Arizona Rifleman wonders why commie bloc ammo smells so bad. I’ve always figured it was the priming compound they use. I’ve noticed that even with .22 ammo, there’s a difference in smell between, say, federal, and anything that is Eley primed. Could be the powder, but even the cheap Eley primed Mexican ammo smells this way.
Month: July 2009
Tough Times for Newspapers
Now they are forced to sell their access to the White House, Congress, and their reporters instead of ads. How much for a pro-gun op-ed prominently placed in the Post? Can we buy some positive coverage of the shooting sports in the sports section? A great puff piece on Women on Target? Can NRA get a non-profit discount? Inquiring minds want to know!
More on Fred Madden
Cemetery has a link to a letter he receieved from Fred “One-Gun-a-Month” Madden, assuring him that he was against the the one-gun-a-month bill. Looks like New Jersey Coalition for Self-Defense picked up on this one too. I wonder what Fred’s spiel is now?
PSH in Tennessee
Looks like some folks are planning on suing over the restaurant carry thing. Walls of the City points out how ridiculous the suit is. You also have cities claiming that public streets are no such thing. Louisville had a similar setup, though without the metal detectors. You had to present ID and be over 21 to walk down the street. I figured carry was fine as long as you weren’t drinking or at the bar. Kentucky’s law allows carry in restaurants, just not the bar area. I’m pretty sure carry is fine down that street in TN too. Someone needs to challenge that.
Fred Madden Does Not Support Law Enforcement
New Jersey Senator Fred Madden and Governor Corzine apparently thinks it ought to be harder for law enforcement officers to get the firearms they need to protect themselves while on duty. While the New Jersey one-gun-a-month law provides exceptions for law enforcement, it doesn’t offer exemptions for the dealers many smaller law enforcement agencies purchase firearms from. Agencies that are too small for distributors to deal with directly.
A Legal Theory on Destructive Devices
It is important, I think, to come up with legal distinctions between certain types arms, protected by the Second Amendment, and other types of arms, which are unprotected. Even most people who believe in a very broad reading of the Second Amendment would generally agree the Second Amendment protects no right for someone to have a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon of mass destruction. Even if there is not agreement among Second Amendment activists about where the boundary ought to be, we can at least agree that there is a boundary, and distinctions must be made between arms that are protected, and those that are not.
The Second Amendment constructed by Heller protects the right of self-preservation, or more precisely, the tools necessary to exercise the right of self-preservation. Under that kind of interpretation, the courts would examine the device’s utility for that purpose, when seeking to discover whether it is an “arm” in the scope of the Second Amendment. It would seem unlikely that destructive devices of an explosive nature would be possessed for such a purpose. But as I’ve said before, I don’t think the courts can just consider self-preservation under normal circumstances, but must also consider extraordinary circumstances, to determine whether a particular arm is useful for self-defense, and should fall under Second Amendment protection. In the case of a .50 BMG vs. a pipe bomb or grenade, I think a distinction can be made.
The first distinction is that a .50BMG most definitely is useful for personal self-defense, in that it is a discriminate weapon, that can be aimed at a threat, and can disable that threat. A grenade is not so discriminate. It has to be lobbed a certain distance in order not to injure the thrower, and is only very generally discriminative, in that the shrapnel it sends in all directions does not distinguish between friend and foe, and can cause considerable collateral damage to property.
But I think there’s another distinction between the two. One can imagine a .50BMG being useful in a period of temporary civil disorder, such as a hurricane or an earthquake, where an ability to disable a vehicle, or shoot through cover, could mean the difference between self-preservation and being dead. One can also imagine a grenade, for instance, being useful for fending off multiple attackers. In either temporary, or a more lasting civil disorder, both could be useful. But obtaining a precision rifle, such as a .50BMG rifle, is probably going to be very difficult during civil unrest. Obtaining explosives is easy, as the ingredients to create them would be readily available even in the event of civil breakdown. In that instance, I think it’s not unreasonable to suggest that banning the manufacture or possession of pipe bombs does not run afoul of the Second Amendment, because under ordinary circumstances, they aren’t useful for self-defense, and under extraordinary circumstances, in the absence of law and order, they would be available. I think that likely strengthens the government’s case that the burden on self-defense is minimal.
Of course, this very fact makes the effectiveness of the law suspect, at best, since it wouldn’t be hard for those with criminal intent to make them under normal circumstances, but this isn’t an argument about what makes for good public policy, but about what is constitutional. When it comes to that, I’m willing to accept a Second Amendment that doesn’t cover destructive devices, if their exclusion makes the federal courts more likely to offer stronger protections to other small arms. The burden created on my ability to defend myself is minimal, and even for those who argue that the Second Amendment is meant to guard against tyrannical government, let’s face it, under those kinds of circumstances, pipe bombs aren’t going to be hard to come by.
