search
top

Heeding God’s Call Protest Gun Shop This Weekend

They are protesting the Shooter’s Shop this weekend. I’m told an NRA alert is going out about it:

Various anti-gun organizations have mounted an offensive to harass legitimate firearms dealers across the Keystone State.

One of these groups, Heeding God’s Call, will be holding a rally tomorrow in front of The Shooter Shop in Philadelphia between 12 noon and 1 p.m.

Please attend a silent vigil of support for legitimate firearm dealers who are under mounting harassment by this anti-gun organization. Show your colors and proudly display your American flag.

The Shooter Shop is located at 2001 E. Allegheny Ave. in Philadelphia (on the corner of E. Allegheny and Emerald Streets).  It is two blocks east of the Allegheny stop on SEPTA’s Market/Frankford el/subway line.

Be advised that Shooter’s Shop is located in a dicey neighborhood. You should have no problem in daylight, and I doubt the local neighborhood folks are going to mess with a bunch of NRA members, but carry your gun with you, do not leave it unattended in a vehicle if you go where someone could break into your car and steal it!

43 Responses to “Heeding God’s Call Protest Gun Shop This Weekend”

  1. Mike says:

    I only wonder if some idiot will open carry, with the obvious consequence of the police being called and more bad press for gun owners.

  2. Mocha says:

    Well, if that happens, then poor you will have to make a choice: whose side am I on?

  3. Acksiom says:

    Mike, open carry strongly appears to increase the safety of gun owners and everyone around them.

    Could you please explain why you want other people to give up any degree of safety merely to appease your personal concerns about bad publicity?

  4. Matthew Carberry says:

    Got data for the claim that open carry increases safety? (note that “anecdote”, even in the plural, /= “data”).

    Publicity is key to keeping the freedoms we have, I fail to grasp why people can’t learn to think a little strategically while exercising their rights.

    I don’t think OC would be a problem at this kind of protest, but be aware that an OC’er is more likely to be asked for a statement by the press at this sort of event so they need to have a calm, concise, rational, on-point comment ready or be willing to simply say something like “I’m just hear to show my support for a law-abiding business”.

    No rants or non sequiter statements. No Gadsden flags or signs denouncing the current administration or promoting cause du jour. Focussed calm respectful presence in protest, let the emotion-driven idiot anti-gunners be the one’s to show their asses in public and on camera, given any chance to do so they will always take it.

  5. mikeb302000 says:

    Sebastian, What I find interesting is that you feel it necessary to tell your fellow gun owners, in italics no less, such a simple thing as don’t leave guns in the car in a “dicey” neighborhood. Do you have that little faith in them? Have you been reading my blog and find yourself beginning to accept my ideas about the average gun owner? Or have you been in agreement with my ideas all along?

  6. Mike says:

    @Mocha: If some OC activist gets into a heap of sh*t because he made a poor choice, then I’m not on anyone’s side, but I won’t pity the guy either.

    @Acksiom: It’s not about safety (although I’m highly suspect of your claim, or at least any hard evidence to back it up). If an OCer was really concerned about their safety, they could just not show up at the protest.

    The problem is that if someone DOES OC, any media will probably flock to them for input. The OC activists I’ve met have been a little too close to the fringe side of things to speak for all gun owners, IMHO. I just don’t think it’s a good idea. In fact, I’m sure we can all think of lots of times it’s worked against us. So hopefully no OC activist will show up and make HGC’s job easier.

    Note that I am NOT against OC. I just think that using it for political purposes has great potention to hurt gun owners AGAIN.

  7. Sebastian says:

    Just letting people who might not be familiar with the neighborhood what to expect, Mike. Sometimes during the day things don’t look as bad as they actually are, especially when lots of other outsiders are around.

  8. Sebastian says:

    I don’t think anyone would blame you if you bought a light artillery piece for that neighborhood :)

  9. Matthew Carberry says:

    mikeb,

    Telling someone who may not be familiar with an area that it is dicey and thus to remember to not leave something of value in their car is simple courtesy.

    Doing so isn’t an indictment of the average gunowner any more than reminding someone going to a restaurant in an unfamiliar dicey area to take their purse or other valubles in with them is an indictment of the average diner.

    When people are on familiar ground with known risks they often operate based on those risks. Letting them know that, however unwise that choice may be in general, it is actually riskier in a particular area is both wise and polite.

    But nice reach.

