search
top
Currently Browsing: Gun Rights

Far Left Not Keen on Gun Control

Gun control has almost always been a desire of the ruling class, not those they wish to rule. You’re even hearing them using the “monopoly on violence” rhetoric that’s been going around gun rights circles for some time. This begs the question of how long the Dems will keep up the anti-gun rhetoric? Hillary’s reaction to the Vegas shooting didn’t seem to go over well with anyone. Is there perhaps some recognition that this issue has outlived its usefulness?

More Fun Facts

Also seen on the Internets from certified very smart people when it comes to gun laws:

The Original 1934 NFA Banned ALL Handguns, Semi-Autos & Mags over 12 Rds. Had NRA Been “No Compromise” We Would Have Lost it All.

I wasn’t even alive then, and my Grandpop was just 14, but I know from my own research this is true. We got AOWs because they were originally meant to apply to handguns, and they were carved out of it at the last minute very carelessly. The original definition of a machine gun was any firearm which could fire more than 12 rounds without reloading.

Fun Fact of the Day

I was just entering high school in 1989, when New Jersey started the great Assault Weapons debate, so I did not know this. Seen on the Internets from someone who would know:

In ’89 New Jersey Could Have Beaten the Assault Firearm Ban if We Agreed to Assault Firearms Permits. We Said “No Compromise.” We Lost. Its Still Law.

Assault Weapons bans are culture killers. People who get into shooting enough will tend to leave states that have passed them. Would New Jersey gun owners have been better off taking that deal? At the very least it would have bought time. Sure, they might have banned them eventually, but at least they would have had to fight twice on the issue instead of winning it all in one fell swoop.

You don’t always have the choice between winning and losing. Sometimes it’s a choice between losing and not losing so much. I’m not saying we’re in that situation now, but screaming “No!” louder is not a strategy. Unless you feel confident we can deliver every GOPe critter’s head on a silver platter in the 2018 primaries, saying “No!” would have meant losing, which leads to more losing.

There is no surprise that even some harder core GOP legislators were geared up and ready to pass a bump stock ban: there is almost no lawmakers out there who are ideologically committed to gun rights. They arrive at their position on this issue solely on the basis of which votes they think they’ll gain or lose come election time. Money is also a factor, and while we do spend money, Bloomberg is waiting with open arms to donate large sums to defectors.

That is why it is very important when you write your lawmakers to make them understand you vote on this issue, and that if they want to keep that vote, they better not just sign up for takeaways.

NRA Asks for Reevaluation of Bump Stocks

I’m not surprised by this. I do wonder why you’d invite ATF to reclassify rather than use it as a bargaining chip to get our two bills through Congress. I know a lot of people are going to freak the ever loving hell out about this, but there’s several truths, unpleasant truths to be sure, but truths nonetheless:

  • With this incident, continued grandfathering of machine guns is going to be at risk. I’ve been told by very experienced people who work with Congress that the current machine gun regime exists because for the most part it flies under the radar. There’s only been one incident where a legal machine gun was used in a crime, and that was committed by a police officer.
  • Machine guns are a hill you’re going to die on. The time to have that fight was in 1934, and the population was too busy trying to survive the depression. Rightly or wrongly, and I believe wrongly, machine guns have never been considered by most Americans to be in the scope of their Second Amendment rights. This probably has something to do with the fact that they were banned before there was any great awakening on the Second Amendment, or maybe Americans just didn’t care enough to fight until they started going after guns that weren’t machine guns. Either way, it’s a lost cause. You might not like hearing this, but it’s reality. Our best bet to preserve what machine guns are left is to let them continue to fly under the radar.
  • Semi-autos are put at risk because one of our powerful arguments is that they are not, in fact, easy to convert. We largely have overcome the assault weapons issue by relieving people’s confusion that assault weapons are machine guns. Why did this work? Because the vast majority of Americans are OK banning machine guns. I’ve been talking to numerous people who are not inherently hostile to guns who are asking me why the feds allowed a conversion that was so easy to do. You’re not going to argue back with “But it’s not a conversion. It’s only simulated full auto fire.” You’re splitting hairs, and people know what they heard and saw on those videos.
  • Bump fire stocks are a range toy. They aren’t particularly useful for target shooting, aren’t particularly reliable, and aren’t particularly useful for self-defense. If you like the citizen militia purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and I do, they aren’t particularly useful for that either. No current military would field them. I’m not going to agree to risk suffering real and substantial losses to defend them. Is banning them stupid and useless? Yes. But public policy is rarely decided on the basis of reason.
  • SHARE and National Reciprocity were probably going to pass the house, but both were likely going to fall short of 60 votes in the Senate. We know this because the last time the issue came up we were short. If attaching a reclassification of bump stocks gets us past 60 votes, I’ll take it. Those are real and substantial gains for the Second Amendment. I think it’s well worth the trade.

