Year: 2009

Puppetmasters

Maybe it fits with the portrait The Brady Campaign tries to paint of the NRA as a grand puppeteer, in some kind of odd Second Amendment version of Being John Malkovich, but from what I’ve seen of the 7½th floor, it’s kind of laughable that they think NRA exerts such remarkable discipline over 76 Board members:

Up to now, the NRA has instead taken a more timid official line against Judge Sotomayor, while apparently outsourcing a much harsher line of attack to members of its Board of Directors who speak on behalf of other organizations which have comparatively little to do with guns.

Emphasis mine.  I doubt this has much to do with a stealthy, plasuably deniable attack so much as Board members speaking out on their own on behalf of their other interests.

We’ll see during Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings how much stock, if any, NRA officials take in their legendary influence over Congress — this time, whether they have the spine to score Senators on a vote that really matters.

I think the Bradys are attempting to draw the NRA into a fight it’s likely going to have a hard time winning, in order to try to sell Congress on the notion that NRA’s bark is worse than its bite.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Left Trying to Make Hay out of NRA Board Members
  2. NRA Board Endorsements Coming Soon
  3. What Part of “Elected Board” is Hard to Understand?

Smoker Bleg

I am considering getting a smoker, so Bitter and I can make our own BBQ.  I’ve had a few recommendations.  Caleb suggests the Traeger line, but I’m looking for something a bit more application specific, since I already have a grill.  I was thinking about buying this electric smoker.  I figured electric would maintain a constant temperature better, and I’d only have to add new wood chips, rather than also having to add charcoal constantly.

But I have to admit that I know almost nothing about smokers, short of you put in wood chips, water, and somehow through heat and time this is transformed into BBQ.  Is an electric smoker a sin in the eyes of BBQ?  I do not wish to be a heretic.  I figure among all the guns nuts out there, someone has to be able to help a dumb yankee figure the ins and outs of smokers and BBQ.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Overheard in the House
  2. My ESB Is Nearly Ready
  3. Tonight, We Smoke!

Gun Restrictions Toppling

CS Monitor did a story on how local gun restrictions are taking a beating as of late.  This is the same guy that did the story on guns blogs back in May.  He’s demonstrated a willingness to be fair to gun owners, so I’m willing to attribute one misstatement to ignorance rather than malice:

The two laws in Philadelphia stuck down Thursday were enacted in 2008. One banned assault-style weapons, which are semi-automatic rifles altered to combat specifications. The other restricted an individual’s ability to buy handguns to one a month.

Emphasis mine.  A semi-automatic rifle altered to combat specifications would be illegal to sell to civilians, because Mil-Spec on the rifle requires it to be select fire, which makes it a machine gun by law.  More accurately would be to say “semi-automatic versions of military rifles.”  If you wanted, even using “of military assault rifle” would be accurate, since the M16 and M4s are both true assault rifles.  The rifles sold to civilians don’t meet combat (Mil-Spec) specifications.

But either way, the point gets across, and it’s a good, factual article.  One thing not talked about, and that I wouldn’t have expected to be in an short article like this, is exactly what kinds of firearms Philadelphia was actually banning under the ruse of “assault weapons,” which we covered back when this all happened.

I take to heart what Bitter said a few days ago, about not automatically thinking of the media as the enemy.  I don’t think the gun rights movement has done itself many favors by that attituide.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Sport Utility Rifles, MSR, Blah
  2. Note To Media
  3. Can’t Get Excited

Bowhunters Looking for Sunday Hunting

Looks like United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania are taking a stab at getting the ban on hunting on Sundays in Pennsylvania repealed, at least for them.  Even though I think Sunday hunting should be allowed, in general, I would support this more limited measure, if it can be passed.  Might be a good thing for NRA to hop on board with, to smooth over frayed relations with the bowhunting community over the crossbow issue.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Haven’t We Angered Bowhunters Enough?
  2. Crossbow Hunting
  3. Sunday Hunting Hearing

Craig’s List Killer’s Gun

Turns out the Craig’s List Killer bought his gun with fake ID in New Hampshire.  Not much you can do about criminals willing to go to such lengths.  Only problem for the dealer was that the fake ID was a New York driver’s license:

Concord attorney Evan Nappen recently wrote a book called “New Hampshire Gun, Knife and Weapon Law.” He said that while local dealers are required to only sell to New Hampshire residents, one section of federal law does allow for a purchase with an out-of-state picture identification, as long as that person can prove dual residency, meaning that they physically live at the local address for some period of time.

