There is Posturing and There’s Outlaw Biker Gangs

It’s not surprising that the gun control community postures over current events, because those events can sometimes help drive their narratives. When a kid steals a gun from a parent and does something untoward with it, it makes their case that all guns should be disassembled into pieces and stored in underground vaults in the backyard. When one of “mom’s little angel” teenagers gets ahold of a gun and shoots a few rivals and some bystanders, it’s not necessarily crazy on the part of our opponents to presume that maybe some kind of vague, “stricter background checks,” might find a sympathetic ear among voters.

But I have no idea what universe you think your average voter lives in to believe that if we only pass a few more background check laws, we can ensure that outlaw biker gangs are unable to get guns. That seems to be the narrative being floated by both Shannon Watts and her lapdogs in the media. Just look at what the LA Times has to say about one of the outlaw gangs involved in the Waco shootout:

Sunday’s confrontation in Waco also appears to have started as a result of a dispute involving the Bandidos, one of the world’s largest motorcycle clubs, with as many as 2,500 members in 14 countries, and one that’s engaged in distribution of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine, according to the Justice Department. One of their mottoes: “We’re the people your parents warned you about.”

Yes, I’m sure if we just stop people from privately transferring guns, outlaw biker gangs will be reduced to settling their differences through pillow fights and rock/paper/scissors. It’s certainly not possible that a criminal enterprise, who already traffic in contraband, would have no problem obtaining guns or anything else they need to pursue their black market trade. But I think they really believe this.

Just recently, Everytown released a study showing that most people who shoot police officers are, you’re never going to believe this, prohibited persons. This was in response to a police officer in New York being shot to death. It’s almost like gun control doesn’t stop criminals from obtaining firearms, isn’t it? In the same vein, our favorite Brady Board member, over at her new blog, manages to account all the ways that Norway’s strict gun laws failed against a highly motivated lunatic with criminal intent, and then concludes that gun control laws work!

They don’t live in reality. Outlaw Biker Gangs aren’t going to be disarmed. Motivated lunatics will find ways to get guns. The only people their policies succeed in disarming are the people you didn’t have to worry about in the first place.

New York Times Forgets the Lesson of Smith & Wesson

The New York Times doesn’t think left-wing activists should divest themselves of Remington. Why? Because Remington would be better if it were bullied by SJW shareholders.

It’s easy to see why they would want to be done with the whole episode. Selling removes the reputational stain of owning the top American manufacturer of the deadliest consumer product known to man.

I’m pretty sure automobiles are the deadliest consumer product known to man, but lets not let facts get in the way.

Remington’s earnings volatility is not the only factor behind its low valuation. There’s also the stigma associated with owning a gunsmith after Sandy Hook. Cerberus actually tried to sell the business but found no acceptable offers. The situation is somewhat similar to the way tobacco stocks became an investment industry pariah two decades ago.

I’m pretty sure the reason investors don’t want to touch Remington have more to do with the amount of debt it’s carrying versus its earnings, more than what the New York Times thinks.

They could, for instance, insist that Remington ensure all its guns are sold through distributors who conduct more rigorous background checks, or that the company ramps up investments in developing weapons that won’t go off when a child finds them in a negligent parent’s night stand. They might even demand Remington stop supporting the National Rifle Association.

And if they do that, as a community, we will kill Remington. If they don’t believe we can do it, ask the former British owners of Smith & Wesson, F. H. Tomkins P.L.C., after they cut a similar deal with the Clinton Administration. They acquired the brand for 112.5 million dollars. In 2001, Smith & Wesson was sold to Saf-T-Hammer Corporation for $15 million dollars after gun owners boycotted the company.

It’s easy for Social Justice Warriors to delude themselves into thinking people can’t fight back against their bullshit. We can and will, and we’ll bankrupt your investment in the process. They would be wise to divest Remington. Personally, I’m not sure the issue has been done any favors by putting so many gun companies and brands in the hands of New York bankers.

Civil Rights Victory in DC Circuit

The Judge in the D.C. District Court has smacked down at least one aspect of DC’s attempt at evading the Second Amendment in Wrenn v. D.C. The Court in this case did not buy D.C.’s assertion that the good cause requirement was related to the city’s interest in preventing crime:

While, as stated, Defendants argue that the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement relates reasonably to its interest in preventing crime and protecting public safety, they have not established that relationship.

The fact that an individual may be able to demonstrate a greater need for self-protection, and therefore meets the “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement, does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous.

