatic demurral.  It sounds as if some of the Sheriffs should join the ranks of the politicians and leave the work of men to the men.

As I said, moral decision points.  When it comes down to your jobs, your safety, your livelihood and your wellbeing, what will you do?

Fluffington Post:

If you hoard weapons for the express purpose of overturning the elected administration, then you are many things. A patriot isn’t one of them. Blind adherence to a single amendment does not make you a champion of the Constitution itself. Violent intent towards the duly-elected government does not make you a friend to the nation. There is in fact an accurate word for this species of plotting: treason.

Yes, I know — it’s a matter of arming civilians against tyranny. That in itself is not a monstrous concept, and you find something of that in the Founders’ fear of a standing army, and hence in the Second Amendment itself.

Note, however: you don’t get to define “tyrant” any which way you’d like. John Wilkes Booth, for example, clearly thought that Abraham Lincoln fit the description. After shooting the president, he famously announced: “sic semper tyrannis” (“thus always to tyrants”). Hence, he was simply exercising his constitutional rights, right?

Sadly for Booth, Americans did not much agree with his assessment of Lincoln. Booth saw himself as ridding the nation of a tyrant, but the nation mostly saw him as the treasonous assassin of their elected leader. See how this works? It’s all a matter of perspective, isn’t it.

Ignore the example he uses and everything else he says, and focus on his argument.  The popular vote determines the public good.  Or, might makes right.  It’s an appeal to authority, with the authority being determined in the voting booth.  It’s a form of the genetic fallacy.

Well, speaking of perspective, I have my weapons for a great multitude of reasons rather than for one express reason.  I guess that exempts me from his charges of treason.  As for being unpatriotic, regardless of who is in office or what the particular policy being debated, it seems terribly wrong to tell me that my rights are subject to a popular vote and that my perspective must be subservient to the poll.  If so, then they aren’t “rights” by any measure of the word.

Kurt Hofmann:

Back in December, St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner predicted that a private sales ban is the most likely federal infringement on that which shall not be infringed–far easier to pass than banning so-called “assault weapons” (gun banner-speak for “regime change rifles“) or “high capacity” magazines (gun banner-speak for “standard capacity magazines”) will be.

If anything about that assessment has changed, the difference is that it looks still more accurate now. In that article, we noted that even many supposedly “pro-gun” Republicans have historically supported private sales bans even before the Sandy Hook atrocity created an anti-gun feeding frenzy that has terrified many of gun rights advocates’ less stalwart “allies” in Congress.

Since then, NRA president David Keene has made clear that the NRA is quite willing to trade Americans’ right to privately buy and sell firearms for . . . well, really for nothing but perhaps a bit of a delay before the gun prohibitionists renew their push to eviscerate every other aspect of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. The Hill, in an article titled “NRA chief ‘generally supportive’ of strong background checks” has video of Keene appearing on CBS This Morning, where he discussed the NRA’s surrender terms:

Read the rest at Examiner.  No, no, no, and a thousand times no.  The NRA cannot cave on this issue.  Ignore the claptrap about “caring for the children” and “making sure that weapons don’t fall into the hands of criminals.”  It’s all a ruse designed by the anti-gun lobby.  Universal background checks have nothing whatsoever to do with keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, or a reduction in violence of any sort.  The system, if set up, is a predecessor and necessary prerequisite to a national gun registry.  This is evil to its very core.

So the next time you hear this claptrap, if it comes from ignorant people, educate them.  If it comes from people who know better, call them a liar.  If it comes from the NRA, tell them that they’re cowards and do not represent your interests.  And then tell them that you want to see them thrown out on their heads so that they can be replaced with people who honor the second amendment.

No surrender, no retreat.  Not … one … inch.

Prior: Against Universal Background Checks

Last Carbine magazine of the day, 50 feet, rapid fire, nine of fifteen shots in a one inch diameter circle.

In order to demonstrate my good-natured and cooperative spirit concerning new firearms regulations, with Jay Carney and Mr. Obama I’ve come out strongly against High Capacity Magazine Clips, like this:

From National Journal, here is yet another potentially problematic feature of firearms that needs to be regulated.

