Fox News:

A pair of Democratic lawmakers are proposing steep new taxes on handguns and ammunition, and tying the revenues to programs aimed at preventing gun violence.

Called the “Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act,” the bill sponsored by William Pascrell, D-N.J., and Danny Davis, D-Ill., would nearly double the current 11 percent tax on handguns, while raising the levy on bullets and cartridges from 11 percent to 50 percent.

“This bill represents a major investment in the protection of our children and our communities, and reflects the long-term societal costs of gun and ammunition purchases in our country,” Pascrell said.

The lawmakers say the bill would generate $600 million per year, which would be used to fund law-enforcement and gun violence prevention.

Critics predicted defeat for the measure.

“What the anti-gun interests can’t ban, they want to tax it out of existence,” Alan Gottlieb, chairman for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, told FoxNews.com. “It’s nothing more than confiscatory taxation.

“I doubt this bill will pass, but we will lobby against it if need be,” he added. “This is simply another shot against gun owners in this country.”

The bill would exempt all federal, state and local agencies, including police departments, from paying the tax.

The bill would also increase the transfer tax on all weapons (except antique guns) covered under the National Firearms Act (which excludes most common guns) from $200 to $500 and index to inflation and  increase the transfer tax for any other weapon from $5 to $100.

I don’t care much about the increase in fee for the tax stamp, since I will never, ever register a firearm with the ATF or pay a tax stamp.  But the philosophy is that if we cannot beat them at an outright ban, then we can tax them to the point that they cannot afford to own weapons or ammunition.

This approach is both irrational and unconstitutional, not to mention immoral.  But something must source the massive expansion of the federal Leviathan, and the Congress has figured out that we will not give up our guns or our shooting.  Feed the beast, even if it makes use of what they loath so much – our freedoms.  It sure must seem a Faustian bargain to them.

The Washington Post waxes poetic concerning the confiscation of guns in Australia … er … When Australians Gave Back Their Guns.

When shootings occur in the United States, we Australians shake our heads. We do not have a Bill of Rights or a constitutional right to bear arms; here, the idea of ordinary citizens demanding to own guns without cause seems odd. So when one of our own is senselessly taken by boys who police said just wanted to be “Billy Bob Badasses,” it is aspecial affront.

It’s not necessarily a logical one: Lane was shot with a small-caliber handgun. Plenty of handguns are still legally held in Australia. About a million guns have been imported since the buyback, bringing private gun ownership here back to roughly 1996 levels.

But the real issue is availability.

Here, those who are licensed to own pistols are not allowed to carry their guns. There are strict, police-supervised checks of storage and security of the firearms, and buyers must prove a “genuine reason” to own a gun.

It has been estimated that if the United States had a buyback of similar proportions, about 90 million fewer guns would be circulating.

Philip Alpers, an adjunct associate professor at the Sydney School of Public Health and a specialist in firearm injury prevention, has documented that after the laws were changed, the risk of an Australian being killed by a gun fell by more than 50 percent. Australia’s gun homicide rate, 0.13 per 100,000 people, according to GunPolicy.org, is a tiny fraction of that of the United States (3.6 per 100,000 people). It should be noted that our gun homicide rates were already in decline, but the gun laws accelerated that slide.

In a 2010 paper, economists Andrew Leigh and Christine Neill found that the law change had led to a 65 percent decline in the rate of firearm suicides. Firearm homicides fell by 59 percent.

Causality is, again, hotly contested. But what cannot be denied is that 17 years ago, after a brutal killing spree, Australia had a rare moment of national unity, with overwhelming public support and bipartisan agreement on a public health policy that has saved lives.

A nation founded by convicts gave back their guns.

Speaking for Bill Bob Badasses everywhere, I’d like to say it’s nice to know that Australia has become a veritable Shangri La.  In more contemporary news, Sydney was the scene of a recent home invasion.

Police are searching for up to 10 men who were armed with knives and guns when they broke into a home and assaulted a man in Sydney’s south.

The victim, aged in his late 30s, suffered cuts to his head and was bleeding severely when emergency services arrived at his home on Minnesota Avenue in Riverwood on Tuesday night.