    Oh, as to the blog. I prefer to read ideas that have actual facts, not mere emotion and baseless assumptions, supporting them. Particularly when those facts have been presented to the opinion holder more than once and yet have been ignored in favor of their prejudices. I can get meaningless opinions like those anywhere.

  10. Mocha says:

    “@Mocha: If some OC activist gets into a heap of sh*t because he made a poor choice, then I’m not on anyone’s side, but I won’t pity the guy either.
    (snip)
    The problem is that if someone DOES OC, any media will probably flock to them for input. The OC activists I’ve met have been a little too close to the fringe side of things to speak for all gun owners, IMHO. I just don’t think it’s a good idea. In fact, I’m sure we can all think of lots of times it’s worked against us. So hopefully no OC activist will show up and make HGC’s job easier.

    Note that I am NOT against OC. I just think that using it for political purposes has great potention to hurt gun owners AGAIN.”

    Well then if you are attending you should open carry so the media will flock to an articulate person like you…

  11. David says:

    I’m not sure of the laws in the area, but here in CA, for those of us who can get a CCW permit, it is prohibited to carry at any sort of protest, rally, strike, or similar event. Something to be aware of.

  12. Sebastian says:

    This is free America :)

  13. Robert says:

    They can’t claim you’re part of an anti-gun protest if you O.C.

    Dress well (no camo), have an articulate position prepared, and remember that anything you say can be used against you (and the rest of us).

    I live in a free state, but I can understand being fearful of taking a courageous stand for your rights. Remember that other movements have not made progress by hiding in a closet.

    • Bitter says:

      Robert, that’s not likely to happen anyway unless one specifically goes to stand over with the anti-gun crowd.

  14. chris says:

    “Now we see Harrisburg, Pennsylvania passing a 2010 budget which doesn’t include debt payments (as in payments on Muni bonds and other debts the city owes) which is essentially a default.”

    OC or any gun rights we have here in the Keystone won’t be a blip on the radar once folks realize we(Pa) are essentially bankrupt. I expect the 2A,as well as all our Rights are about to become moot.

    CIII

  15. Steve in Philly says:

    I though OC in philadelphia is illegal? could someone explain. I was also under the impression that if you own a CCW permit you cannot ever open carry.

  16. Sebastian says:

    It’s legal with a permit. It’s legal without a permit in the rest of the state, but the state law says you have to have a permit to carry a firearm at all in a city of the first class, of which there is only one — Philadelphia.

  17. Robert says:

    If you can’t legally OC, then absolutely do not OC. Just chalk it up to my ignorance of your local laws.

    My main concern was that local media can get creative with counting supporters and opponents. A legal, visible means of differentiating yourselves helps to keep the press honest.

  18. Acksiom says:

    Well, Matthew, if you want to move the discussion to those grounds, then I’ll be more than happy to show you mine. . . after you show me yours, first.

    I.e, when I see the same standards being applied to the assertions about negative publicity consequences. . .first. . .I’ll gladly step up to meet them myself.

    Mike, you haven’t answered the question. You’ve merely reiterated your position.

    Again: could you please explain why you want other people to give up any degree of safety merely to appease your personal concerns about bad publicity?

    Because all you just said was “Yes, my only basis for telling other people to go about in less safety are my personal concerns about bad publicity.”

    If your answer is merely “Because I want it!”, that’s fine. Then I can reply with my stock response for such one-sided demands: No; I don’t like your behavior; you change to suit my personal preferences.

  19. Sebastian says:

    I believe we’ve been actively trying to defend against some negative publicity directed at Starbucks and other restaurant chains that were brought on by open carry activists.

    In this case, I’m willing to put tactical differences aside for the sake of battling the Brady’s, but we would not be on the defensive on this issue if activists in the bay area chose a wiser strategy for moving their issue forward.

  20. Matthew Carberry says:

    The assertion was made that OC provides greater safety than CC, no evidence in support was provided.

    How both science and honest dialogue work is that it is up to the asserter to back up their assertion with evidence. The listener cannot rationally be asked to simply accept any given assertion at face value.

    So all I was looking for, having not seen such evidence, is for a link to the reputable study that supports the assertion. I’m not doubting or denying it at this point, it may well be true. I’m just wondering what backs it up.

    In any event, note that I didn’t ever say “not to OC”, in fact I said i didn’t think it would be a problem so I’m obviously not asking anyone to “give up security”.

