search
top

Cash in the Gun Control Movement

Miguel catches CSGV trying to argue that there’s just no real money in gun control, as evidenced by the salaries of Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox. Heh. I guess they are unhappy that Mike Bloomberg, the billionaire who personally put nearly Chris’s salary into one single county campaign in recent weeks, isn’t cutting big enough checks to inflate their salaries.

Six Flags Kicks Out Veteran

Due to their perception that all depictions of firearms in all situations – even in the context of military service – are bad, the Six Flags in New Jersey detained and kicked out a veteran and his family because he was wearing a military-themed shirt with a patriotic-gun design featured on it.

According to the report, Mario Alejandro was pulled aside after he entered the gate and told that he would have to leave or purchase a new shirt at the park’s over-inflated prices to cover up his shirt which they said violated their policy on all things “vulgar, offensive or violent.”

So, Six Flags, which category do you put our veterans in? Are they in violation for being vulgar? Do you find veterans and their service offensive? Or do you have an issue with violence that is required to keep all of you safe, comfortable, and free?

This shirt wasn’t a representation of gang violence, and the shirt is clearly labeled with the logo of a foundation that serves Marines and their families. According to the article, the guy made sure to let the many people around him know – loudly – that he was a veteran and being kicked out for wearing a military-themed shirt. I’m glad. I hope they lose business over it.

Six Flags is a Texas company, so I really should be able to expect more out of them. It’s a shame to see them going so extremely anti-gun that they even kick out veterans who used firearms to defend this country.

On the St. Louis Riots

Charles C.W. Cooke thinks a lot of folks on the right are having the completely wrong reaction:

Whatever its cause, it is indisputably true that the United States has a problem with blacks killing blacks. And yet this has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand, which is: “Did a police officer unjustifiably kill an unarmed black man in Missouri?” It is feasible, is it not, to be worried about the internecine violence in America’s inner cities and to want to get to the bottom of an allegedly unwarranted shooting? So why the conflation? After all, whether or not it is intentional, reacting to a community’s grief by raising an entirely separate topic smacks largely of distraction — of reflexively throwing up a roadblock to what is a legitimate line of inquiry in the hope that the subject might swiftly be changed. 

This is exactly right. If the officer in question did, then he ought to be held accountable for it. I don’t know the whole story, There’s a strong movement beginning on the more libertarian leaning portions of the “right” or “conservative movement” or whatever you want to call it, that is becoming increasingly sympathetic to the idea that there are some cops that run roughshod over the communities they serve and are never held properly accountable for it.

But I’ve never understood the tendency to react to injustice by cutting off your right leg to show everyone how angry you are. If rioters were burning city hall, or overturning police cars, I still wouldn’t condone it, but I’d understand. At least that’s where the people are that wronged you. Reacting to tragedy by destroying your own neighborhood is a reaction that baffles me.

The alleged circumstances surrounding the shooting are certainly suspicious, but there needs to be an investigation. Unlike citizens, police are often allowed to shoot fleeing suspects (whether that’s right is another question). But shooting someone who’s actively surrendering is murder. Even if it was a mistake (booger hook on the bang switch), it’s still manslaughter. But that’s not to say everything is as advertised. These are matters for investigators, prosecutors, and if the facts support it, ultimately a jury.

Pro-Gun Sheriff Wins; Defeats Bloomberg’s Money

There’s a very scary reality that someone with as much money as Bloomberg can put more than $150,000 into a county sheriff’s election and not bat an eye. Money can make things very, very tough to fight when someone saturates the airwaves with a common message during election season.

However, there’s a silver lining in that, ultimately, money doesn’t vote. People vote. That reminder was sent to Mike Bloomberg again last night when the county race he invested so heavily in managed to stay in the hands of a sheriff who believes in the right to defend yourself and your family.

David Clarke retains his office as Milwaukee County Sheriff this morning, even though the Bloomberg-backed challenger is refusing to concede today. Boy, he sure knows how to pick the classy candidates.

Midnight News Dump 8/13/2014

Time to clear out some of the tabs, as I think how how to make all this time balancing work. In truth it’s not really time. When I’m done at the end of the day now, I simply have no mental energy left. I want to watch a movie, listen to some music, or just veg out in my chair. Some people are good mental jugglers, and can keep many balls in the air at once. I can only do it for so long before I just get worn out.

I’m aware of the recent news, I just can’t come up with anything original to say about it. But sometimes I come up with stuff when I try to do a news links post, so let’s go:

American shooters are too intelligent for smart guns.

The Washington Post profiles Tom Palmer, of Palmer v. D.C.

Some of you might have seen Jerry Miculek’s 1000 yard shot with a 9mm. For those physics geeks out there, you might be interested in Joe’s analysis of the shot, which shows there’s some luck involved.

Bearing Arms: Why the new NRA terrifies the political left.

The terror watch list database doubles. No one knows why. Sounds like a great way to treat a constitutional right, by denying it based on one’s presence on a secret government list with no published criteria to get on, and none to get off.

A look at the 2014 Governor’s races. Doesn’t look good for Corbett. I’m not willing to write off the race yet, but his poll numbers need to move in the right direction. Corbett is a lot like Obama. He’s a decent campaigner, but he’s terrible at governing.

