Currently Browsing: Gun Rights
Nov 18, 2015
They’d be replacing the Smart Gun mandate with a mandate that would require dealers to stock at least one smart gun. Don’t buy this load of crap for a single moment. They’ve already showed their cards. If smart guns appear on the market, they intend to mandate them, no matter how awful, dysfunctional, and expensive they may be.
I don’t see why Senator Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) would think we’d be fooled by this move and drop opposition to smart gun technology. We didn’t have to arrive at this place. I don’t think any gun owners are opposed to the technology in concept, provided it’s the market that’s allowed to choose whether it wins or loses. But Senator Weinberg didn’t want that. She wanted to mandate it, while at the same time exempting police. That’s not something that can be undone, and trust gets automatically restored. We should continue to oppose this technology. We know, not just speculate, we know it will result in politicians mandating it.
Nov 9, 2015
Writing in USA Today, and echoing the words of George Washington Law Professor Robert J. Cottrol:
Cottrol discussed a number of such cases, including that of Melroy Cort, a double-amputee Iraq veteran who in 2006 was traveling to Walter Reed Army Hospital for treatment from Ohio. He was charged with possession of a pistol not registered in the District of Columbia (though he said he had a permit in Ohio), a felony that would not only have sent him to prison, but would have cost him his veterans’ benefits. Although, as Cottrol notes, prosecutors in the DC Attorney General’s office had discretion to drop the charges; they instead threw the book at him.
Fortunately for Mr. Cort, he was saved by jury nullification, but not everyone is so lucky.
[Prof. Cottrol’s] point: Strict gun laws with stiff penalties are just another example of the overcriminalization that has led to mass incarceration in America, particularly among minorities.
Read the whole thing. I’m glad this point is being made, because this has always been the unintended consequence of “enforce the laws on the books,” which I’m noticing NRA is retreating to again. Prof. Reynolds goes on to reiterate his proposal for federal civil rights legislation that would set the maximum penalty a state can assess for possessing or carrying a firearm on the part of someone not prohibited under federal law to $500. I think it’s a great proposal. The only downside I’d worry about is that the anti-gun states would start passing (more) strange and unusual gun regulations, seeing gun owners as a cash cow to be milked. But I’d prefer that situation to the current status quo that exists in those states.
Beyond that, I would like to pursue under the 14th Amendment a complete federal preemption on state and local regulation for the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms anyone not prohibited under federal law from possessing firearms. Basically, if you’re not a prohibited person federally, you can buy and possess anything that’s legal under federal law. But we’re a long way from something that radical.
Nov 3, 2015
Oh yeah, it’s the sound of $700,000 of Bloomberg’s money circling the bowl. Let us hope by tomorrow the flush will be complete. Ideally what we want is for Democrats to think Bloomberg’s help is poison. At the least, to think that his money won’t help. Imagine if he had spent that money on malaria drugs for kids in poor countries instead of spending it to screw fellow Americans out of their Constitutional birthright.
Nov 3, 2015
Pennsylvanians, Virginians, and New Jerseyans especially. This is your chance to get some small measure of revenge on Bloomberg. If the elections today go well for us, it will be a big defeat for Bloomberg, and if they don’t, Bloomberg will use all that money he spent and the results to try to intimidate other politicians to do what he wants. It could be your state senate district next.
So get out there. What are you waiting for? Well, if you’re like me to be done with work, but don’t forget.
Oct 27, 2015
This USA Today article gives a peek inside ATF’s huge storage facility in West Virginia which houses all the 4473 paperwork that comes from defunct FFLs. It sounds like there is an effort to make the records electronic, sorted by dealer. Basically, you would look up the dealer and then go through each record of the FFL looking for the correct 4473. Because the individual buyers are not indexed, this technically does not violate the federal law making a registry illegal.
If the out-of-business dealer’s records have been converted to the ATF’s electronic database, examiners can attempt to locate purchasers by tabbing through digital folders organized by former dealer names and then sort through individual sales records to identify individual buyers.
But once those records are electronic, it is exponentially easier to run OCR through every record and compile a registry. There is software out there that do name and address corrections, so even if the OCR doesn’t get everything perfect, you could probably still get a registry that is probably 95% accurate. It wouldn’t be that hard to set up a system that did serial number normalization either. You could get from something perfectly legal to a useful registry in a matter of hours with the right systems in place.
The article mentions the large number of traces the office is getting, increasing year-over-year. A lot of anti-gun politicians have been forcing these “trace every gun” policies on their police departments, whether the trace is really needed for the purposes of an investigation or not. Kind of convenient, isn’t it, that the volume of requests coming into ATF has them crying for more money to digitize more and more records.
Now obviously this registry would not be complete, because it would not include private transfers, but they are doing their level best to work on that side of the equation too.