    What I was doing was pointing out an issue that seems, on brief reflection, to be, logically, more likely to arise while OC-ing at a protest vice CC-ing. Specifically that a reporter is more likely to ask a person visibly carrying a gun at a protest questions about gun issues than they are someone not visibly carrying a gun.

    Carrying openly, in a situation where not everyone is doing it, draws attention and provides interest for the cameras (and thus ratings). In any given situation, based on my observations of the news over the years, reporters look for people drawing attention to themselves as they often are more likely to have strong opinions on the subject and strong opinions make for good quotes.

  21. Mike says:

    @Acksiom: You rephrased what I said as:
    “Yes, my only basis for telling other people to go about in less safety are my personal concerns about bad publicity.”

    However, this hinges on your *opinion* about OC being safer than concealing. So yeah, my personal concerns about the repeated, independently verifiable negative publicity OC activists create would seem to trump your *opinions* about OC. Unless you want to back up your claims about OC, which you apparently don’t/can’t.

  22. Acksiom says:

    The assertion was made that OC provides greater safety than CC, no evidence in support was provided.

    And the assertion was previously made that OC makes pro-2nd Amendment activism harder because of negative publicity, and variations on that general theme; no evidence in support of that has been provided, in the first place.

    Do I see you taking the first unsupported set of assertions to task?

    Do you understand what you need to do first for your challenge to have any standing?

    How both science and honest dialogue work is that it is up to the asserter to back up their assertion with evidence. The listener cannot rationally be asked to simply accept any given assertion at face value.

    Oh. Apparently you do understand that.

    I guess all that is left is for you to actually do it, then.

    No rush. Take your time. I’m just lying around this week watching anime and eating soup while I get over a cold.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Mike, and again, if you want to move the discussion to those grounds, then I’ll be more than happy to show you mine. . .after you show me yours, first.

    I.e, when I see the same standards being applied to the assertions about negative publicity consequences. . .first. . .I’ll gladly step up to meet them myself.

    I can copy and paste that all day, dude. I’m not only recuperating but retired; I literally have nothing better to do. So you might as well get on the stick and meaningfully address it, because I actually enjoy scrubbing stuff like in people’s faces, which means the usual trick of just ignoring it in the hopes that the other guy will get tired and stop bringing it up only results in encouraging me to do so.

    Again, the first assertion has been “OC makes it harder because of the negative publicity,” and variations on that general theme. The problem is, all we’ve been given in support of that is pure opinion and the fallacy of argument from expertise.

    S’okay-fine, then; all we need now is for you folks to provide — or require of others — the same kind of rigorous proof that you’re requesting of me, first, because, AGAIN, the FIRST assertion has been “OC makes it harder because of the negative publicity,” etc.

    However, this hinges on your *opinion* about OC being safer than concealing. So yeah, my personal concerns about the repeated, independently verifiable negative publicity OC activists create

    Ohhhh no. Nonononono.

    Cites, or it didn’t happen. And not just of the existence of this “negative publicity”, but that it’s had a meaningful negative effect on pro2nd-Amendment activism. Because the latter is, after all, necessary for your “concerns” to be of any importance to the rest of us.

    Wow, that’s kind of a tough bar to meet, there. Gee, maybe you guys shouldn’t have set it so high with all this “provide proof!” stuff. . .makes it a lot harder for you. . . .

    Unless you want to back up your claims about OC, which you apparently don’t/can’t.

    Ok, I’ll get right on that. . .

    . . .just as soon as you meet that standard for your own “concerns”. You go right ahead. I’ll wait.

    Aaaaaany post now. Really. No hurry.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    In short, unless and until you guys start applying that same rigorous standard of proof to statements such as this:

    I believe we’ve been actively trying to defend against some negative publicity directed at Starbucks and other restaurant chains that were brought on by open carry activists.

    In this case, I’m willing to put tactical differences aside for the sake of battling the Brady’s, but we would not be on the defensive on this issue if activists in the bay area chose a wiser strategy for moving their issue forward.

    . . .then you’re simply not entitled to try to apply them to me.

    You don’t get to have it both ways. Pick one standard, and stick to it.

  23. mikeb302000 says:

    Matthew Carberry said, “How both science and honest dialogue work is that it is up to the asserter to back up their assertion with evidence. The listener cannot rationally be asked to simply accept any given assertion at face value.”

    Why don’t you start by showing us where that idea comes from. Who is the one who determined how both “science and honest dialogue work?”

    Aren’t you guilty of the very same thing your talking about?

