I have to agree with SayUncle that this is not the way to go about things. Any political movement will have its whack jobs. I would point out some examples of anti-gun people coming to my site to leave bozotic comments, but there aren’t any. In order to have bozos, you have to actually have some grass roots. When you don’t have grass roots, you have to resort to paying people to be bozos.
Month: June 2007
I’m a Little Skeptical
I’m a little skeptical that Ford’s troubles have more to do with their stance on homosexuality than the fact that they aren’t making products that people want to buy.  While I don’t have any issues with Ford’s supporting of homosexual groups myself, I will say I don’t know how much it makes sense for Ford to court gay buyers.  Gays typically are in demographic brackets are that are less likely to be attracted to Ford products.
I think it’s wise for corporations to stay out of controversial political issues as much as they can, otherwise they shouldn’t act surprised when they create PR problems for themselves.  I have no problem with Ford supporting groups that are promoting gay marriage, but people who have no issues with the idea of gay marriage are very much in the minority right now.  Any company that wades into that issue, one way or another, does so at their own peril.
Ahab Has a Mighty Fine Idea
I totally dig the concept of a Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) in .17HMR.  I’d buy one! How hard is it to get a SOT for making SBRs? Maybe things would go easier with the budget committee if the gun hobby were bringing in money :)
Read the Law – It gets worse
The signing of a bill to make criminals out of ordinary citizens who fail to report a stolen in Connecticut is making its way around the blogosphere, but it’s always good to read the actual law.  You can read the whole act here.
(a) Any person who lawfully possesses an assault weapon under sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a or a firearm, as defined in section 53a-3, that is lost or stolen from [him] such person shall report the loss or theft to [law enforcement authorities] the organized local police department for the town in which the loss or theft occurred or, if such town does not have an organized local police department, to the state police troop having jurisdiction for such town within seventy-two hours of when such person discovered or should have discovered the loss or theft. Such department or troop shall forthwith forward a copy of such report to the Commissioner of Public Safety. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the loss or theft of an antique firearm as defined in subsection (b) of section 29-37a.
Most of these bills, including the one in Pennsylvania, are specific to require reporting after discovery of the theft.  That doesn’t mean you need to constantly inventory.  However, if you notice the part I highlighted in this bill, you will see a big problem with this one. What defines “should have discovered?” Who gets to decide whether I should have?  Either you’ve discovered it or you haven’t.  This is RIPE for abuse.
Any person who fails to make a report required by subsection (a) of this section within the prescribed time period shall commit an infraction and be fined not more than ninety dollars for a first offense and be guilty of a class D felony for any subsequent offense, except that, if such person intentionally fails to make such report within the prescribed time period, such person shall be guilty of a class C felony. Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section for the first offense shall not lose such person’s right to hold or obtain any firearm permit under the general statutes.
So it goes from a summary offense to a class D felony on the second count? Absolutely ridiculous.  If I get two guns stolen, and I discover it two weeks later, and prosecutor decides I should have discovered it, I’m facing a felony count?  Pardon me if I don’t say “screw you” to the politicians in Connecticut. Connecticuit has always been a moderately anti-gun state.  Looks like they are moving to join their neighbors in being a place that likes to find excuses to lock up law abiding gun owners.
It also adds a new crime of firearms trafficking:
(a) A person is guilty of firearms trafficking if such person, knowingly and intentionally, directly or indirectly, causes one or more firearms that such person owns, is in possession of or is in control of to come into the possession of or control of another person whom such person knows or has reason to believe is prohibited from owning or possessing any firearm under state or federal law. (b) Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a class C felony if such person, on or after the effective date of this section, sells, delivers or otherwise transfers five or fewer firearms, and a class B felony if such person, on or after the effective date of this section, sells, delivers or otherwise transfers more than five firearms.
This is a bad law, and they are trying to pass similar legilsation in Pennsylvania. I will continue to fight it here.  My current state rep supports the anti-theft provisions.  I am going to write him about what has just happened in Connecticut, and tell him to make sure it does not happen here.
Pwned!
Strangely enough it was gun appearing so many times that did it. I’m guessing it didn’t go back far enough to pick on the stripper guest blogging.
Cumberland County DA Drops Charges
It looks like the Cumberland County District Attorney has done the right thing:
“When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects, similar actions by citizens, even if done in secret, will not result in criminal charges,” Freed said yesterday. “I intend to communicate this decision to all police agencies within the county so that officers on the street are better-prepared to handle a similar situation should it arise again.”
Excellent.
Jesse Jackson Gets Pinched
Joe has the scoop. Good! You can be an asshole all you want, but don’t trespass on people’s property.
UPDATE: Looks like Snuffy was with him, and got himself arreated too! Double plus good!
Six And a Half Years?
Six and a half years for a crime that had no victim, and for mere possession of devices that supposedly have some kind of constitutional protection I think I might have heard of somewhere. Why the 1/2? Will the extra half year really teach Mr. Fincher a lesson that the prior six won’t?
I don’t think taking on federal gun laws in this manner is a wise idea, but this kind of time for a man in his sixties who is no danger to anyone seems like a waste of tax dollars and federal prison space that could be used to house, I don’t know, people who are actually violent and willing to harm others.
All in the name of “reasonable restrictions” I suppose?
What is a Machinegun?
A machinegun is actually a legal term, and not what we generally think of as machine gun.  The definition is actually found in Title 26, which is the tax code:
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
The big problem with ATFs regulations surrounding machineguns is that the law itself sucks, so it allows the ATF to be rather arbitrary and capricious in drawing up regulations when issues come up. To me that is the heart of the problem. Any law which is defined so badly that it allows a government bureaucracy to turn people into criminals with the stroke of a pen is an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’ law making powers to the executive branch.
Big problems in this law are:
- The term “readily restored” is not clearly defined.
- By the language “any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,” you may not be able to have any machine gun part. Even if you don’t have enough parts to make an actual machine gun.  I’ve heard of people getting in trouble for having M16 bolt carriers in their AR-15s, even though an M16 bolt carrier is insufficient to make a machinegun, because theres no auto sear in an AR-15 for the bolt carrier to trip.
- And of course “The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon” is probably where ATF’s one a machinegun always a machinegun crap came from.
If I were to rewrite this law, assuming I didn’t have the power to get rid of it entirely, I would have written it as such:
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single actuation of the trigger. The term shall also include any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
To me that language preserves the essential framework of the law, but closes the door to a lot of nonsense by the ATF.  Under this law, you could have a machine gun receiver, or a machine gun part, as long as you didn’t have all the parts you needed to make a machinegun. No more readily converted nonsense. Either you have a machinegun, have the parts, or you don’t. Pretty simple, I think.
Good to See Nancy Supporting Soldiers
But what’s wrong with this picture:
