Unarmed Teens vs. Unarmed Adults

I love when the desire to editorialize against guns is so strong that they actually contradict themselves. It makes me wonder if newspapers actually have anyone edit their editorials for content.

HB 1652 lets people who hold concealed-carry permits keep firearms locked in their vehicles while on a CareerTech campus. That includes people 21 or older who have completed a training course and undergone a cursory background check.

The problem is that most CareerTech students are teenagers and thus not eligible to carry concealed weapons. HB 1652 will mean that unarmed teens will rub shoulders on campus with armed adults, a potentially dangerous mix.

In Oklahoma, the Tulsa World is arguing against a bill that will force adults to lock legally carried firearms in their cars – therefore leaving them unarmed while on campus – by saying it’s too dangerous to have unarmed teens near these now unarmed adults. I didn’t realize that concealed carry holders who don’t even have guns on their person were so dangerous in society. It would be nice if they had some facts to back that up. Oh, but wait, they don’t like when facts don’t match their view:

Advocates of concealed carry and other laws aimed at arming more Oklahomans are quick to point out that those laws have not resulted in bloodbaths, as critics predicted they might. That might be true, but, on the other hand, there is no evidence that they have prevented public violence or made the citizenry more safe.

So it doesn’t matter that these laws haven’t caused any problems. It doesn’t matter that concealed carry license holders are likely more law-abiding than their teenage counterparts on these campuses. Reason and Logic have clearly left the building there in Tulsa.

I Warned CSGV

I warned the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence that they didn’t want to go down the road of picking on bloggers by releasing their personal information, but they decided instead to extend a great big middle finger to the community. I’m guessing now they see what I mean, thanks to the efforts of Linoge, who has delivered a victory so sweet, I’m scheduling the root canal now. It gets even better:

I’d like to think that after this we can all be adults here. A bit of new media advice for Ladd Everitt and the other folks at Coalition to Stop Gun Violence: the best way to be left alone is to ignore your tormenters. But you could not help it, could you? You were drawn to lash out like moths to the flame. You might have thought that the harder you squeezed, the more crazy would ooze out, but it’s been pretty apparent that’s a two way street. And let’s face it, CSGV, your people are way more outside the mainstream than ours. That’s why we win, and you’re reduced to picking on bloggers and getting your Twitter account suspended for crossing the line.

UPDATE: More following:

I’m pretty sure the only firepower Linoge needed for that one was “Send” and the only army was himself. In case you are wondering what Dylan is talking about, since CSGV deleted he context, you can see for yourself here. He is rationally explaining that Twitter vets any complaints. Obviously CSGV deleted it, because the last thing we want is rational discourse in the gun control movement, and for their supporters to see they were in the wrong by crossing the line.

Joan, however, is quite correct, however, that we’ll stop at nothing. This is true. We think the Bill of Rights is that important. We see our opponents for the petulant busybodies, intent in destroying it, that they are. We are relentless. Don’t forget it. I am here to tell CSGV, Joan and their supporters that your nightmare is true. We’re going to hammer gun control on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We’re going to beat gun control into submission.

On the heels of an important vote in Texas on campus carry, CSGV will instead of have to spend time groveling before the Twitter gods for forgiveness because they have no conception of how to handle this issue professionally. They were goaded by rank amateurs into themselves acting like rank amateurs, and paid the price by crossing the line. I will, perhaps, pour a little more salt on the wound by suggesting that Everitt and CSGV have much they could learn about handling the issue professionally from the Brady Campaign. Even Sugarmann knows better than this.

Sorry for the Light Posting

Turns out liquidating a company is hard work, and unbelievably depressing work when you’ve spent nearly a quarter of your life working on the same “project.” It’s not much different than watching a beloved sailboat sink beneath the waves.

I’m spending my days busy, and at night I just don’t have the time or energy to look for blog material. I think all of this will work out in the end, I just need to have faith that it will all come together the way I’m praying it will.

Irrelevance

John Richardson managed to find Ladd Everitt’s comment on ATF Request for Comment on the multi-sale reporting requirement for long guns. [Fixed an error – Seb] Ladd Everitt is Communication Director for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, but he did not respond in his official capacity.

One interesting note is that he approves of the multiple long gun reporting requirement, and enforcement of “laws already on the books,” even though the laws already on the books prohibit the reporting of multiple long gun sales. What he’s really saying is that he wants ATF to break the law.

The real funny thing, however, as John notes, is that his response is a form letter from Mayor Bloomberg’s anti-gun MAIG coalition. I guess he’s spending too much time arguing with gun bloggers, and revealing personal information about them on Facebook and Twitter, that CSGV has no time to start their own astroturfing campaign. They have to rely on someone else’s.