    I say, reasonable people can indeed have honest dialogue with no evidence at all. They can easily talk about controversial issues, especially ones in which conflicting “proof” is offered on both sides.

    Sometimes it’s less honest to insist upon proof instead of admitting obvious conclusions.

  24. Mike says:

    @Acksiom: “And the assertion was previously made that OC makes pro-2nd Amendment activism harder because of negative publicity, and variations on that general theme; no evidence in support of that has been provided, in the first place.”

    And that’s where I stopped reading. I can think off the top of my head of 5 prominent examples:
    – Orange tipped AK pistol OC guy
    – Starbucks OC in CA
    – AR-15 OC at tea party rally
    – Pistol OC at tea party rally
    – Pistol OC and bible at Obama rally

    And that’s with no google-fu. Each of these made the national news, and each of them was negative publicity, followed with talking heads calling for more gun laws and restrictions. Which certainly didn’t help 2A.

    With friends like OC activists, who needs the anti-gun organizations?

  25. Acksiom says:

    And that’s where I stopped reading.

    [shrug] Then you’ve by-default conceded the point to me, and therefore the argument.

  26. Mike says:

    I’m not sure what you think this is – there’s no conceding and there are no points. This isn’t some game of battleship or a junior high debate club.

    Luckily, nobody OC’d at the protest this time. Apparently the shop owner requested that (perhaps he realizes how it would be perceived negatively too). Some of the mall ninjas over at PAFOA *really* want to OC, winning tactics be damned, so we’ll see how long that lasts.

  27. Matthew Carberry says:

    aksiom,

    Ok, I’m willing to concede that the statement “OC creates negative publicity which then must be dealt with by the pro-gun side before the actual issue at hand, (which, in this particular case, was support for a gun store, that is sales, not carry) can be addressed” is in fact opinion, buttressed only by multiple anecdotes.

    I would also point out, again, that I never actually made a statement in this thread to that effect, though it was somewhat implied, so expecting me to defend it before addressing my request of you certainly appears to be evasive use of a straw man.

    Be that as it may, with my concession that roadblock is now out of the way.

    So, with no intent on my part to play “gotcha” but simply for my edification, what is the evidence that supports the claim that OC increases safety over CC? I’m actually curious if any rigorous studies have been done on the subject. It certainly is worthy of one.

    mikeB,

    You really can’t see how a dialogue of empty assertions is, at best, utterly useless?

    “I think the sky is purple.” “Why?” “Just because.” =/

    There is a difference between discussing policies, which impact lives and freedoms, and discussing the weather. When you are looking at impacting lives with government action, you best have facts to back up your opinions, not just emotions or suppositions. I direct you to, as an example, the various standards of legal scrutiny.

    As for “who determined that science requires evidence to assert certainty”, that would be the Scientific Method, which in its earliest exposition dates back to the 7th century BC when Thales discarded supernatural explanations of natural events. That subject is typically, in my experience, first covered in grade school.

  28. Weer'd Beard says:

    Matthew Carberry: MikeB302000 is an avid anti-gun blogger. He reads all the major gun blogs, press releases on the gun issues, gun laws, and statistics on firearms use, and violence in general.

    He is well aware that the anti-gun issue is a pure looser. He’s simply an internet troll looking for attention, by claiming that somehow omitting facts from an argument would be a valid reason to supporting gun control.

    Pay him little mind, he’s both a criminal, and likely mentally ill.

  29. Acksiom says:

    . . .there’s no conceding and there are no points. This isn’t some game of battleship or a junior high debate club.

    Yes, there is, and yes, there are. It doesn’t have to be either of those two things for there to be points, as in assertions, to be refuted or conceded.

    And I’d like to thank our host for this nicely apposite recent quote, which partly explains why refusing to read someone else’s arguments is a tacit concession that they’re right: “. . .just one more example of shutting down debate when they are called out for their bullshit.”

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    Ok, I’m willing to concede that the statement “OC creates negative publicity which then must be dealt with by the pro-gun side before the actual issue at hand, (which, in this particular case, was support for a gun store, that is sales, not carry) can be addressed” is in fact opinion, buttressed only by multiple anecdotes.

    Thank you, Matthew. Now that we’ve cleared that up, here’s my original comments on the subject, from about 7 months ago:

    http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/08/21/im-just-another-guy-with-an-opinion/#comment-48251 .

    I know of no rigorous studies one way or the other. I do know, however, that I’ve also been pointing out for almost as long that just getting the idea of OC out past the mass media’s Lace Curtain of censorship should count as a positive, but oddly enough no one ever wants to address that point either.

