search
top

News Links for Monday 02-16-2015

Greetings from antarctic station zebra, or at least that’s what it feels like. It’s actually warmer in Alaska than it is here in Southeast Pennsylvania. Seems every time I start to think gun news is getting slow, it gets real interesting, real fast. I could do with slow news if it means no action from the Obama Administration to restrict our rights. I saw in Facebook a gun guy I know, who I also know to be a Democratic voting lefty, arguing that Obama couldn’t ban ammunition, and this was all a conspiracy to drive up ammo prices. There’s a lot of ignorance out there, and it is our mission as gun owners to relieve it.

National reciprocity is now on the table. It’s already upsetting the right people.

Miguel reports on an attempt to ban shooting ranges on residential property. NRA is opposing it because it makes no distinction between dense residential areas and rural properties, and because they argue current law is being misunderstood.

I have to agree with Jeff Soyer on this one. I’m not big on giving cops exemptions to generally applicable law. If it’s bad for the police, it’s bad for everybody.

Well, I’m glad the California legislature is taking the prospect of false reports seriously, but I still think there are serious due process concerns with this “Gun Violence Restraining Order” idea.

Good on Vermont gun owners for showing up. Fortune favors those that do. Hopefully we’ll send Bloomberg home with his tail between his legs.

Can’t stop the signal, though Bloomberg apparently thinks he can.

Marco Rubio would seem to be running for President. This is a good thing he’s doing.

Charles C.W. Cooke: “If Mance v. Holder’s Outcome Is So Horrible, Why Did Democrats Offer It Legislatively in 2013?” Because they were willing to trade it for something they wanted. Now we might win it outright, without us having to give up anything.

At least one reporter at Bloomberg News thinks Vermont being gun crazy is some kind of new development. Vermont’s hippies have been better armed than California’s for quite some time.

You knew the antis weren’t going to stop with I-594.

John Lott takes apart yet another Bloomberg “study.”

I think Governor Hogan should at least lend moral support to the cause of freedom. But unless the Dems are booted from the legislature, Maryland is likely lost unless the courts or Congress save it. I’m sure Emily Miller’s appearance at their rally will drive certain antis absolutely nuts.

Constitutional Carry is in trouble in Idaho, apparently. There’s going to be a rally February 21st in Boise. It’s doing much better in New Hampshire, where it’s cleared the Senate and is now on to the House.

Both campus carry and open carry have passed out of committee in Texas. As Bob Owens notes, the preferred version of the open carry bill, the one that would not have required a CHL, is sunk.

Talking to the cops after a defensive shooting, from an attorney.

If you want us to be reasonable, you first. We’d never accept a waiting period in the context of other fundamental constitutional rights. Why this one?

Bob Owens has an idea for how to fix the federal AP ban. The big problem is what defines “designed for use in a handgun.” Is 5.7x28mm designed for use in a handgun or a rifle? I’d like to use a green approach to just go for outright repeal. Dave Hardy isn’s so sure M855 even falls under the statutory definition, since it still uses some lead. That could open the door to lawsuits if the Administration actually drops this hammer.

Christians joining militias in Iraq to fight ISIS.

Shooting the Russian AN-94. I’d love a chance to shoot one, but it never looked to me like a design that would be reliable.

Looks like a Tavor trying to hump a KRISS

Off Topic:

I’d like to shut DHS down for good.

2 Responses to “News Links for Monday 02-16-2015”

  1. Renegade_Azzy says:

    So, the Ft hood shooter wouldn’t need a background check, but I would?

    Cant see ANY infringement there…

  2. Archer says:

    There are plenty of statutory problems for the proposed M855 “armor piercing” ammo ban.

    By federal law:

    The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—
    (i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
    (ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile. [emphasis added]

    The use of the word “entirely” in the first paragraph makes it an exclusive list (excepting trace levels). The projectile core of M855 is mostly lead, with a steel tip, but since it’s mostly lead (not trace lead), and lead is not on the list, it’s not composed entirely of those substances.

    And the phrase “designed and intended for use in a handgun” is equally problematic. It seems to me, M855 was designed to meet military specifications, which means, among other things, that unlike many commercial rounds, we have a paper trail as to what its design and intended use are. It’s not reasonable to say the military procured it as a “handgun” round; the military does not field handguns chambered for 5.56. It was procured as a rifle round, so therefore it cannot be “designed and intended for use in a handgun”.

    It’s been said elsewhere, that parsing the language doesn’t help – it’s the fact that the language is there at all that’s the problem – but I think this might be a rare case where the plain language actually works in our favor.

top