January 2011 – Page 8 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Own Worst Enemies

John Richardson points to some video that shows we are our own worst enemies. Do I think I’ll ever need ten rounds to defend myself? Probably not. Do I think I’ll ever need one round to defend myself? Probably not. But f**k you if you try to throw me in prison for carrying the number of rounds my pistol was designed to carry.

As for the people who think it takes one shot to stop an attacker, I would encourage them to stop watching movies, and immediately sell all the guns they own. They do not have a realistic viewpoint, and pretty clearly have never had any training. We’re better off without you folks as gun owners, since you aren’t part of this fight anyway.

Not Convinced

Truth About Guns has a report on a new type of self-defense ammunition. I’m not convinced it’s going to work out all that well in the field, just because the logic of it doesn’t work for me. I’ve heard what generally stops a gunfight is being able to land hits that shatter bone and penetrate vital organs and tissues. This is hard enough for pistol rounds to do reliably when they are a single, large mass.

Think about an extreme example of this being bird shot. You’d be far better off shooting someone with a slug than with bird shot. You’re probably better off with the bullet staying in tact too. You don’t want to shoot through the target, but there are probably better ways to solve that problem than breaking up the projectile.

Sporting Purposes

Has any of our legal brains thought about seeing if the sporting purposes language could be tossed out for vagueness? Or tossed essentially rendered meaningless? Could original public meaning originalism actually be a problem for us when it comes to interpreting such a clause? Tam’s gotten me thinking about this:

[B]ut [the Saigas] surging popularity in 3-gun competition has driven more large magazines to the market. Apparently 3-gun doesn’t qualify as a “sporting purpose”, since no clay pigeons, feathered critters, or stack-barrel Perazzis wielded by Vice Presidents are involved.

There’s already a case challenging the sporting purposes clause on Second Amendment grounds, but I’m wondering if anyone has ever challenged ATF’s authority under this clause? If we can demonstrate the gun is, indeed, used in shooting sports, can that overcome ATF’s authority to deny importation of it? Could this be thrown out on vagueness? Has it been tried? I don’t know the answer.

But it would seem an original public meaning originalist would suggest the term means what it was understood to mean in 1968, which wouldn’t include three gun competition, or any of the other defensive shooting oriented sports, since most of them came after GCA ’68. Thus ATF’s exercise of authority to keep out these kinds of firearms is within the scope of that term as understood by the public originally.

I suspect a vagueness argument would not work, and presumably ATF’s authority in this matter is fairly carte blanche. Otherwise, one could presume, that a sport could be created using 105mm howitzers, and then on what basis could ATF restrict their importation?

More on Shotgun Restrictions

From the same place we heard about this in the first place, it would seem that it’s going to be similar to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, in that it’ll ban certain cosmetic features, rather than a specific weapon. The big question appears to be whether the availability of high capacity magazines fits in with the ban, or it just matters what it’s imported with.

Lots of Good Ideas on Magazines

In the event that Carolyn McCarthy’s magazine ban starts moving through Congress, some readers have come up with some good ideas on how to prove ownership of magazines already owned. The best magazines to own, in this instance, would be the ones that are stamped from the original assault weapons ban, because their date of manufacture can at least be unambiguously established. The greater issue is proving possession before the ban. You can do photographs, but remember that the burden is on you to prove you fall under the exception, not on the government to prove your possession is illegal, because it’s illegal by default.

I can think of a few things that could work, namely getting an etching tool and sequentially numbering all of your magazines, then taking a high resolution photo of each etching. If you do it by hand, the pattern should be unique and difficult to reproduce. Digitally signing all the photos should take care of time and authenticity issues.

But really, there comes a point when it just gets ridiculous, and you have to accept that we’re all potential victims, and just take the risk. I have no intention of jumping through these hoops if this bill passes. If the government wants to try to say I didn’t possess any of my magazines before the date, they are free to try to make a case. When it gets to the point the government is routinely putting good people in prison, the time is fast approaching when people should start questioning its legitimacy, and whether it’s time for the people to withdraw their consent to be governed by it.

Legal Brain Teaser: Machine Gun, or Not?

My friend Jason and I were just having a discussion about the National Firearms Act. Given that he has a Saiga-12, there’s a strong possibility he’s going to have to register it if the ATF ruling coming out next week declares they are banned from importation because of a lack of “sporting purpose.” We were further discussing this is going to mean a lot of people who own them, and there are many, are going to end up in federal prison because they just don’t know about the new requirement. The discussion continued into the legal vagaries and silliness of the NFA, and we came up with this brain teaser, that involves gun wielding robots.

Say you build a robot that could wield an unambiguously semi-automatic AR-15, but could pull the trigger very rapidly at the same rate of fire as that of an M16. There are three possible methods such a theoretical robot could function:

You had some sort of device that commanded the robot to fire.
You could command the robot to fire verbally.
The software in the robot was programmed to, completely autonomously, acquire and fire a three round bursts at a series of targets.

The brain teaser here is whether or not the robot is a machine gun under the National Firearms Act, and if it is, which part is considered the machine gun? Is the robot itself a machine gun? Is the software a machine gun? What if you changed the software so it only fired one shot at each target?

My feeling is, in the case that you can command the robot to fire with some kind of device, the robot is indeed a machine gun, and not the software, because the programmability allows it to be readily converted. Whatever device you pressed or actuated to get the robot to fire can legally become the “single action of the trigger.”