A five-year-old boy and a woman who also were inside the home at the time were not injured, but are believed to have witnessed the assault.

Police and paramedics were called to the home at 9.25pm after reports that up to 10 armed men had forced their way into the home and threatened the man with a gun.

No shots were fired during the incident, but the man was severely beaten. The offenders, who were all wearing dark clothing, then left the home.

Perhaps that was a part of Australia exempt from the gun control laws.

Business Insider:

A recent poll suggests Americans will consider the gun debate a pivotal point in the 2014 elections. So we wanted to explore how Americans kept the right to bear arms in the first place. As it turns out, grammar is the culprit.

Take a look at the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That little, red comma caused the Supreme Court to strike down D.C.’s ban on handguns, the country’s strictest gun control law to date.

Before the Supreme Court heard the case, the D.C. circuit court of appeals nixed the ban, too. “According to the court, the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one ‘prefatory’ and the other ‘operative.’ On this reading, the bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don’t really get down to business until they start talking about ‘the right of the people … shall not be infringed,'” The New York Times reported.

Gun control proponents argue the founders used commas more frequently than common English today, Ross Guberman wrote in his legal writing blog. Some historians even claim that many states ratified a version of the Second Amendment with only two commas, not three. The extra commas don’t mean much in that context, the argument goes.

Straining at a literary gnat to swallow a camel.  This is what happens with you superimpose literary criticism over the inherent rights of mankind.  The title of the commentary is telling: “How a comma gave gave Americans the right to own guns.”

The author, poor Christina, believes that rights are granted by the state, as she was no doubt taught by her college professors.  Nay, Christina.  God gives us rights and you cannot take them away.  Neither can any state – all a state can do is formally recognize what God has granted.

As for the silly argument over commas, let’s hurry the death of this debate by a simple observation.  Rather than turn to grammar to understand how the colonialists thought, recall how they saw weapons in their day.

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.

Whatever else you might find significant in one comma, two commas or three commas, and whatever else you think the second amendment means, it cannot possibly mean something contrary to the way the colonialists believed and behaved.  And thus it cannot possibly mean that they intended to garrison all weapons in an armory controlled by the state.

Christina needs to do some historical reading, as do most Americans.  A comma cannot take away your God-given rights any more than it can grant them to you.

Missoulian:

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled against state laws designed to buck federal gun rules — but advocates welcomed the court’s decision for leaving open the possibility of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday agreed with a lower court’s decision against the 2009 Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which also has been adopted in other pro-gun states. The laws attempt to declare that federal firearms regulations don’t apply to guns made and kept in that state.

The Justice Department successfully argued that the courts have already decided Congress can use its power to regulate interstate commerce to set standards on such items as guns. Some gun control advocates sided with the federal argument, saying that “firearm freedom acts” would allow felons to obtain guns without background checks and make it harder to trace guns used in crimes.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association said it had expected the appeals court would rule against the law.

The group’s president, Gary Marbut, argued in the case that he wanted to manufacture a small, bolt-action youth-model rifle called the “Montana Buckaroo” for sale in Montana. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms pre-emptively told Marbut such a gun would be illegal under Montana law.

“This was about as good of a ruling as we could have expected from the 9th Circuit. We must get to the U.S. Supreme Court to accomplish our goal of overturning 70 years of flawed Supreme Court rulings on the interstate commerce clause,” Marbut said in a release. “Only the Supreme Court can overturn Supreme Court precedent.”

The state of Montana has intervened in support of its law. The case also attracted the support of Utah, Alaska, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Marbut said the federal government has become a “monster,” that abuses the interstate commerce clause to intrude on states.

Yes.  The federal government has become a monster.  Justice Clarence Thomas is said to be the modern day jurist of the tenth amendment.  But he may be alone, and turning to the monster to slay the monster is bad form and unwise.  It is more likely that they will simply bow to stare decisis and make matters even worse by giving the commerce clause more modern legs, or refuse to hear the case, letting the Ninth Circuit’s decision stand.