It will also be tricky to determine just how many automatic bullets should be allowed in a rapid-fire magazine clip. Three? Ten? Twenty? Democrats in favor of restricting high-capacity magazines say that three bullets is enough to kill a duck or a quail. Fair enough, but gun enthusiasts say that 10 or 20 rounds makes more sense for people who possess firearms for self-defense purposes. How do negotiators strike a deal on that one?

I’ll tell you how.  We firearms owners stipulate that automatic bullets in rapid-fire magazine clips won’t be tolerated.  Now that I’ve compromised and met my detractors in the middle, be warned and walk with caution.

I won’t tolerate any more challenges to or infringements upon my second amendment rights and God-given duty of self defense.  And just to let you know that I’m serious, remember that I have guns and I’m willing to use them.  No, seriously.  I’m willing to use them to make sure this doesn’t happen.

Prior: High Magazine Clips And The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up

Texas may soon get some company in its resistance to tyranny.  First, to Alaska.

President Barack Obama yesterday signed off on nearly two dozen executive orders meant to curb gun violence. These orders launch a gun ownership safety campaign, require the Centers for Disease Control to examine the causes of gun violence, and call for law enforcement officials to receive better training for active shooter scenarios.

He also called on Congress to pass a ban on assault weapons. But Alaska lawmakers have introduced a bill that would circumvent any stronger gun control measures.

The Alaska Firearms Freedom Act would make it a crime to enforce any federal prohibitions on things like assault rifles and high-capacity gun magazines. A previous version of the bill already passed the House in 2010, and similar legislation is being introduced in states like Texas and Wyoming.

Then to Missouri.

Introduced by Missouri State Representative Casey Guernsey, with 61 co-sponsors, is the Missouri 2nd Amendment Preservation Act. House Bill 170 (HB170) would nullify any and all federal acts, orders, laws, statutes, rules, or regulations of the federal government on personal firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.

The bill states, in part:

“Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the borders of the state of Missouri shall be guilty of a class D felony.”

A class D felony in Missouri carries a prison sentence of up to 4 years.

While a number of states, including Wyoming, South Carolina, Indiana, and others – are looking to go head to head with the feds on specific issues under the 2nd amendment, the Missouri legislation is the strongest introduced anywhere in the country so far.

Good.  Then Texas, Alaska and Missouri can share operating experience in their opposition to tyranny.

That’s a phrase that you’ve doubtless heard recently, and will hear again.  As we’ve discussed, it’s a phantom.  It doesn’t exist.  It isn’t real – there is no gun show loophole.  That’s a fabricated phrase to make the legal transaction of firearms sound scary and evil.  What is legal in a home, or parking lot, or building, or anywhere else where firearms are legal, is also legal at gun shows.  A person-to-person transaction can occur without going through a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer and paying a transfer fee.

But on to a commentary by Clayton E. Cramer at NRO’s Corner on this subject.

It is an article of faith that closing the “gun-show loophole” would make America a safer place. But that is what it is: faith. In 2008, three criminologists (one of them not at all friendly to guns) studied the effects on murder and suicide rates in California (which prohibits private sales without a background check) and Texas (which does not). They looked at homicide and suicide rates for adjacent ZIP codes for a week after gun shows. They found no change in suicide rates, and in Texas, which has no restrictions on private party sales, a small but statistically significant reduction in gun homicides.

This might seem surprising, and at first glance, it is. Except for one little detail: Criminals appear not to buy guns at gun shows, because guns are expensive.  It is so much cheaper to steal guns instead. At Newtown, the killer first murdered his mother to steal the gun. At Clackamas Mall in Oregon in December, the shooter used a rifle he’d acquired by stealing it from a friend. In April of 2007, David Logsdon of Kansas City, Mo., murdered his neighbor and stole her late husband’s rifle for a mass murder.

I do not have a serious problem with requiring all firearms sales to go through a background check. But I do have a serious problem with pretending that this is going to make much of a difference in murder rates. You want to do something about murder? Look at the typical murders — not the highly atypical ones.

