Miguel has another example. Gun violence prevention advocates my ass. Any gun accident is a tragedy and should be taken seriously right? And self-inflicted gunshot wounds are a tragedy as well, right? RIGHT?!?!?
Month: July 2011
Multi-Rifle Reporting Requirement
John Richardson has the details about the Obama Administration’s move to require multiple rifle sales to be reported along the southwest border. The move is patently illegal, and I suspect will be successfully challenged. The relevant section of US Code is Title 18, Section 923:
(3) (A) Each licensee shall prepare a report of multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of, at one time or during any five consecutive business days, two or more pistols, or revolvers, or any combination of pistols and revolvers totalling two or more, to an unlicensed person. The report shall be prepared on a form specified by the Attorney General and forwarded to the office specified thereon and to the department of State police or State law enforcement agency of the State or local law enforcement agency of the local jurisdiction in which the sale or other disposition took place, not later than the close of business on the day that the multiple saleor other disposition occurs.
You will not that a long gun is not a pistol or revolver, by terms of the Gun Control Act. Combine with:
(g)(1)(A) Each licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, and licensed dealer shall maintain such records of importation, production, shipment, receipt, sale, or other disposition of firearms at his place of business for such period, and in such form, as the Attorney General may by regulations prescribe. Such importers, manufacturers, and dealers shall not be required to submit to the Attorney General reports and information with respect to such records and the contents thereof, except as expressly required by this section.
Emphasis mine. I would say the Obama Administration is skating on thin ice, but in this case the Administration is apparently trying to skate on liquid water. There is just no possible interpretation of the Gun Control Act, with modifications from FOPA, that this move is legal.
Reclassification of .223, 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC?
SayUncle is reporting ATF is reclassifying these rounds as handgun ammunition, which means they need to meet the federal definition of not being armor piercing. This would mean a round made of 100% copper would be so classified. This is coming from one company, who was apparently raided, so it’s hard to assess its validity. I believe classification of ammunition as handgun or rifle is a matter of policy, rather than being part of the Code of Federal regulations, but I still believe a policy change has to be printed in the Federal Register, and I can’t find such a policy change being published. Here’s the federal definition of armor piercing ammunition:
Projectiles or projectile cores which may be used in a handgun and which are constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or full jacketed projectiles larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile. The term does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, frangible projectiles designed for target shooting, projectiles which the Director finds are primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectiles or projectile cores which the Director finds are intended to be used for industrial purposes, including charges used in oil and gas well perforating devices.
So the standard is “may be used in a handgun,” not primarily used in a handgun. I’ve always wondered under this definition why Corbon DPX is legal, but I always figured they had a determination that said it did not fall under the definition, since the AG can issue exceptions. It’s possible that Barnes, Corbon and other manufacturers got exception to manufacture their product, and Elite Tactical did not.
UPDATE: I missed the lack of comma between beryllium, and copper. Beryllium copper is a specific alloy.
UPDATE: Looking more at the actual bullets, it would appear they are turned brass. Brass is a no-no alloy. Barnes makes these bullets too, but they are marketed by Barnes as hunting rounds. Possibly Barnes received an OK from ATF to sell these under the sporting purposes exception. ET seems to be marketing them differently. It’s also possible Barnes doesn’t use enough Zinc to be considered brass. Also possible ATF is being completely arbitrary, which would not be the first time.
Stopped Clock is Right Twice a Day
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence loves to see racism where there is none, so I was quite skeptical when I noticed them tweet about pro-gun activists fantasizing about killing young black men. While do believe this mischaracterizes the nature of the link I followed, I’m hard pressed to argue that the article by Gabe Suarez, passed along in an informational e-mail by VCDL, isn’t racist, or is at the least injecting race into a situation where it does not need to be injected:
Nor where everyone gets along. You may in fact be totally color-blind in a socio-ethnic sort of way, but not everyone is. So even if your liberal sociology professor thinks it is a cool thing to take a stroll at midnight through a ethnically homogenous part of town (different ethnicity that you), it is still a stupid idea.
The problem here is that many of the flash mobs in Philadelphia are not taking place in “ethnically homogenous” parts of town. Some of them have taken place in parts of the City I would not ordinarily be afraid to walk. This not only injects race into an equation where it is not relevant, it detracts from the quality of the advice.
Avoid if you can. If you are standing around and see a group of twenty young urban thugs about two blocks away yelling, “kill whitey”, and lookin at your reflection in the store window, realize that you have not been in the sun in a while, here is my advice – “RUN”. If it looks like trouble, it probably is. The gang is not there to debate the effects of american corporate expansion on the development of the urban neighborhoods with you.
And who, exactly, would be yelling “kill whitey?” I seem to recall a number of victims of these flash mobs have been African American. These mobs aren’t going out and targeting whites. They are groups of feral teenagers targeting anyone who happens to look like a good targets for beating or robbing.
Suarez also suggests breaking the law if need be. While I don’t have any particular problem with Suarez offering this advice, I don’t think it’s wise for a high-profile group that’s as well-respected as VCDL forwarding on such advice to members. Whether a law is immoral enough to offer no consideration by a citizen is, in my view, a personal matter, as only an individual is capable of weighing the consequences of breaking the law versus that of obeying it. I believe gun rights groups should be wary of treading on this ground in areas where our opponents, the media, and lawmakers are watching.