I’m not too keen on beer sales at gun shows. But mostly because “What’s the point?” I don’t go to gun shows looking for beer. I go to gun shows looking for guns. I don’t think the argument, to be honest.

Police interference with your right of self-defense, and then failing to protect you, may be unconstitutional.

If you carry a gun you have a supreme duty to be aware of where your firearm is at all times. Get in the habit of checking. That goes double for off-body carry. If you’re going to do that, you should have purpose built equipment. Hint: your kids diaper bag is manifestly inappropriate.

Would you buy a smart gun from this man? Well, now I can see why he thinks a smart gun might be valuable. But I’d generally advise anyone who isn’t willing to practice safe gun handling until it’s ingrained that they are probably better off not owning firearms.

Chicago Chief of Police says carrying a firearm for self-defense is the same as drunk driving. Carrying a gun while drunk, and shooting out streetlights, is apparently something Chief McCarthy is intimately familiar with. He thinks you have as little self-control as he does.

 

Suppressors and Hunting

Apparently a lot of anti-gun groups think hunters losing their hearing is just fine. I also like the notion the media is parroting that silencers put Bambi at a disadvantage. That’s because many people graduating from journalism school know about as much about how the world works from that point of view as a raccoon does.

See, bullets fired from hunting rifles travel faster than the speed of sound, meaning if the hunter has any skill, Bambi is mortal before she even knows what hit her. Bullets also make sonic booms, which means suppressing a hunting rifle is more useful for protecting a hunter’s hearing than masking the sound from wildlife. Any wildlife in the vicinity will definitely hear the shot once the supersonic shockwave caused by the bullet reaches their ears.

2014 Guv Races and Guns

Guns are going to be a big issue in the Connecticut governor’s race. I’d like to see Malloy’s political career served up on a silver platter.  He didn’t win by a huge margin, so maybe it’s possible to knock him off. I’t we manage any of the big four: Hickenlooper, Malloy, O’Malley, or Cuomo, it’ll be a big victory. If we get two, even better. If we get three, that might be enough to re-teach Democrats “the lesson.”

If I had to pick any of the four I’d want Hickenlooper most of all, probably followed by O’Malley, then Malloy and Cuomo. Reason? We were always living on borrowed time in the other states. If we can’t hold Colorado, other states will start to fall like Dominos.

It’s looking pretty bad for Corbett in 2014, and who knows how bad that’s going to affect down ticket races. I would have thought Pennsylvania would start turning anti before Colorado. A lot of Pennsylvanians have no idea how good they have it, and how quickly that’s going to fly south if they don’t wake up.

AWB Upheld: This is Unfortunately Becoming Unsurprising

A federal judge has upheld the Maryland assault weapons ban that was passed in the wake of Sandy Hook.

Blake, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, wrote that she was not convinced that assault rifles such as the AR-15 are used regularly for self-defense. She wrote that they seemed to be “military style weapons designed for offensive use.”

Blake did not rule on whether the weapons or magazines are protected by the Second Amendment. But even if they are, she wrote, the bans are a legitimate way for the state to enhance public safety.

The law “seeks to address a serious risk of harm to law enforcement officers and the public from the greater power to injure and kill presented by assault weapons and large capacity magazines,” she wrote.

Of course, we’ve seen Bush appointees rule this way too, so this isn’t meant to single out Clinton appointees. I should again emphasize how much judges are culturally skittish of gun rights. Gun rights are a movement of ordinary people. Elites have never liked the peasantry to be will armed. Nontheless, we usually lose in district court. Some of our best victories have been disasters in federal district court. So we will appeal, and press on.

Call 911 for Medical Help, Get Arrested

What if someone stabs you in the neck in your own home? You might call 911 for assistance, right? Well, doing that will end up with the police breaking open your gun safe in New Jersey – just so they can see if you have anything they can nab you on, rather than the person who assaulted you.

That’s just what happened when a man called 911 after his wife stabbed him in the neck. They police demanded that he open the safes so they could remove his securely stored firearms. He didn’t cooperate, so they called in a crew to force them open and then arrested him for having too much black powder and ammunition, according to the article. The police also admit that they aren’t closely cataloging the guns, just tossing them in barrels and they’ll get around to it later.

Fourth Amendment Protections Taken Seriously in Arizona

In a case where being polite and cooperating with police quickly turned into commands that a reasonable person would not have felt were optional so that they could leave, the Arizona Supreme Court said that in order to conduct a frisk of a person, “officers must reasonably suspect both that criminal activity is afoot and that the suspect is armed and dangerous.”

The case stems from a stop where multiple officers approached a man who was on the street having a conversation with a woman. They admit that he was polite to them and cooperating fully, and prosecutors apparently tried argued that such polite behavior at the beginning of a stop is a sign of consent to a later search. One of the officers spotted a bulge on the waistband and asked if the man was carrying a firearm. The man admitted that he was, and that’s when officers started commanding him to put his hands on his head, disarmed him, and then later arrested him once they found out he had a prior felony. (The article doesn’t say what that prior record was about.) The Court said that the stop was illegal and therefore they threw out the conviction for being a felon in possession.

Gun issues aside, I’m quite impressed with this quote from the opinion in the article where the Court’s decision said, “police interactions with members of the public are inherently fluid, and what begins as a consensual encounter can evolve into a seizure that prompts Fourth Amendment scrutiny.”

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

top