I know this is going to piss off a lot of people, but this is reality.

UPDATE: The more I think about this, the more I think this is a tactic to buy time. Time is our best friend here. Most likely scenario: ATF reviews its determination and says, which is perfectly true: “We can’t reclassify these things without legislation.” By that time, politicians are acting more reasonably, and the public has moved on. We get out of the immediate crisis and have more room to make a deal.

What Happens When Non Gun People Design Gun Accessories

Does this winning smart holster really put a bar through the trigger guard? Seriously? That’s not how retention should work. Leave this stuff to gun people!

I give them credit for understanding that the smarts should be outside the gun rather than in it. I’ve been saying that for a while. But that holster is dangerous. Because the person who designed it likely knows nothing about guns or gun safety. Ironic, don’t you think?

The problem is, no gun person would waste their time on this because it’s not a product the market wants.

Suppressors Should Be No More Regulated than Pencils

Apparently the anti-gun groups are having a right fit now that the SHARE Act is moving in Congress. The silencer part of the bill seems to be what they are particularly hysterical about. What the hell is the big deal? Without a gun, what are you going to do with it? To me it makes about as much sense regulating optics. It is an accessory, and not in itself a potentially dangerous tool.

Look, I get the antis are going to argue up and down that firearms aren’t regulated enough in this country, but there’s just nothing particularly dangerous about silencers. That’s a fact. But suppressors would make a huge difference to the community in terms of saving hearing and cutting down on noise emitted from gun ranges. They should be no more regulated than pencils, because a pencil can be sharpened and used as an improvised weapon. A suppressor? Maybe you could throw it at someone and put a big knot on their head.

New Jersey, Where Everything is Illegal

Despite SilencerCo’s marketing, the new suppressed .50 cal muzzleloader is not legal in New Jersey. Let’s face it, what is? New Jersey defines firearms in such a way that even BB guns are firearms under New Jersey law, and if you put a silencer on one, that’ll land you in prison my friends. I’m pretty sure this is also illegal in Massachusetts as well.

The Law: Tis For The Little People

Despite being illegal under federal law, the US Virgin Islands have declared a gun confiscation. That’s not even speaking about the constitutionality of the whole endeavor. Granted, they are handled by the 1st Circuit, which is pretty gun unfriendly, but the judges would really have to reach to justify upholding this.

For those in the path of the Irma, and I myself have a lot of family, I just want to wish you all good luck. We’re all counting on you.

New California Regulations

From Bearing Arms:

The question is whether these new regulations would stand up to judicial scrutiny. I have no doubt that California courts will find these rules constitutional, but would it survive higher courts? I have to believe they don’t, if for no other reason that this is a clear attempt to restrict an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. That said, I’m not a legal expert. This is something for the legal experts to hammer out.

I give approximately no chance that state or federal courts will strike down these regulations. Remember, the 9th Circuit has, so far, successfully overturned Heller’s direct ruling striking DC’s safe-storage law. SCOTUS let them get away with it.

The only way this regulation is going down is if there is a chance on the Court. Otherwise it’s going to go the same way every other case has gone: there might be a temporary victory at one level of the court if we get the right judge or judges, but it’ll be undone. California prevails en banc, and SCOTUS refuses to hear the case.

California can do whatever it wants to gun owners. Pretty soon, New Jersey will be in the same position, once Christie is gone.

Standing

Standing has always been a useful concept for courts who don’t want to hear or decide on the specifics of a case, to have a convenient way to dispose of the case without having to reach there. So the FBI has been taking NICS check data and cross referencing it to the Terrorist Screening Database for a number of years now.

Here you have two theories of standing. One is that because the cross reference didn’t in any material way affect your ability to buy a gun, you have no standing to sue. Only someone who is singled out for different treatment because of the cross reference has standing. The other theory is that because your purchasing information has been used in a way not authorized by law, that the mere act of having your data cross referenced to another database creates standing in and of itself.

Guess which theory of standing was adopted by the federal courts so far? If that theory holds, no one would have standing since the FBI doesn’t use the screen to influence the person’s NICS status. It presumably just creates an alert. The cross reference might be illegal on the part of the FBI, but no one can challenge it.

« Previous Entries

top