The media garbage about the Tucson tragedy is piling up. The New York Times, apparently never having heard of Heller, claims that Glocks are a problem, despite the fact that if any gun would be the poster child for Heller’s “common use” test, it would be the Glock. They talk about what would have happened if he had been carrying a “regular pistol,” because in the New York Times’ vast ignorance of this topic, they have no idea a Glock is a “regular pistol.”
The News room of the Sacramento Bee, another den of ignorance on this issue, says it’s Arizona’s weak gun laws to blame. I’d be surprised if there was a state that would have rejected this guy. The man simply did not have a prior criminal or mental health history prior to this incident. For absolutely sure, in Pennsylvania he would have been able to get a gun. Even in restrictive states like top Brady Ranked California, I’m pretty sure he would have walked out with his Glock. What proposed law would have stopped this that still respected the fact that buying a gun is a fundamental right?
In the mean time, Boston Media are patting themselves on the back that this could never happen in Massachusetts. That’s funny, could have fooled me. I would bet money that, except for the jurisdictions in Massachusetts that routinely deny pistol licenses for arbitrary and capricious reasons (a practice not likely to be upheld under Second Amendment challenges) he would have gotten a gun. Not a Glock, because those are banned in Massachusetts, but there are plenty of substitutes which are equivalent to the Glock in performance characteristics that are not illegal.
9 thoughts on “So Much Media BS. So Little Time.”
He couldn’t get a new Glock in Massachusetts, but there are used ones available.
Ain’t that the truth about so much BS and so little time.
I hate to say it, but NJ’s pistol permit scheme would likely have stopped him from acquiring a handgun. The Chief of Police of Scotch Plains, NJ once refused an application for FID (which has the same requirements, policy, and procedure to acquire as a handgun purchase permit) to a man who had privately made a couple of statements that could be uncharitably interpreted as threats to his ex wife, with no history of violence. Court upheld the denial.
MA probably the same.
Which doesn’t make either system right, fair, or constitutional. In some ways, the fact that he used a handgun means people who would have died survived. A shotgun or rifle is far more dangerous than a handgun to the target, and doesn’t require getting into the crowd where bystanders can interfere. I shudder to think of what the death toll would have been if the madman had, say, a .30-06 and was shooting from his car in the parking lot.
New Jersey would be the only state I wouldn’t put money on. Massachusetts it would depend on the jurisdiction. There are jurisdictions this guy could have gotten a license in MA. It all depends on how well he can hold his shit together when he needs to.
No dealer, especially not a chain like Sportsman’s Warehouse, is going to sell a gun to someone who comes in talking crazy.
NJ would be jurisdictional as well; the background check is administered by the local chief of police. The one for my paperwork consisted of running my prints and sending out questionnaires to my 2 references; and the second time I went through the process, I am not sure the references were checked. If there hadn’t been a massive paperwork screwup on my first permit, I am not sure try would have gone to that bother for the second set; the policies for a second application tend towards “ask the State Police if he got prohibited since last time”, without an additional fingerprinting or reference check, from what I understand.
That paperwork error, incidentally, shows that the NJ process is not fail-safe. I don’t want to go into details, but the paperwork for my first handgun purchase had the same putatively unique file number as another persons, and both of us passed the point of sale background check against that file… Error was harmless, but ever since I have wondered how it was that we both passed check when we have different (albeit similar) names, and are of different gender, SSN, and distinguishing features.
The NYT article sounds to me like the author mistook “Glock” for “Uzi”. All those violently foreign languages sound the same (German??, Hebrew??).
Thought the same thing myself, while wading through the MSM river of shit.
If politicos can’t say how current laws allowed Loughner to get a handgun, they shouldn’t be allowed to pass new legislation.
And methinks Sheriff Pudnick is going to have a hard time when all the facts come to light.
No, THIS is what happens in Massachusetts:
Posted Dec 29, 2010
“The Massachusetts Parole Board is under fire for allowing a career criminal who fatally shot a veteran Woburn police officer to go free in 2009 even though he was serving THREE CONCURRENT LIFE SENTENCES.” Idiots or hypocrites, take your pick.
Comments are closed.