The Court also rejected D.C.’s assertion that they had a legitimate interest in reducing the number of handguns in public places:

Furthermore, even if the Court were to accept the proposition that handguns are used disproportionately in the commission of violent crimes, how is that use related to whether or not a person has a greater need for self-protection? Moreover, isn’t it possible that even persons who cannot manifest a present need for self-protection are just as likely to be victims of a violent crime. Simply put, the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement will neither make  it less likely that those who meet this requirement will present a risk to other members of the public or commit violent crimes than those who cannot meet this requirement. Therefore, after reviewing the record in this case, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to demonstrate that there is any relationship, let alone a tight fit, between reducing the risk to other members of the public and/or violent crime and the District of Columbia’s “good reason”/”proper reason” requirement.

This is very good news. SAF only chose to file for a preliminary injunction on the “good cause” requirement, and they got it. D.C. is now not permitted to enforce this requirement. Good show!

A Harbinger of Federal Action on Suppressors?

It’s a good omen when Chris Cox is bringing the Josh Waldron, President of SilencerCo, out to the annual Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation Congressional Shoot-Out:

This would be an indicator that NRA is doing the necessary ground work to push for having suppressors removed from the National Firearms Act at some point in the future. If we have a favorable outcome in 2016, something like that might make a good second term project for a Second Amendment friendly Administration. Though, maybe I’m being wildly optimistic. I’m probably being wildly optimistic.

Victory for Henderson in Henderson v. United States

The unanimous opinion written by Justice Kagan can be found here. In this case, Tony Henderson was convicted of drug offenses and became a prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He petitioned the FBI to turn his firearms over to a third party of his choosing. The FBI refused, arguing that he would remain in constructive possession. The FBI took the position that the guns could only be transferred to a Federal Firearms Licensee that would then sell them on the open market. Fortunately for Henderson, the Supreme Court was not persuaded by the government’s arguments. The Court holds:

Accordingly, a court may approve the transfer of a felon’s guns con- sistently with §922(g) if, but only if, the recipient will not grant the felon control over those weapons. One way to ensure that result is to order that the guns be turned over to a firearms dealer, himself inde- pendent of the felon’s control, for subsequent sale on the open mar- ket. But that is not the only option; a court, with proper assurances from the recipient, may also grant a felon’s request to transfer his guns to a person who expects to maintain custody of them. Either way, once a court is satisfied that the transferee will not allow the felon to exert any influence over the firearms, the court has equitable power to accommodate the felon’s transfer request. Pp. 3–8.

So provided the third party assures the court that he will not allow the prohibited person to exercise possession or control over the firearms, a prohibited person may delegate a third party.

Obama Administration Restricts Military Equipment to Police

Bob Owens is reporting the Obama Administration has announced restrictions on the federal program to deliver surplus military equipment to police departments. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I do tend to think making the department go to their civilian overseers for approval is not unreasonable. On the other hand, I think it’s not a bad thing, generally speaking, for this equipment to end up widely distributed to local communities, rather than just setting in federal government warehouses. Even if you’re a real wookie suiter “insurrectionist,” it’d be a hell of a lot easier to liberate equipment from your local PD than it would be from the feds if the S were to ever HTF.

Even in NJ, we can win some

Evan Nappen gets a judge to rule that the law means what it says.

In a published decision binding upon all New Jersey municipalities, the New Jersey Appellate Division has confirmed that New Jersey municipalities may NOT require added forms for firearm permit applications beyond the state forms.

It’s a little thing, but little things add up. Also note, “funded in part by the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund.”

Weekly Gun News – Edition 2

It’s a pretty slow news week on the gun issue, but I think I have enough for the weekly gun news.

Lower Merion Township was denied a stay in its lawsuit over it’s illegal ordinances.

In Oregon: punching back twice as hard.

A New York judge has ordered the state police to quit trying to cover up how dismal the compliance rates are for the SAFE act.

North Carolina is working on a bill to get doctors out of the business of badgering their patents about guns, unless, you know, you come in with a gun shot wound, or you say something that indicates you may be suicidal. I don’t like these bills, but the SJWs that run the medical societies have made it necessary.

North Carolina is also working to get rid of its racially motivated gun control law, and is ironically being fought by gun control advocates who want it to stay in place. Of course, they don’t have much game in North Carolina.

Oregon’s new background check bill won’t make anyone any safer, says the Albany Democrat Herald. Also, buying legislation isn’t cheap.

Campus Carry will be back on the agenda next year, says Marion Hammer, NRA’s Lobbyist in Florida.