And this notion that the Ninth Circuit only did what they could do is ridiculous.  The Ninth Circuit has come down with many a decision that was overturned by the Supreme Court.  For once, when it actually had to do with liberty and freedom the Ninth Circuit had the chance to do something right – and failed again because they’re all losers.

As I’ve said, nullification laws have the legs under them that the states put there.  Montana could have incorporated the company (perhaps they already have) and then arrested federal employees who attempt to enforce federal laws (and thrown them in with the general prison population).

The monster will never admit that he is a monster.  He wants you to fear him and bow to his monstrous intentions and behavior.

No, that’s not my preferred title, but the one used by Adam Winkler:

Adam continues, “The idea that the Second Amendment gives people the right to revolt against government is broadly shared among gun rights extremists” (Adam is referring to people like me – Adam would have been a loyalist during the revolutionary war, I would have charged up King’s Mountain against the loyalist troops) … “The insurrectionist understanding of the Second Amendment fails to account for two other features of the Constitution. First, the Second Amendment itself includes a preamble referring to the necessity of a “well regulated militia.”

Here Adam continues with the well-worn and tired claptrap about well-regulated meaning controlled by the state.  Bob Owens has the must-read defeater argument on this, but since Adam won’t care about this I won’t spend time recapitulating what Bob says.  Adam can continue to wring his hands and worry over things, and we can move on to one salient observation about Scalia.

I have long lamented what I perceive to be the weakness of Heller versus D.C.  But perhaps Scalia really does understand that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with hunting or self defense, and has everything to do with ameliorating tyranny.  And perhaps Scalia knows that the Supreme Court had to bite this off in chunks.  If so, this is a welcome evolution in Scalia’s thinking – at least as it pertains to what he feels free to say out loud.

And oh, by the way, the Hughes amendment was an unconstitutional obscenity.

UPDATE: Kurt Hofmann writes me, observing that: ” … Mr. Constitutional Law Professor is already lost, when he talks about any bill in the Bill of Rights giving rights.  Besides, my position has always been that the Second Amendment does not protect “the right to revolt,” but protects the right to the means of effective revolt.  When revolt becomes necessary, a Constitutionally protected “right to revolt” wouldn’t matter, even if there were one, because by then, the Constitution will no longer be relevant.”  Good points.

Thanks to David and Mike for the attention.

West Virginia:

A patient at Boone Memorial Hospital is living to tell a story even she says she thought she’d never tell.

“At times I thought I was going to die,” Charlene Hankins said.

Hankins had been missing for 12 days when she was discovered Monday.

Hankins said she was driving to her mother’s house in Oceana when her car ran out of gas deep down an isolated road in the Twilight area of Boone County.

She had no food, no water and tried to get help, but instead she got lost.

[ … ]

She said she ran out of gas and spent the first night in her car.

Crews found her car on Sunday. The gas tank was empty and the keys were still inside.

She told crews she tried to walk to find help, but ended up lost in the woods.

Hankins told crews she lived off berries and mushrooms and tore off the sleeves of her shirt to start a fire.

I’m glad that she was found and is recovering.  The berries, mushrooms and shirt sleeves to start a fire were a nice touch (although the caloric value of mushrooms makes them essentially worthless as a survival food).

But take this as yet another object lesson.  First, I don’t walk from room to room of my home without carrying one of my guns with me, much less take long road trips.  She could have faced black bear, snakes and coyote (panther have been sighted as far north as South Carolina).  Feral hogs would have been a good source of food.

Carrying a parka and 550 cord as part of a survival bracelet would have given her instant shelter in the case of rain (from which she could have died due to exposure).  I also don’t go on road trips without carrying a tactical light, which would have given her ability to see her surroundings at night and a stand-off weapon to blind animals of the two- or four-legged kind.

Finally, I don’t go on road trips (and certainly not backpacking or hiking trips) without a good knife, usually a large folder rather than fixed blade knife, and I always have some sort of liquid container with me.  She apparently carried an ignition source for a fire.

A gun, a parka, a knife, 550 cord, a tactical light, a container and a fire ignition source.  A few light, simple tools can go a long way towards ensuring survival in the case of becoming stranded or lost.  Others may not have fared so well.

