search
top

Mini News Links

It’s going to be a high caffeination day, because my rear is dragging. Sunday night I got woken up by Comcast Internet at work bouncing up and down like a pogo stick for an hour, which shoots texts to my iPhone. Last night we had a power outage here that lasted 40 minutes, starting about 3:30AM. The sudden disappearance of white noise from the fan and the beeping of all the equipment down here got me right up. Thank God for coffee and Coke Zero. Now the links:

Over at the NRA-ILA column in the Daily Caller, a handy guide to anti-gun propaganda.

Subway stabbing victim can’t sue NYPD for failing to protect him, despite New York prohibiting most effective means of self-defense.

A good reason not to have a firearms registry.

Massachusetts is taking up more gun control, similar to New York’s.

ABC misleads yet again.

Losing self-defense rights if you refuse demands to abstain from conduct.

We put our money and votes where our mouths are. “Gun rights supporters donate four times more and are more politically involved than gun control advocates, according to a poll from the Pew Research Center published this weekend.” RTWT

California seems to be engaging in their own nullification law.

Why gun owners need to take fire danger bans on shooting seriously.

Nanny Bloomberg’s soda ban goes down on appeal 5-0. He didn’t even get one judge.

What caliber for Brown Bear? 5.45×39 would not be my first choice.

Bob Owens has a different take on the “guns are for white people” article. I would agree that we can probably do better. A lot of gun rags are pretty “Gun Culture 1.0” centric, which is I don’t read them.

Tam has gotten around to reading the Heidi Yewman piece.

Well, OK, I guess that wasn’t too “mini” was it?

One Response to “Mini News Links”

  1. Geodkyt says:

    The California thing is not a nullification law (unless you believe, as I do, that they effect is to nullify the Second Amendment by restricting private citizens to only buying mythical guns – as when microstamping and smart guns become the only lawful choices). It only involves purchases by federal officers and agencies, conducted in California.

    The only issue I see where federal supremacy would kick in would be if Uncle Same insisted on buying handguns for, say the FBI, and insisted on buying them in California. The law does not affect federal agencies from issuing guns to their agents in California, nor those officers carrying guns they lawfully purchased in other states.

    The real effect is that they cannot buy personal handguns in the state of California, unless they come off the approved gun list, just like any other citizen.

top