The 2015 Boomershoot Fireball

Blood dancing isn’t just for gun control activists anymore. Never let a crisis go to waste.

The proper response to DEA agents coming onto to a train and asking where you’re going: “Apparently Russia, officer. Because I didn’t think in America is was any of the government’s damned business.”

Jews and Guns in Northern Virginia.

A mother is suing her son’s school because they wouldn’t let him wear an NRA t-shirt. Good.

Oklahoma’s governor vetoes more pro-gun bills.

Dems pushing to ban online ammo sales. I doubt this is going anywhere.

Don’t forget we have an election coming up in Pennsylvania, and it includes Supreme Court justices.

The Republicans talk a good small government game, but when the chips are down, pleasing social conservatives is more important.

I’ll be wearing black on June 2.

Peirs Morgan is still a jerk, but at least a jerk over there, where maybe we’ll get lucky and Jeremy Clarkson will punch him again.

The Gun Blogger Rendezvous X is being run by Lucky Gunner. I’d love to go again, because it was always a good time. But it’s difficult and expensive to get out to Reno from the east coast. LG is giving away a 150 dollar ammo voucher to attendees, which is tempting, but it’s a $500 plane ticket.

Chuck Schumer isn’t an idiot, but he does grandstand on behalf of idiots.

Why are gun control activists so violent?

Instapundit: Operation Choke Point Strikes Again.

Are New Jersey’s lawmakers wising up on smart guns? The Bergen Daily Record can’t resist flinging childish insults at Second Amendment advocates, but perhaps they are angry things aren’t working out the way they had hoped.

I’m not sure what NSA’s program has to do with gun rights, to warrant NRA’s involvement, but it did occur to me that if such a program could be weaponized by a hostile Administration. They could use it to target NRA’s grassroots network and lobbying efforts. This would make the opposition’s efforts MUCH more effective if they were coordinated with the White House. But weaponizing a program for political purposes? That’s crazy talk. This is the most transparent administration ever!

2A Rally Photos

Yesterday was the 10th Annual 2A Rally at the PA Capitol. Pictures can be found here. I have not gone for several years. Mainly because we’re not facing any major threats. The situation in Pennsylvania is this: With the GOP firmly in control of the legislature, we’re not likely to see any bad bills. With Governor Wolf in the Governor’s mansion, we’re not likely to get anything done. So for the next four years, it’s a stalemate unless the Democrats manage to gain seats in the legislature. The other issue is numbers. Illinois does their IGOLD rally day which was turning up thousands. That’s many people makes an impression on legislators, especially when you can get repeatability every year. We’ve always struggled with that in Pennsylvania. Illinoisans had issues that galvanized their grassroots. We don’t have anything like that here in Pennsylvania.

I’m not saying don’t go, but if you do, I’d head in after the speeches to your lawmaker’s office and try to speak with them one-on-one about your concerns as a gun owner. If you can bring someone else from the district too, that would be even better. I’m big on the impact of direct contact with lawmakers. Not so much on rallies and protests, unless you can turn out numbers that wow lawmakers. That’s a hard thing to do without an issue or threat that galvanizes people.

Should Police Carry Glocks and Other Glock-Like Handguns?

Bob Owens tossed this grenade last week, and I expected to see a lot more explosion. If there’s anything that gets debate going faster than a post that people will take as “your gun sucks,” I’ve never run across it. But it’s largely gone by without much argument in the blogosphere. I noticed that Miguel agrees, and Glenn Reynolds did too.

But really, I wouldn’t consider any response worth my time if the person isn’t a trainer. Those are the people who see a lot of examples and have experience with the limitations of the people they train. The only experience I’ve had with drawing my Glock under stress has been under the stress of competition, and even that’s been a while. I do regularly practice drawing with my finger indexed properly, but not under extreme stress, so I really don’t know if I have enough experience to comment.

All I can say is I’ve stopped fingering triggers on the draw after I conditioned myself not to do it. What would I do under the stress of a deadly force scenario? I don’t know, and I don’t think most other people know either until it happens. That’s why we train. I’ve seen studies about how fine motor control goes to hell when you have a bunch of adrenaline running through you, but if you look at things strictly through that lens, then we should all be carrying broadswords and battle axes, rather than handguns. Yet people do manage to successfully and safely defend themselves with pistols on a regular basis, including striker-fired pistols without manual safeties.

So you won’t see me write up a lengthy post on why Bob is wrong, because to be honest, I don’t have the expertise. I’m not a trainer. But I still plan on carrying a the same Glock I’ve carried since 2002. What do you think?

« Previous Entries Next Entries »