The Tennessean:

One of the nation’s largest gun manufacturers, Remington Arms, has looked at sites around Nashville for a potential corporate relocation or expansion that would likely include hundreds of manufacturing jobs.

The Madison, N.C.-based company, which is part of the nation’s largest firearms company and has its largest plant in Ilion, N.Y., has scouted sites near Nashville’s airport, Lebanon and in Clarksville, Tenn.

Remington is among a growing number of gun manufacturers nationwide that have been courted by states pitching themselves as more gun-friendly. The wooing came after a handful of states, including New York, passed tougher gun control laws in the aftermath of last December’s shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., which claimed the lives of 20 first-graders and six educators.

Remington’s roughly 1,200-employee plant in Ilion makes rifles such as the Bushmaster semiautomatic weapon, which is now banned under New York’s Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, the first law passed by any state post-Newtown.

In addition to the much stricter definition of assault weapons, which now includes semiautomatic pistols and rifles with detachable magazines and one military-style feature, the New York SAFE Act banned magazines that contain more than seven rounds, required instant background checks on all ammunition purchases at the time of the sale and required mental health professionals to report concerns about a gun-owning patient who posed a risk of harming himself or others.

Quick passage of that law upset not only the gunmakers, but also residents of that state who own certain guns, said Erin Crowe, office coordinator for the Mohawk Valley Chamber of Commerce in Utica, N.Y. “Ilion, New York, is Remington — if it wasn’t for Remington, Ilion wouldn’t exist,” she said. “There’s not a lot of new industries coming to central New York, so if you take a huge company like that and they leave, our unemployment rate is going to skyrocket.”

People familiar with Remington’s exploration of sites said the company looked around the Nashville area as recently as within the past month …

In Middle Tennessee, firearms maker Barrett already has 100 employees at its headquarters and manufacturing plant in Murfreesboro. And the National Rifle Association booked Nashville’s Music City Center convention hall for its 2015 annual convention with about 5,000 delegates.

Analysis & Commentary

This would be a welcome change.  Cerebus / Freedom group, as we’ve seen, purchased numerous smaller gun manufacturers and closed out business while moving said manufacturing to Ilion.  They conglomerated and centralized, and that is good neither for small businesses nor the communities they serve.  There is a difference between buying to make businesses more efficient from business model changes, and buying in order to close down the competition.

Furthermore, in spite of the silly, fawning article National Review did on the plant in Ilion, gun owners never forgive and never forget.  As we’ve discussed, see the Smith & Wesson boycott for a lesson in payback.  Doubtless, Remington Arms didn’t support the recent New York gun laws.  Nevertheless, at least a fraction of money going to purchase Remington products made in Ilion goes towards taxation for a totalitarian state to continue to do their thing.

In the end, I would have preferred that Remington relocate based on principle.  But as I have previously remarked, I am in the market for a good bolt action rifle and was looking at the Remington 700 series.  I am no longer considering Remington at all (for a 1911 either) because of the fact that Remington is primarily located in New York.  Some of my readers weighed in similarly.  With this change, if Remington indeed relocates its plant in Ilion, perhaps I’ll reconsider.  If principle cannot force Remington to move, then perhaps market pressure can.  Ruger is already ahead of the game.

Finally, I would prefer that Remington consider South Carolina.  Remember, anywhere in S.C. is no more than several hours from one of the best beaches on earth and some of the most beautiful mountains on earth.  Then again, Middle Tennessee ain’t bad.  Remington should be encouraged to move.  Their employees can enjoy the vista at Mount Le Conte and Clingman’s Dome within a few hours drive from where they will live.  They will find good churches, and the people are warm and friendly.

Make it happen without delay.

Kurt Hofmann:

If true–if Christie really believes that this will be enough to appease gun rights advocates–he is adding insult to the injury of the extremely draconian anti-gun bills he has signed, like the one that enables the federal government to disarm anyone it chooses, simply by designating political enemies as “suspected terrorists.” One would certainly hope that gun rights advocates are both far too intelligent and far too proud to be bought off that easily.

