Year: 2009

So the Post-Gazette says:

We would be the first to concede that the gun provisions are legally dubious, given that in this case — regrettably — state law would seem to preempt anything Pittsburgh might enact. Empowering the police to be mind readers of intent is also troublesome. City Council should tread warily when these proposals are discussed in chambers tomorrow and a sunset provision would be reasonable.

So it’s questionably legal, but the Post-Gazette will support it anyway, because police can’t be mind readers.  I guess that means they can’t be expected to delineate between peaceful and non-peaceful protesters too, so we might as well just tear gas them all!

I can understand Pittsburgh’s concerns about the G-20.  These meetings attract all manner of violent, idiotic people.  But I what I’ve failed to understand is what the City Council is trying to accomplish with this ban.  Either someone is engaging in riotous behavior, or they aren’t.  Police are legally permitted to use deadly force against rioters under Pennsylvania law, and I would certainly agree that use of deadly force against rioting protesters with guns would be justified.  I’m just not sure what extra power the City of Pittsburgh thinks this will give them that they don’t already have.  Protesting peacefully is lawful.   Rioting behavior is unlawful.  If there’s people planning to riot at the G-20 with guns, I’m not sure they are going to care all that much that the City of Pittsburgh says you can only riot as long as you’re not carrying 67 models of firearms.

It looks like Congress is moving to use their spending power to coerce state housing agencies into allowing residents to have firearms to protect themselves.   The amendment was introduced by Tom Price (R-GA), but the article also lists A-rated Dem Joe Baca of California as one of the supporters.  Naturally this is causing some hysterics:

“There was a time during the ’70s and ’80s when public housing developments were considered killing grounds,” said Emanuel Cleaver II , D-Mo., who grew up in public housing. “It is just foolhardy to place guns in developments of poor people, many of whom are unemployed, and place these guns around children. . . . Why would we try to put guns in the most densely populated areas in the urban core? It’s just unbelievable.”

So as a middle-class suburban dweller, it’s absolutely fine for me to have a useful tool to protect my family, but if I’m poor, unemployed, and forced to live in public housing, well, too bad for you then.  How’s that for equality?

We were told before the Ireland’s new laws were meant to go after handguns.  But it looks like the true story is a lot more complicated than that.

IFA Countryside has warned that farmers are struggling to complete complicated nine-page application forms introduced by the Department of Justice under new firearms licensing arrangements.

Many gun holders must have these forms completed and cleared by local gardai by October or their existing permits will be cancelled.

This is why we fight licensing here.  Once you have it in place, the wrench will be tightened until people don’t want to bother.  Then once your numbers are down enough, it’s effectively over.  You’re one tragedy away from ruin.