    I would also point out, again, that I never actually made a statement in this thread to that effect, though it was somewhat implied, so expecting me to defend it before addressing my request of you certainly appears to be evasive use of a straw man.

    Except that I’ve never requested, let alone expected, you to defend it. I’ve simply required you to apply the same standards of challenge to it that you’ve applied to mine. And now that you’ve done so, I’m happy to meet them myself.

    The bottom line is that neither side has anything even remotely like authoritative evidence.

    However, one side does appear to have better evidence, as well as both reasoning and intellectual integrity.

  30. Bob S. says:

    From Leonard Pitts column – Facts are a stubborn thing
    http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/02/22/1987968/facts-are-stubborn-things-but.html

    You see, like me, she can remember a time when facts settled arguments.

    This is back before everything became a partisan shouting match, back before it was permissible to ignore or deride as “biased” anything that didn’t support your worldview.

    If you and I had an argument and I produced facts from an authoritative source to back me up, you couldn’t just blow that off. You might try to undermine my facts, might counter with facts of your own, but you couldn’t just pretend my facts had no weight or meaning.

    To listen to talk radio, to watch TV pundits, to read a newspaper’s online message board, is to realize that increasingly, we are a people estranged from critical thinking, divorced from logic, alienated from even objective truth. We admit no ideas that do not confirm us, hear no voices that do not echo us, sift out all information that does not validate what we wish to believe.

    Now who was it that said that no facts could change his mind?
    Bueller, Bueller?

    Hey– is that what the B in MikeB302000 stands for???

  31. J.S.Bridges says:

    “…Hey– is that what the B in MikeB302000 stands for???”

    No, Bob, observably, that “B” in there stands for “Bullsh*t, constant” – as in, 24/7/365. Ol’ Mikey The Illegal Gun Owner is a Non-Recovering Chronic Bullsh*tter…

  32. KATIE says:

    How about we stay focused on the real problem. . . illegal sales and straw purchases which support increased criminal activity. This particular neighborhood (Kensington) is dying from the violence. What can we all do to work together to stop the illegal sales and save this neighborhood? (the protest is NOT aimed at stopping guns altogether, or even shutting down this store). Can these two sides work together to find a solution? I think so. I believe reasonable minds, and respectful dialog really can prevail. Let’s not be so divided by “sides.” Let’s join together to find a real solution to the illegal sales of firearms and straw purchases.

  33. Matthew Carberry says:

    Katie,

    What solution do you propose?

    It is already illegal to participate in a straw purchase as either a buyer or seller.

    The biggest issue in Philly seems to be the local city and state law enforcement not using the tools they already have to combat the problem. That is a failure of will by the powers that be, not a sign of any lack of laws.

  34. KATIE says:

    Matthew – I agree with you . . . laws are already in place that aren’t being enforced. But I often wonder how our police can tackle this problem when they are so outnumbered. This issue is so complicated that it really needs to be addressed on multiple levels. . . and one of those levels is asking gun shops to consider signing the “code of conduct.” To me, it seems like any shop owner who is truly following the law wouldn’t have a problem with it. But again, this is only one tiny step in the whole gun violence/ illegal gun sales issue. There aren’t any simple solutions . . . but evey little step has got to help.

  35. Sebastian says:

    Much of the code of conduct are already federal law, such as requiring identification. Much of it is already practiced by dealers. The big sticking issue for me is the computerized database they want to create so that if I had a gun stolen, it’s possible no dealer would ever sell me another gun again. There’s also the issue if the system flags someone who’s had a gun stolen, and the dealer proceeds with the sale. What’s his liability?

    The main issue is it’s not the job of these gun control activists to impose requirements on legitimate businesses. That’s the job of their federal and state regulators. The entire purpose of this charade is to make legitimate business look like they are shady, or doing something wrong. We’re not going to play along with their game.

  36. KATIE says:

    Thanks Sebastian. I’m new to the pros/cons of gun control and I’m trying to keep an open mind to both sides of the discussion. I appreciate some of the comments posted. I’m really fed up with the rampant gun violence in Philadelphia. What do you see as the #1 way to reduce illegal guns?

    • Bitter says:

      Put your criminals in jail. This site has long shown how the city drops or pleads away charges for violent criminals.