Explosives vs. Destructive Devices
I should note, based on some of the conversation going on in the previous post, that there’s a difference between a destructive device and an explosive. True, that explosives are often a component of destructive devices, but merely being an explosive doesn’t qualify. Also, not all things that make loud noises, or somewhat resemble the action of an explosive, are actually explosives.
Generally speaking, the possession of explosives by civilians is regulated at both the federal and state level, but is not terribly restrictive under most circumstances. You can get a license, without too much difficulty, to manufacture and handle explosives. Federal regulations contain distinctions between explosives, pyrotechnics, and blasting agents, but generally, aren’t regulated as destructive devices.
What makes something a destructive device, according to federal regulations is that it is “designed or redesigned for use as a weapon.” Generally speaking, a pipe bomb is a destructive device that contains explosives. What makes it a destructive device is that the “pipe” which surrounds the explosive is meant to fragment and send shrapnel in all directions, traveling along with the blast wave created by the explosive. The government would argue that the only reason to possess such a device is as a weapon. The court, in the case mentioned, found it unlikely such a device would be possessed for the purposes of self-defense, given the indiscriminate nature of a shrapnel driven by explosives.
Arizona Restaurant Carry Goes to Governor
Word came this morning that Arizona’s Senate passed restaurant carry. Assuming Governor Brewer (who spoke at the NRA Convention) signs it, it will make Phoenix a fantastic city for future NRA meetings. Those of us from out of town won’t have to make the call between leaving guns unattended in hotel rooms or just going to dinner at a joint that happens to serve beer.
UPDATE: Here’s the NRA press release.
Gillibrand to Face a Primary
It appears to be official, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney is going to challenge Kirsten Gillibrand for her Senate seat.
Geraghty is right that Maloney is no friend of gun owners. But then again, neither is Kirsten Gillibrand since going to the Senate. Don’t get me wrong, Maloney would be a disaster for gun owners, but I won’t shed a tear if Gillibrand loses the seat in a primary.
UPDATE: And if the first poll stands, there will be quite a knock down fight.
Feds Out of Control, Part II
Looks like the FDA panel considering regulatory changes to acetominophen has decided that Percoset and Vicodin have to go. This is going to essentially mean that people who have procedures that cause mild to severe pain, like having wisdom teeth removed, or having a minor surgery, are going to find it very difficult to find pain relief.
Percoset and Vicodin are both combination therapies, combing acetaminophen with oxycodone, in the case of Percoset, and hydrocodone, in the case of Vicodin. Because of this, they are Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act. Regulators feel the acetaminophen content makes the drug less likely to be abused, so it is so classified. That doesn’t stop people from trying, however, and a number of people each year fry their livers either by taking too much, or because they did some failed home chemistry trying to separate the narcotic drug from its codrug.
Oxycodone and hydrocodone, on their own, are both Schedule II drugs, meaning they have a theraputic use, but are likely to cause addiction and be abused. Doctors are very reluctant to prescribe Schedule II drug, because they attract more heat from regulators. There are also additional restrictions on Schedule II drugs, such as a doctor’s office not being able to call in a new prescription (it takes a physical, written prescription to make changes to dose, or get a refill). If this is the only option available, many doctors, oral surgeons, periodontists, and various other medical professionals who often have a need to treat pain, are less likely to prescribe narcotic pain killers.  While this would probably be just fine by regulators, if you’re in pain and can’t find relief, a narcotic is often the only thing that will do the job.
Fortunately, there are a few alternatives, although they are expensive. One is Vicoprofen, which is a combination of ibuprofen and vicodin. For many people, it’s a viable alternative to narcotics in combination with acetaminaphen, but for many people, it is not. Particularly people with gastrointestinal disorders, people taking blood thinners, or people with inflammatory bowel disease. Another is good old fashioned Tylenol with Codeine, but unfortunately, for 10% or so of the population, their livers lack the enzyme necessary to convert codeine to morphine, which makes the drug’s narcotic component useless to them.
Don’t think, either, that just because many OTC pain releivers and many narcotics are both GRAS, or Generally Reocnigzed as Safe, that you can just combine them at will, and sell them on the market. Combination therapies have to go through the FDA approval process as if they were new drugs, which means major costs to do the clinical trials. No pharmaceutical company is going to do that without patent protection. In short, if Vicoprofen doesn’t work for you, you’re screwed. You can suffer in pain. Hope and Change has come, folks!