“Some of the things that could go to that is showing proof of residency, like a utility bill, and then you may have deeds, etc., whatever is going to meet that standard,” Nappen said.

If the Craig’s List Killer didn’t show such proof, if the dealer only gets his license yanked, he can count his lucky stars.  I’m going to bet whoever sold him the gun is going to end up indicted on federal charges, however.

Do the anti-gun people still want to argue that guns are unregulated?

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Dummy Me
  2. Buying Guns on the Internet
  3. More on the UMass Student

When it Comes to Public Service

I’ve taken part in a number of volunteer and civic efforts, from high school through to now.  If there’s one thing I’ve learned is that anyone who actually wants a leadership position in one is probably not the right person for the job.  That’s one reason why I’m always a bit skeptical of anyone who seems to want a position on the NRA board a bit too much.  I suspect others feeling the same kind of vibe had something to do with the poor showing of George Kollitides in the previous NRA election.

Obviously people do end up in these types of positions, some for the right reasons, and some for the wrong.  My experience tends to reveal that the right people are reluctant leaders.  They are people who are even a bit uncomfortable with the idea that they might be leaders.  They will come to the idea of taking a leadership position because “I don’t do it, than who will?” They will step up for the good of the organization or cause.  It’s always a good rule of thumb to be skeptical of anyone who is ambitious, or who wants power.  The best people have to be convinced to lead.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. And Then There Were Three
  2. Scraps for the Underlings
  3. A Divided House

New Book Out on Gun Rights

While I don’t always agree with the Knox clan on everything, their impact and contributions to the gun rights movement are undeniable.  Chris Knox has put out a book “Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War,” which cronicles Neal Knox’s history with the gun rights movement:

The Knox brothers expect controversy over the book, as it includes one section devoted to Neal Knox’s often-contentious relations with the NRA. “We’re not looking to stir controversy for its own sake,” said Chris. “The history is controversial, but it’s important, and a fair amount of it has been forgotten, glossed over, ignored, or even covered up.

As someone who has gobbled up nearly every bit of writing I’ve been able to find on the history of the gun rights movement, I will definitely be getting a copy of this.  I have no doubt there will be much I will disagree with, but having read and enjoyed Richard Feldman’s book, which comes from the opposide end of the pro-gun spectrum, I have no doubt I will enjoy this account as well.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. San Francisco Chronicle Raises the From Dead!
  2. From When Collective Rights Ruled
  3. Book Bomb A Success

If Guns Were Like Drugs

I’ve seen an assertion by gun folks that guns are the most regulated product out there.  While Sugarmann’s assertion that guns are unregulated is ridiculous and untrue, and guns are really no less regulated than most other consumer products, I can assure you that drugs are a far more regulated product than firearms.  Let me give you an idea of what the world would be like if guns were regulated like drugs.  Josh would like this world.