Oct 26, 2015
Prof. Nick Johnson has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal [UPDATE: Link fixed] calling out progressives on their policy solutions. Namely, speaking of the recent endorsement of confiscation schemes:
As a candidate, Barack Obama said that he had no interest in trying to take peoples’ firearms. Now, beyond the influence of voters, the president has begun to elaborate his true inclinations. This month he praised Australia’s far-reaching gun-control efforts. In 1996, after a lunatic used a semiautomatic rifle to kill 34 people in Tasmania, the Australian government banned all semiautomatic rifles and repeating shotguns. Owners of these roughly 700,000 firearms (about a quarter of the country’s three million total guns) were required to turn them in for destruction. The government called this a “buyback,” but no one had a choice.
Read the whole thing. I agree that in some respects, the honesty is refreshing. To quote the great Han Solo, “Bring ’em on, I’d prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around.”
Oct 22, 2015
This just in from NRA:
Fairfax, Va.— The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) announced its support today for the Hearing Protection Act. Sponsored by Congressman Matt Salmon (AZ-05), the legislation removes suppressors from regulations established under the National Firearms Act of 1934.
“Suppressors significantly reduce the chance of hearing loss for anyone who enjoys the shooting sports,” said Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “On behalf of the NRA and our 5 million members, I want to thank Rep. Salmon for his leadership on this important bill.”
Prevailing regulations requires buyers to send an application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), pay a $200 tax, and pass an arduously time consuming ATF background check. Under Salmon’s bill there will be no application, no tax, and buyers would be required to pass the same National Criminal Instant Background Check (NICS) as law-abiding guns owners.
As a leading voice in the industry, the American Suppressor Association has provided valuable insight to the creation of the Hearing Protection Act.
“Suppressors benefit all involved in hunting and the shooting sports. It’s time to bring the law in line with modern technology,” said Cox.
It is currently legal to hunt with a suppressor in 37 states. 41 states allow private ownership of suppressors.
This is good progress. It’s a long way from getting a bill introduced to actually getting it passed, but this is a good first step. It should put to bed the myth that NRA doesn’t do anything for NFA owners.
Now how about we try something novel, and actually try to pass this thing, and put it on Obama’s desk and dare him to veto it. Then the 2016 nominee can explain why they want hunters and shooters to go deaf, and for people who live near ranges to constantly have to put up with the sound of gunfire.
Oct 21, 2015
This article is a year or so old, but I thought I’d re-post it, because it is another one you should keep in your list to save for use when some gun control supporting person starts yammering on social media. Given Hillary is making gun control the centerpiece of her campaign, you’re gonna need it, for sure.
Some myths busted here are the “bad apple gun dealer.” Another part of the article busts the myths about where criminals really get their guns from:
Over the years the ATF and other government organizations have tried to answer this difficult question. In 1991, the ATF estimated that 37 percent of armed criminals obtained firearms from street sales, 34 percent from criminal acts and associates, 8 percent from relatives, 7 percent came from dealers, and 6 percent from flea markets and gun shows. More recently, a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates convicted of gun-related crimes determined that 79 percent of them bought their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or family.” These “illegal sources” included thefts of firearms, black market purchases of stolen firearms and straw purchases.
Can someone explain how you stop this without making firearms exponentially much harder for the law-abiding to obtain? You can buy the book this article is based on here.
Oct 16, 2015
Mass confiscation now seems to be the official policy of the Democratic front runner. When asked about the Australian and British models, Hillary responded:
Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Each of them have had mass killings. Australia had a huge mass killing about 20-25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the U.K. In reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws.
In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program. The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns.
No, Mrs. Clinton, Australia offered $200 per firearm, often for guns worth thousands, and you either took the money and turned over your gun, or you went to prison. Australia forcibly confiscated every semi-automatic rifle in the country, and then offered a pittance in return, as a “so sorry.” Great Britain forcibly confiscated every handgun in the country, upon penalty of going to prison. And they were successful. Why? Because both countries had registration, so the police knew exactly who had them. Universal Background Checks are really universal registration. That’s not an exaggeration, it’s the truth, and it is the primary reason the gun control folks want them. How do we know this? Because every time we’ve offered a UBC system that doesn’t involve the registration component, they’ve rejected it. Registration is what they want, and look to where it lead in Britain and Australia. Now you have both the Democratic President, and Democratic front-runner endorsing the British and Australian model.
Folks, we are in real serious trouble if she wins in 2016. Real serious.
Oct 13, 2015
From a CNN report (link auto plays video, like everything seems to these days):
Gilad Erdan, minister of public security, was contemplating a number of options, police said.
Among security steps were closing off the Palestinian suburbs of east Jerusalem and relaxing gun licensing.
Sounds like a good idea to me. This actually wouldn’t be the first time they’ve eased their gun regulations in response to attacks. This shows that societies facing existential threats, who cannot afford the luxury of magical thinking, seem to agree that firearms in the hands of ordinary good citizens make everyone safer. Israelis are even hitting the range because of the recent attacks. Sadly, things will probably only get worse for Israel since the Obama Administration has abandoned them as allies, and now the whole region is a mess.
Israel’s gun culture really centers around universal military service. It might be tempting to compare it to Switzerland, but the Swiss system is one of universal militia service. Switzerland’s gun laws are relatively permissive, whereas Israel’s are actually pretty strict. Not everyone is happy with that state of affairs, however.