And that’s really my issue with this. Suarez is certainly free to write racially laced and colorful narratives on how to deal with flash mobs. His choice of language and flashy style aside, I’m not sure there’s all that much fundamentally wrong with the advice. But I believe VCDL should have known better than to send this out to members. It’s certainly not out of line to speak of advice on how to deal with violent flash mobs, but in the entire world of self-defense training, I have a hard time believing this was the best anyone could come up with.
Like a stopped clock that’s right twice a day, CSGV is correct that Suarez’s article is racially charged, and VCDL never should have sent this out to members.
P.S. – If anyone can tell me what a “panga swinging killer” is, I’d be grateful. A Panga seems to be a fish, and urban dictionary was no help if it’s slang.
Machine Guns Are Fun
Some folks still haven’t gotten the memo. I don’t live in Arizona, so it’s difficult for me to say, but I’m going to be willing to bet that gunfire and politics has a lengthy tradition within the State of Arizona that predates the Tucson mass shooting by quite some time.
Either way, if we’re going to bring up the mass shooting in the context of the Sheriff’s race, the current Sheriff is probably more to blame for that tragedy than Arizona’s hunting and shooting tradition, or Arizona’s gun laws.
Someone Forgot to Pay the Bill?
Definitely amateur hour over there. I’m surprised that CSGV is using GoDaddy. Isn’t the guy that owns that a right-wing extremist? He might even be an insurrectionist, and if you talk to PETA, he’s definitely an elephant murderer. I guess CSGV doesn’t care about elephant gun violence!
You’re Probably an Anti-Gun Extremist If …
Our opponents seem to be channeling Jeff Foxworthy. Well, two can play at this game. Let’s give it a go. You’re probably an anti-gun extremist if …
- You think the Second Amendment was written to protect state militia’s rather than the individuals who compromised them. Lately you’ve changed your tune, and grudgingly accepted it protects your right to have a gun in your home, but only because the activist wing-nut Supreme Court made it the law of the land.
- You wet your pants at the idea that gun manufacturers are responding to market demand by making guns in different colors.
- You a .410 inch hole in a target is acceptable, but a .50 caliber hole is just insanity, because you know nothing about exterior ballistics or firearms.
- You think criminals are deterred by background checks. When evidence shows they can get around it, you say the solution is we need another law criminals won’t follow.
- You argue that an assault rifle is distinguishable from a hunting rifle because you’re ignorant and don’t know the definition of either. Because the assault rifle looks scary, clearly it’s different.
- You think firearms training should be required, but outlawed.
- You call anyone who disagrees with you  an “insurrectionist,” “mentally ill,” “extremist,” or in need of a “good therapist.”
- You argue that the main purpose of a silencer is exactly what you’ve seen in movies, and believe it actually makes a gun silent.
- You think children are anyone under 21, and shouldn’t be able to say gun, let along touch one.
- You don’t believe there’s any such thing as a justifiable homicide if it involves a gun.
- You think a citizen’s paramilitary militia is a body of completely psychotic and deranged individuals rather than people who are concerned about government following the constitution and who like to play army in the woods.
- You don’t believe in “due process” for fundamental constitutional rights, at least if the amendment that protects it starts with a “2.”
- You believe any flawed science and statistical analysis anyone puts in front of you because you know nothing of science and statistics and the analyses confirms your biases.
- You are unconcerned about the rash of home invasions by jackbooted government agents using military tactics to serve warrants on non-violent offenders.
- You label pro-gun advocates as people who are unconcerned about criminal access to guns because pro-gun advocates don’t accept you’re solutions actually work.
And unlike Mr. Odinson, I have provided links to show our opponents actually do believe those things. I was going to link to the 50 Caliber Terror website, but I notice, like most of the rest of the gun control movement, it’s become defunct.
Civil Rights Victory in Missouri
It seems to be one of those days, but Governor Jay Nixon has signed a comprehensive firearms reform bill into law that does, among other things, lower the concealed carry permit age to 21, and legalizes machine guns, suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs.
A shout out to Ashley, who was once NRA’s Media Liaison to bloggers, but who took over as NRA State Liaison to Missouri, Indiana and Oklahoma a few years ago. Getting NFA firearms legalized is quite an achievement in any state, and evidence that NRA has not forgotten about NFA owners.
On the Heels of Ezell
An memorandum in support of a preliminary injunction has been filed in the NRA-backed case of Shepard v. Madigan, heavily citing the Ezell ruling a few days before. Shepard is a case challenging Illinois’ prohibition on carrying firearms, and the NRA is asking the district court to enjoin the State of Illinois from enforcing this law. If this were to happen, Illinois will likely quickly follow on the heels of Wisconsin to pass a concealed carry law.
UPDATE: SAF followed up yesterday with an injunction request of its own.
Chicago Tribune on Rahm’s Range Law
A surprisingly fair editorial from the Chicago Tribune ripping the city for screwing around with the courts trying to defy the Second Amendment. He notes this seems an awfully expensive endeavor for a city facing the debt Chicago has.