Violating Election Laws in Philly

When one party has complete control over government, little things like “laws” don’t really apply to them – especially if it’s an election law and the violation helps keep them in power.

It reminds me of what PAFOA’s Dan Pehrson warned about back in 2008 in regards to the lawlessness that exists in all corners of Philadelphia.

Yet, what baffles me the most is that these leaders wonder where criminals get the idea that laws don’t apply to them! Don’t they see the example they set so publicly? The willful defiance has made headlines for weeks, reminding residents that the Council, mayor and police commissioner consider themselves to be above state law. Why shouldn’t average citizens be as well?

Who Owns Rifles

Should the Brady Campaign ever wonder just who owns all of those evil rifles they keep trying to ban, NSSF has put together some interesting survey numbers.

The average owner has 2.6 EBRs MSRs. Isn’t that about the same number of children American families tend to have? I guess it’s one for each kid – or fraction thereof.

The overwhelming majority of you bought your first scary-looking rifles before the Great Obama Gun Rush, but 30% waited until the guy who wanted to ban them entered the White House & gun prices went through the roof.

Only 1% bought an EBR MSR as their first gun.

The top two reasons you guys aren’t shooting your guns as much as you’d like is because of time and cost of ammunition. Of course, just barely half of the rifle owners even have a regular place to shoot, at least in the form of a shooting range membership.

Judge Weinstein’s Game is Hopefully Over

NSSF is reporting that Judge Weinstein, who is (in)famous for pretending FOPA does not exist, and abusing personal jurisdiction when it comes to lawsuits against the firearms industry, has been smacked down by a higher court:

Finally, after more than 15 years of Weinstein dragging members of the firearms industry into his courtroom based on his unique, industry-specific personal jurisdiction jurisprudence, someone on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has had an opportunity to expose Judge Weinstein’s improper and unconstitutional analysis used to advance his attack on our industry.

You can read the entire ruling here. Judge Wesley’s opinion is the last, and is scathing. He accused Weinstein of “creat[ing], out of whole cloth, a seven-factor test for determining whether personal jurisdiction exists over ‘retail gun establishments.’”

Regulating Air Guns in California

Regulating out of existence, that is. This is not only a bad bill, it’s a dangerous bill. Air guns are not toys and should not look like toys, but that appears to be what this bill would do. My opinion is the manufacturers should just pull out of California if this passes.

I have no idea why anyone would choose to live in that state.

More 4th Amendment Weakening

Burgers and Boomsticks has a summary of a recent SCOTUS case that further weakens Fourth Amendment protections. Now it would seem of the police can come knocking on your door without a warrant, and provided they report hearing some kind of noise inside, will be able to enter claiming exigent circumstances claiming they had probable cause to believe you were destroying evidence. That has been the law for a while now, but I don’t think it’s right. Ginsburg was the only dissenter.

The 4th Amendment has been out of favor for a while now, and it’s one of the great travesties of the more conservative court in recent years. I am, for the most part, a Fourth Amendment absolutist. I don’t really agree with how Terry v. Ohio has been structured, nor do I agree with police being able to enter a private residence without a warrant except under emergency conditions, like someone calling 911 for a health emergency, the house being on fire, or hearing someone inside screaming for help. To me the Fourth Amendment means being able to live your life with your property and privacy safe from the depredations of governments. It is not a problem for law enforcement to look for ways around, with full help by American courts.

Gun Buybacks as Political Statements

I already made fun of a New York group that was giving out flowers in exchange for guns when they sent out a release that butchered most rules of the English language on 4/20, making me think it could be a joke. It turns out that it’s not a joke – at least in terms of being an intentionally funny event. But, it would seem that their attempt to make a political statement through the guns for flowers program was an even bigger failure than their previous event which was a guns for nothing program. They both did significantly worse than their first attempt at a guns for gift certificates event.

In 2009, the group gave out gift certificates in exchange for weapons and collected 53 firearms. Last year, the group did not have money for gift certificates, and turn-ins dropped to 18 hand guns and long guns, Gilroy said.

On Saturday, the group collected four handguns, four long guns and 15 loads of ammunition, he said.

They have to count the ammunition in order to make it into the double digits.

The peace and justice committee hopes to get funding again next year to spur more turn-ins, Gilroy said.

“If we don’t get the funding, we may look for a different way to express our views through debates or discussions,” he said.

If his goal is to make a statement on his ideas, then perhaps he can start an anti-gun blog. He’ll no doubt garner quite a bit of traffic – from gun owners.