  37. KATIE says:

    Hi Sebastian – I agree locking up criminals is a HUGE piece of the puzzle. And plea bargains are just a joke in general. So that is something that also needs to be addressed. But locking up criminals is dealing with the issue AFTER a crime has occurred. So how do reduce the gun trafficking (straw purchases) while still maintaining 2nd a. rights? The code of conduct isn’t a panacea, but it does call attention to the need for gun shop owners to abide by what is right – and that would actually benefit us all. I think that for the most part regular citizens who want to buy a gun for protection, recreation or hunting wouldn’t be impacted. Its meant to cut down on the number of guns that get into the hands of criminals . . . which is something we would all like to see. Both “sides” would like to see less gun violence (focus on prevention)

    • Bitter says:

      Have you ever looked at how many of your criminals are repeat offenders? If you lock them up the first time, they cannot be out on the streets to offend a second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth time. You might think I’m exaggerating, but I’m not. This a topic this blog has covered for years, which obviously you have not studied thoroughly.

      Consider the murderers responsible for the death of Sergeant Liczbinski. The trigger man had a rap sheet that was 15 pages long. I counted more than 100 charges against him, and that was only to the top of page 6 of 15. He was not prosecuted for the overwhelming majority of those. He was allowed to plea down when he was prosecuted. Just looking at his gun crimes alone, he had 24 different arrests for carrying a gun illegally that the prosecutor didn’t even bother to take to court for various reasons. That’s 24 gun crimes that could have been prevented if he had been put away. One man in jail, ~250 total crimes that would not have happened, more than 2 dozen gun crimes that would not have happened, and most importantly, one police murder that would not have happened.

      Putting criminals in jail is a form of preventive crime fighting. If the shooter had been punished for even a fraction of his crimes, he never would have been on the street to commit more crimes and murder a police officer. Look at your repeat offenders and you’ll find that if they are actually punished early in their careers, they wouldn’t be on the streets to keep pushing up the number of gun and other crimes. After you get those guys off the street, the crime rate will drop and then we can start having the conversation about what else could be done. Because as long as criminals are allowed to go free, it doesn’t matter how many laws you pass. They will be violated and no one will punish those who violate them.

  38. mikeb302000 says:

    I agree that violent criminals need to be in jail and not back on the streets so quickly and easily. But, I also like what Katie’s been saying about the benefit to both sides in encouraging gun dealers to be more vigilant in identifying straw purchasers.

    Sorry if this is a dumb question, but why does the link under Katie’s name go back to an April 3rd post called Kookery on Parade?

  39. Matthew Carberry says:

    Mike,

    That’s great you feel that way, but what “more”, in particular, can gun dealers actually do than abiding by existing regulations? Beyond your feelings and impressions what factually based, rationally supportable solution do you bring to the table?

    How much “more vigilent” can dealers be than abiding by existing regulations? Check ID’s “harder”? Press extra hard on the 4473 form? Speak more slowly and clearly when performing the NICS check and asking the Feds if they’re really really sure?

    What additional laws or behaviors will make what is already illegal more illegal enough to stop people who will pass any conceivable background check yet are willing to commit a crime?

    Note that if a gun dealer is not following the regs or doing their due diligence under them they are also already breaking the law. That is not a mere omission that any pledge can fix, that is criminal, prosecutable negligence (at best). If they aren’t following existing regs with their serious penalties, what additional reags and additional penalties will cause them to change?

    Also bear in mind that straw purchases are apparently a minimal (single digit percentile) source of firearm acquisitions by prohibited persons that are used in crime(NIJ ’97 and other studies).

    The burden, as always, remains on those who would further restrict a fundamental right to demonstrate that there is a significant problem to be addressed, that their solution would actually work to address the problem, and would also address the problem to a significant extent sufficient to outweigh the additional burden on the millions of law-abiding who are in no way part of the problem.

    There’s no solution to the problem of straw purchases that can meet any of those tests, much less all of them.

    In general, when policies that effect people are on the line, feelings are meaningless, only facts matter.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Regarding Certain Open Carry Comments « Fait Of The World - [...] PDRTJS_settings_1297379_post_392 = { "id" : "1297379", "unique_id" : "wp-post-392", "title" : "Regarding+Certain+Open+Carry+Comments", "item_id" : "_post_392", "permalink" : "http%3A%2F%2Ffaitmaker.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F02%2F24%2Fregarding-certain-open-carry-comments%2F" }…
  2. Regarding Certain Open Carry Comments - Where Angels Fear To Tread - [...] This is aimed at certain people commenting here. [...]
top