What a strange commentary.  After demolishing the notion that person-to-person transfers have anything whatsoever to do with personal or public safety, the author acquiesces and says that he doesn’t have a serious problem with outlawing person-to-person transfers.

For the record, I have a massive problem with making person-to-person transfers illegal.  Forcing all transfers to go through an FFL (for which form 4473 is filled out) is the equivalent of a national gun registry.  It’s busybody meddling by the federal government into everyone’s business, and it would effectively turn grandpa, who wanted to gift his Remington 10/22 to his grandson under the Christmas tree, into a felon.

No, and a thousand times no.  Ignore the phrase, and resist further changes in the laws.  Don’t give the gun control crowd yet another unconstitutional victory over the second amendment.

Gun owners could soon find themselves paying a penalty for their weapons.  Witness the following thought experiment at San Francisco Chronicle:

Mandatory insurance needs to enter the post-Newtown debate about guns. Requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance, as many states require vehicle owners to do, is not a magic bullet to solve the problem that leads to 30,000 dead Americans every year. But it is a tactic that, for a number of reasons, could have significant beneficial impact.

First, a well-drafted state law requiring gun owners to show proof of insurance will raise the cost of gun ownership. But insurance companies will offer rates that take into account the risk posed by each gun and gun owner, just as there are differential premiums for young drivers and sports cars. Thus gun owners will have a financial incentive to think about and implement safety measures, some of which would surely be developed in response to insurance-cost-driven demand.

See a similar commentary by Isa-Lee Wolf.  It sounds like Marsha Cohen is all proud of herself, even though I’ve seen this idea floated several times in the last couple of weeks.  But there’s only one problem with this approach.  It runs squarely into the constitution.  Let’s rehearse recent history for a moment.  Right on the heels of the Supreme Court Heller ruling, the city of Chicago, still recalcitrant, forbade firearms ownership within its jurisdiction unless the applicant practiced and qualified at a range also within its jurisdiction, and then simultaneously regulated ranges within its jurisdiction out of business.  The Seventh Circuit didn’t like this very much, and Glenn Reynolds observes of this particular ruling, “The right to practice at a firing range, then, is at the very least one of the aspects of the Second Amendment right to arms that reinforces its core purpose.”  Glenn further observes that:

… punitive controls on ammunition, designed to make gun ownership or shooting prohibitively expensive or difficult, would be unlikely to pass constitutional muster. If firing-range regulations that impose burdens on target practice violate the Second Amendment, then restrictions with a similar effect—such as the dollar-per-bullet tax proposed by a Baltimore mayoral candidate—would also constitute violations, it seems. Making it “difficult to buy bullets in the city”—the avowed purpose of the tax—would seem to be precisely the sort of purposeful discrimination that would violate the Second Amendment. It might even be analogized to discriminatory taxes on newsprint, or the licensing of newsracks, both of which have been found to constitute excessive burdens on First Amendment rights.

And if this is so, then “punitive” regulations or discriminatory taxes or burdens (or insurance) would seem to fall under the same prohibition.  At the very least, it isn’t obvious that this would be acceptable to the courts, and it hasn’t been directly adjudicated.

Finally, State Farm has voluntarily considered such proposals.

Gun safety in the home hasn’t been discussed much in the recent national conversation on gun violence, but the head of the nation’s largest homeowners and auto insurance company acknowledges that it could be.

Edward B. Rust Jr., CEO and chairman of the board of State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., said this week that gun ownership “could be among a multitude of things” considered among the risk factors used by insurance companies to determine the cost of homeowners insurance policies. “But,” he added, “whether someone owns a gun doesn’t necessarily make them a risk. . . . The bigger debate is, Are people competent in gun ownership?”

This strikes me as silly as charging customers higher premiums if they happen to have a Doberman or German Shepherd in their home.  Actuarial mathematicians have more important things to worry with, and penalizing firearms owners also seems to be a bad way to start a boycott against your company.

Gun owners’ insurance.  An idea whose time has come – and gone – and never really was sensible to begin with.