Yes.  Read all of Kurt’s assessment of Christie’s recent pandering in his rejection of the ban on .50 rifles.  I am equally unimpressed.  Recall that we’ve discussed Chris Christie before.  Chris Christie is a gun grabber from way back who made his fame in New Jersey by supporting the assault weapons ban.

David Codrea notes another source that points out that Christie opposed concealed carry in New Jersey and is admitted to support strict gun control.

Chris Christie is of the get the hell off the beach crowd of obnoxious, loud mouth, blow hard, windbags who like to run the lives of other people.  However, that’s not what’s really wrong with him.  I may be a loud mouth too, but at least I’m not a totalitarian.  But it would be just like the dead elephant party to nominate this man for national office.

CNN:

… a 12-year-old girl jogging in Michigan is among the latest victims in a spate of bear attacks that have left seven people mauled in five states since Thursday.

Abby Wetherell was out on her nightly jog when she was ambushed by a black bear Thursday outside her home in Cadillac, Michigan. She tried to run at first, but, “It just took me down,” she told CNN’s Piers Morgan Live.

“It clawed me and it was growling,” she said. “It was scary.”

Eventually, she said, she played dead, hoping it would go away. It did, but not before inflicting cuts and scrapes to her face and deep gashes on her legs that required dozens of stitches.

“I just thought I was going to die,” she said. “It was very terrifying.”

After the bear left, Abby ran toward a neighbor’s house, screaming for help. The bear came after her once again, but neighbors were able to scare it away, she said.

Her father, Chris Wetherell, heard her screams and ran out of the house with a gun, but the animal was gone by then, he said.

Authorities also reported attacks in Alaska, Colorado, Wyoming and Idaho …

“The common belief that surprising a mother bear with cubs is the most dangerous kind of black bear encounter is inaccurate, the University of Calgary said in a summary of the study. “Instead, lone male black bears hunting people as a potential source of food are a greater cause of deadly maulings and related predatory attempts.

Other recent incidents include:

A hunter mauled by a bear in Alaska survived 36 hours in the remote wilderness before rescuers found him using night-vision goggles, the Alaska National Guard said Saturday.

A bear clawed its way into a tent and bit a sleeping camper on her arm Thursday night, CNN affiliate KCNC reported.

Two hikers at Yellowstone National Park were injured Thursday after the encountered a female grizzly bear and a cub. The sow charged the hikers, leaving claw and bite marks on one, park officials said.

Two habitat technicians collecting data in Shotgun Valley, Idaho, were injured Thursday when a grizzly bear charged, the Jackson Hole Daily reported.

Or how about 15 stray dogs in Houston, Texas, mauling a woman, or maybe 8 or 9 dogs in Fargo, North Dakota and the man they mauled?  Hey, smart boy, tell me the story one more time about how we don’t need high capacity magazines.  It’s my favorite fairy tale.

Prior: Backpacker Shoots Grizzly In Denali, First Life Saved Since Firearms Legal

As if we could take any more, Piers Morgan and Bob Costas talk guns.

As part of an hour-long conversation conducted in front of a live audience, the man who’s hosted a record nine Olympic games shares his stance on gun control and firearm legislation, offering a response to those that suggest assault weapons with high-capacity magazines are necessary as a means of self-defense:

“They always present this theoretical – ‘well, what if there’s not one or two invaders to my home, what if there’s 10 or 12 and after I’ve killed the first eight or nine, I need to reload?’,” quotes Costas. “Yes, let me know when that happens. And between now and when that happens, sadly, there’s going to be another Aurora, there’s going to be another Newtown.”

We all know that Piers Morgan is a liar, so there’s no need to rehearse that.  But Bob wants us to let him know when someone actually needs a high capacity magazine to defend his life.  Well, here you go Bob.  It happened before you ever did this stupid interview.  It has to do with Mr. Stephen Bayezes.

We may suppose that Costas wants it to happen this way instead (via David Codrea).

I never really had any respect for Costas as a sportscaster anyway.  I think he is an amateur.