It becomes far more ambiguous in the case where the robot operates autonomously, or if you could verbally command the robot to fire. If you commanded it to fire verbally, and it let loose a three shot burst, what was the single action of the trigger? This makes for an interesting case if anyone ever develops a general purpose robot that happens to be able to fire a gun, but much faster than a human could. Will all general purpose robots of such a nature need to be registered under the National Firearms Act? What happens if such robots become ubiquitous? Will you need to program them not to be able to fire weapons? Maybe that would be a smart thing to do.Â When they outlaw killer robots, only outlaws will have killer robots.

More Errors Than You Can Count

It’s been a while since I’ve done a good fisking, but the media has me in the mood to demonstrate their complete ignorance of this subject. I’m not sure where the Phoenix New Times do their research, but it sure isn’t thorough:

There isn’t muchÂ difference between a fully automatic M-16 machine gun and the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle, both of which are readily available for sale in Arizona.

Really? The entire trigger group is different. The bolt carrier is different. The receiver, which is the part ATF considers “the gun” is different. There are parts present in an M16 that are entirely missing from the AR-15, namely the auto sear. Can you guess what that does? You think just because it looks the same it isn’t different?

Both shoot the same, high-powered .223-caliber ammo and can be loaded with large-capacity magazines of 30 rounds or more. Except for different internal workings that allow the fully auto mode in the M-16, they’re the same gun.

Why yes, you seem to. Except the .223 isn’t “high-powered.” It’s a medium power cartridge, unsuitable for all but small game.

The semi-automatic version isn’t much less lethal, either — that much is made clear by the Army’s decision to use M-16s that fire semi-automatically in up to three-round bursts, rather than full-autos. Semi-auto fire can be more accurate than “spraying,” the Army found.

Guns are more accurate, and likely to hit a target, when you actually aim it. Holy crap. I mean, what a startling friggin’ revelation. I also never knew that burst fire was the same as “semi-automatic.” Burst fire is burst fire. Semi-automatic is one shot per trigger pull. Legally burst fire is no different than fully automatic fire.

The biggest difference, by far, is in the laws that apply to them.

First accurate thing you’ve said in the whole article.

The full-auto requires aÂ federal firearm license and registration of the weapon.

I guess another sentence error free was too much to ask. It requires a tax stamp, technically. An Federal Firearms Licensee can’t possess a Title II firearm unless they are also a “Special Occupational Taxpayer”. But this is technical stuff that’s probably a little rough for a reporter. We can’t expect them to know too much about firearms laws when they are advocating for more of them, can we?

The machine-gun owner must notify the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms bureau in writing if he or she changes residences, and the firearm can’t be sold privately.

Sold privately? If you inform the ATF that you just sold your machine gun privately, they’re going to bust down your door and shoot the family dog so you can be carted off to be charged with that felony.

TheÂ registration fee –Â as minimal as it compared to the overall price of theÂ weapon –Â also seems to affect purchases, Mangan says.Â WhenÂ ATF raisedÂ the fee, it saw aÂ drop-off in the number of licenses purchased.

The fee has been 200 dollars for as long as the National Firearms Act has been in effect, which is to say since 1934; a princely sum back then. You’re confusing this with the fee to apply for an FFL, which has nothing to do with machine guns.

We think this comparison brings up some great questions:Â Is it logical to have such a dramatic difference in the law for such a relatively minor difference in a feature of guns?Â Are the requirements for machine guns too strict?

If you ask me, it makes no sense, and they are absolutely too strict. Mostly because people get hysterical about machine guns because they don’t realize a gun you’re spraying wildly around isn’t likely to hit much.

Or should AR-15 buyers (or, by extension, buyers of any high-powered, semi-automatic guns with high-capacity magazines)Â be held to the same high standards as M-16 buyers?

Until you can demonstrate you have a clue, which this article clearly demonstrates you don’t, you can go to hell on that one.

UPDATE: Reporter’s opinion here. I have struck the portion where I missed an “”t,” and apologize for the error.

Felony For Doctors to Ask About Guns

I have to agree with Eugene Volokh on this one. I think NRA is being supremely stupid by pushing this nonsense. This is a private problem. We do not need a government solution. I don’t expect the NRA to defend the whole constitution, but it would be nice if they wouldn’t defile other parts of it. I would not be happy if a bill like this gets pushed in other states, and will continue to speak out against it as a member.

Worse Than ATF

ATF is actually pretty good at getting guns to double up so they can say it’s a machine gun, even if it’s not really. Apparently the New Jersey State Firearms Examiner had some difficulty getting an M1919A4 to actually shoot, but declared it a machine gun anyway.

Well, we already know that evidence in New Jersey isn’t really all that necessary anyway.

Ban on Saiga Shotguns in the Works

Hardly surprised at the timing of this announcement from SHOT. With NRA tied up trying to stop a magazine ban and reeling from the media feeding frenzy after the Arizona tragedy, they won’t have much leftover political capital to get Congress to spank ATF. I think it’s possible for ATF to make a determination that will halt importation, without affecting firearms already in the country and possessed by individuals. There are a large number of Saiga shotguns out there. A friend of mine has one. Generally speaking, of a shotgun is declared to have no sporting purpose, it’s a destructive device by definition. It’s only through the graces of the Attorney General that we are permitted to possess shotguns in higher than .410 gauge at all. The Gun Control Act leaves that matter in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, to determine what is “sporting,” and thus what you may legally own.

UPDATE: Oh, just a reminder, Blue Steem Dems want you to know that Obama is pro-gun. If you believe that, I have some pristine wetlands in Florida I’d like to sell you.