This unsafe shooting exhibition has been making the rounds. If it were me, I would have refused to fire until the cameraman got his ass off the range. No reason that shot couldn’t have been taken with just the camera downrange.
Year: 2009
Don’t You Mean Semi-Automatic?
I’ve heard the term “automatic” used to describe semi-automatic pistols, but this one Pennsylvania dealer seems to have the nomenclature a bit off:
“Sales have been booming since then,” she said. “People were scared the government would re-establish the ban on automatic weapons. Our sales went up 30 percent. People are buying automatic guns, revolvers and handguns. We also sell collectible guns.”
I hold out the possibility that the dealer said semi-automatic, and the reporter heard automatic. Either way, I wish the ban on automatic weapons had to be re-established, because it would imply that it lapsed, but sadly it’s been in full effect since 1986.
No Stabby
The Arizona Rifleman discusses the ridiculousness of the idea of anti-stab knives, which have been introduced in the UK, and are being promoted by the Home Office. The mind boggles at some of the comments:
This is intended to make homes safer places for everyone regardless of age, ability (disability) or useage. The common kitchen knife hasn’t evolved since its medieval beginnings and has no place in the 21st century home. By the way £50 each is a misprint. They will be much cheaper.
No place in the 20th century home? What about screwdrivers, or sharp scissors? Straight razor anyone?
More People Identifying as Conservative
It’s Scary In There
I once took my S&W 629 apart to clean out the lockwork, and re-oil everything. Tam isn’t kidding about it being a complicated mechanism. I was rather frightened I wasn’t getting it back together on my own, and I would have hated to go to a gunsmith with a baggie of parts and a frame and had to sheepishly ask him to put it back together for me. I did manage to get it back together, and it works as it did before, but it took a bit of research on Al Gore’s internets to figure it all out.
Want!
Guns and hunting profiles the new National Match Air Rifle, based on the AR-15 platform. It’s expensive, but it’ll keep you shooting for next to nothing. For instance, I just ordered 1000 pellets, match grade pellets, for 15 dollars.
Hat Tip to SayUncle
Carry While Traveling
If I’m on a road trip, I’m almost never without a firearm. This kind of thing is why.
LTC Applications up in Lancaster
So says the Lancaster County Sheriff:
Starting in November of last year, applications for concealed weapons permits jumped markedly, Chief Deputy Sheriff Mark Reese said.
“We saw a huge increase,” he said.
Typically, the department might receive 15 applications a day, Reese said, but more recently the total would be as high as 30.
Maybe we can hit 700,000 LTC’s issued if the trend keeps up. Pretty clearly blood will fill the streets, and children will run screaming if that happens.
It’s All the NRA’s Fault
Looks like the D.C. Voting Rights activists are blaming the NRA because they don’t want to follow the constitution. I also love the overblown rhetoric:
The D.C. Voting Rights Act was poisoned by a gun amendment that would strip the District of its gun laws and remove the city’s authority to enact gun legislation in the future, effectively placing this historic bill in limbo. It will take political courage by Republican members of Congress and Blue Dog Democrats to unclog the NRA’s stoppage of our legislative system.
The implication is that Washington D.C. will have no gun laws, which is not true, and is misleading. This amendment would make D.C.’s gun laws roughly identical to those of Virginia, which I would point out has a fraction of the crime that Washington D.C. does.
More Threats to Preemption
The Inquirer is running a puff piece on the various cities and towns violating the state preemption statute:
David Kairys, a professor of constitutional law at Temple University, said cases challenging local gun ordinances could have far-reaching implications for home rule in Philadelphia and elsewhere.
He said the state Supreme Court had “gutted home rule” in Philadelphia with decisions such as the 1996 overturning of a ban on assault weapons. But Kairys said communities recognized that crime and safety were local issues and they wanted to make their own decisions about how to protect residents.
“They’re doing their duty, saying in order to have law and order we have to get guns off the street and restore local authority,” Kairys said.
A constitutional law professor at Temple ought to know the cases that support preemption, and understand it’s not about home rule, but the Pennsylvania Constitution. Here’s what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said in the matter of preemption:
Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitution does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth, except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth. Thus, regulation of firearms is a matter of concern in all of Pennsylvania, not merely in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and the General Assembly, not city councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of such regulation.
I’m sure Professor Kairys would like to pretend the Pennsylvania Constitution does not protect the right to bear arms, but it does. What about the court’s decision here is “gutting home rule.” Is Philadelphia not to be part of Pennsylvania?