  1. Before you ever handed a hunting gun over to a person outside the research environment, you’d have to do extensive testing on animals to verify that the gun is effective for the purposes you market it for, and is safe enough for even the most ignorant person to use safely.
  2. Once you get permission to allow humans to test the gun, that’s just the beginning.  The studies would be outrageously expensive, and require extensive field testing with thousands of hunters and shooters before final approval for public sale would be granted.  The process would take years.  Any evidence that the gun did things other than its stated purpose would be grounds for denying final approval.
  3. Once approved for human use, the FDA ATF will still exercise considerable control over the marketing of the gun.  If your testing shows that it does effectively kill deer, you will be able to market it for that purpose.  You won’t be able to claim it kills elk unless you’ve tested it’s effective at killing elk.  A hunter may take an elk with it, but as a manufacturer, you’d be limited in marketing it only for approved purposes.  Useful for self-defense?  Not sure how you’d even test that.  I guess the police would be out of luck.
  4. Making your own guns and ammunition would be a very serious offense.  Doubly so if you give some to your friends while shooting at the range one day.
  5. Once approved, you’d need special permission from a professional hunter and or professional shooter in order to make any purchase.  Said professional would only be able to prescribe approve just enough gun for your stated purpose, and federal law would prohibit you from ever transferring it to someone else, or using it for a purpose other than the stated purpose, unless under the advice of a professional.  Said professional will evaluate your need carefully, and will be reluctant to approve firearms they deem you don’t need.
  6. These professionals would be closely monitored by other regulators, who will ask questions if they approve too many guns, or approve too many of certain types of guns deemed dangerous.  These professionals and regulators will consider wanting too many guns too often to be a sign of illness, requiring medical evaluation and possible institutionalization.
  7. Firearms manufacturers would have to extensive records documenting every aspect of the manufacturing process, distribution, and would need to keep detailed records of adverse reactions accidents, shoots, suicides, etc.  The FDA ATF might demand follow up studies to help them understand why these things are happening.
  8. Because the cost of complying with the regulatory requirements are so high, your average firearm will cost $20,000.  Dealers won’t want to stock certain types of popular firearms, because selling them attracts too much attention from regulators.  A lot of firearms will look and do the same things as many of the other manufacturers because making something original will be deemed too risky.
  9. Regulators would have broad authority to remove any guns, ammunition, or accessories from the market that they deem to be no longer safe or effective.  If a gun that claims 1MOA accuracy ever shot with 1.5MOA accuracy, it might be grounds to shut down the manufacturer and stop production entirely.
  10. The good news is that you’d be able to carry your gun around with you, even on a plane!  But don’t get too excited, because the authorities will have broad authority in search and seizure in order to try to rid society of the scourge of drugs guns.  Better carry around that prescription approval certificate around with you.  But none of that would matter anyway, because any gun that would be useful for self-defense would be illegal, since there’s no way to safely test on humans!

So you can see, this would be Josh Sugarmann’s dream world.  It wouldn’t be total prohibition, which I know he thinks would be better, but it’d be awfully close.  People go through all this because drugs help them be able to continue living their lives, but how many would to get a gun?  Would it even be worth it?  Guns are very regulated, but drugs take the gold medal when it comes to regulation, hands down.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. It’s Time to Give Up the Lie
  2. Feds Out of Control, Part II
  3. Late Start Today Thanks to the Flesh Eating Bacteria

It’s Time to Give Up the Lie

Josh Sugarmann is touting the canard that the firearms industry is unregulated.  We know for a fact just how much bunk that is.  The fact is that firearms are regulated much the same way as other consumer products, like automobiles.  In that there are regulatory parameters that manufacturers have to comply with, but within those parameters there’s the ability to make products that consumers want.

If you read carefully what Sugarmann is really saying, he’s lamenting that guns are largely legal, within the framework established by federal and sometimes state regulation.  Presumably he’d want a framework more akin to how the FDA regulates drugs, with agency approval being required before sale to consumers, and with the regulating agency having a very large degree of control over how products are marketed.

Very few consumer products are regulated in this manner.  In fact, I can think of only drugs, which aren’t really a consumer product since they require a prescription from a doctor, as the only products regulated according to Sugarmann’s proposed regime.  Even the famous teddy bear example, that anti-gun groups always throw at us, are regulated in the same manner as firearms, in that manufacturers act within an established regulatory framework that only defines what you may not do, rather than requiring prior permission from the regulating agency to do anything.

But why lie and say guns are unregulated?  That’s far from the truth.  If you want an FDA like regulatory framework for guns, why not start with that discussion?  Make the case for it.  Again, the anti-gun folks aren’t talking to real people here.  They are talking to a media that’s too busy trying to escape its own death spiral to pay much attention.  The days of success through lying to the public is over.  The real problem for the anti-gun folks, and why they have adopted these tactics to begin with, is that there’s no political support what Sugarmann proposes.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. A Regulated Cottage Industry
  2. If Guns Were Like Drugs
  3. An Old Idea Catches on with the Left