Come to Pennsylvania, and Help Us Save It

Governor Cuomo notes that you’re not welcome in New York. That’s fine by me. I do my best to stay out of New York. I didn’t think there would be any way to make New Jersey seem welcoming in comparison, but Cuomo has accomplished it:

“You have a schism within the Republican Party. … They’re searching to define their soul, that’s what’s going on. Is the Republican party in this state a moderate party or is it an extreme conservative party? That’s what they’re trying to figure out. It’s a mirror of what’s going on in Washington. The gridlock in Washington is less about Democrats and Republicans. It’s more about extreme Republicans versus moderate Republicans.

… You’re seeing that play out in New York. … The Republican Party candidates are running against the SAFE Act — it was voted for by moderate Republicans who run the Senate! Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are? Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

If they’re moderate Republicans like in the Senate right now, who control the Senate — moderate Republicans have a place in their state. George Pataki was governor of this state as a moderate Republican; but not what you’re hearing from them on the far right.” – Andrew Cuomo

You heard the man. Get out, and take your tax dollars with you. Come to Pennsylvania, and help us fight so that we don’t have to deal with our own Andrew Cuomos in a few years (she might end up being called Governor Allyson Schwartz, or Kathleen Kane). We need gun loving New Yorkers in the Keystone State. But if you come, come prepared to fight. We have our own ninnies here, and Bloomberg has been digging in our backyard for some time already.

Quote of the Day: ATF Headquarters Edition

John Richardson comments on ATF renaming their headquarters after Elliot Ness, I guess like the FBI has named theirs after J. Edgar Hoover. John thinks this is actually appropriate:

To summarize, Ness didn’t get his man, he had questionable morals, he probably was an alcoholic, he covered up a crime, he couldn’t manage his money, and he was prone to wild exaggeration about his accomplishments. When you look at that summary of Ness’ life and career, who better to represent the modern day ATF?

Zing!

Budget Deal Missing Key ATF Controls

Joshua Prince notes that the new budget, awaiting signature by the White House, is missing key provisions that prevent ATF from abusing law-abiding gun owners:

In HR 2112, the restrictions included: 1. the funding of any “consolidating or centralizing, within the Department of Justice, the records, or any portion thereof, of acquisition and disposition of firearms maintained by Federal firearms licensees” (see page 58 of the Bill); 2. the appropriated funds to be utilized to “promulgate or implement any rule requiring a physical inventory of any business licensed under section 923 of title 18, United States Code” (see page 59 of the Bill); 3. “[N]o funds authorized or made available under this or any other Act may be used to deny any application for a license under section 923 of title 18, United States Code, or renewal of such a license due to a lack of business activity, provided that the applicant is otherwise eligible to receive such a license, and is eligible to report business income or to claim an income tax deduction for business expenses under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986″ (see, id.); and 4. “no funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay administrative expenses or the compensation of any officer or employee of the United States to implement an amendment or amendments to 27 CFR 478.118 or to change the definition of ‘Curios or relics’ in 27 CFR 478.11 or remove any item from ATF Publication 5300.11 as it existed on January 1, 1994″ (see id.)

Read the whole thing. There’s a lot more. Someone has demanded these provisions be removed. Why? What is the Obama Administration and ATF planning to do with that huge warehouse full of 4473s that they’ve retrieved from dealers who have closed up shop? Who are their lackeys in Congress who are threatening to derail the budget deal if these provisions weren’t removed? This is very bad news. This is a strong indication the Obama Administration plans to compile a registry from the records in West Virginia.

Prince also notes that Administration is seeking the power to alter the definition of Curios and Relics, and on requiring FFLs to do physical inventories.

Getting off the “No Fly” List

This Stanford University student managed to get her name removed from the “no fly” list. She is only the first person to successfully challenge placement on the list, out of 875,000 names on it.

Pipkin and a team of lawyers handled the case pro bono, spending $300,000 in court costs and racking up $3.8 million in legal fees covering some 11,000 hours of work, she said. “Why in the United States of America does it cost that much to clear a woman’s name?” she asked in a telephone interview.

Glenn Reynolds notes, “A watch list is one thing. But a “no fly” list with 875,000 names? Banning someone from flying is a punishment. There should be due process.” Yes, there should be. I think it’s also worth noting that while the right to travel is an unenumerated right, people like Bloomberg and, ahem, Chris Christie, think it’s just fine to deny the fundamental, constitutional right to keep and bear arms by someone presence on this list. Does being guilty until you can spend 4.1 million dollars on attorneys the kind of due process the framers of the 5th and 14th Amendments were thinking of? It’s shameful that this is happening with people’s right to travel. We should not double down on this shame.

The “Popcorn Defense”

The media has been going nuts over the Florida “Popcorn Shooter”. It’s obviously not the perfect narrative for them, because the shooter was a retired cop, and is in the class of “people who should have access to guns,” to pretty much everyone except the looniest anti-gun activists. Here’s a Christian Science Monitor article about the whole thing.

I think it’s hard to argue that a retired cop shouldn’t be carrying a gun everywhere, all the times, especially when they are in or near the area they used to patrol. But if we’re going to start one of those “national conversations” maybe it’s time to start one on police culture, and how we can identify cops who have anger issues, and encourage them to take a different career path. Also, maybe we need to have a conversation about things like this, from the CSM article:

Some have suggested that Reeves, 71, may have felt legitimately threatened and bullied by the younger Mr. Oulson, and that the thrown popcorn could qualify as an assault on an elderly person, a felony worthy of self-defense in Florida. That tack toward a possible “stand your ground” defense has already been dubbed the “popcorn defense.”

If assault on an elderly person is, in fact, a felony, regardless of stand-your-ground, it’s always been law in Florida (and many other states) that you can use deadly force to stop the commission of a forcible felony, and my understanding is that felony assault would qualify. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable on Florida law could comment. If there is a “popcorn defense,” that strikes me as an awful mistake in the part of the legislature, and should be corrected. Florida seems to be full of nonsensical criminal law. Legislatures seem to instinctively gravitate towards “getting tough on crime” through passing penalty enhancements that have little overall deterrent value. But did they unthinkingly create a ridiculous justifiable homicide situation by making a ridiculous felony? Wouldn’t surprise me if that is indeed the case.

Thursday News Links

I’m happy to repot that Bitter is done with her illness and on the mend, just in time for me to get sick again. Based on the fact that I don’t feel like death warmed over, I’m guessing just a cold. It certainly seems to be following the cold progression, and my temp is only slightly elevated. Hopefully I won’t pass this on to Bitter, otherwise it’s going to be like we had children disease wise. I’ve heard of some couples who have lots of kids and almost never have everyone well in winter.

First up, we have the SHOT show going on, and lots of interesting stuff there:

Jim Zimbo won a communication won an award at the State of the Industry Dinner. I think he made all the right reconciliatory gestures after the fact, so I don’t think he needs to be a pariah. Now Dick Metcalf on the other hand ….

The Robinson Arms XCR is a rifle I’ve been irrationally attracted to ever since I saw them change it from 5.56x45mm, to 6.8SPC, to 7.62x39mm all in one shooting session. Apparently it’s popular with Canadians because it’s unrestricted. I believe their law hinges on whether it’s a variant of a military rifle, which the XCR is not.

Hollywood is making another bomb of a movie. I’m not sure how the market for leftist political porn is these days, but I predict a flop.

New precision rifles, soon to be renamed “sniper” rifles and put on the anti-gun banwagon.

First look at the “Appleseed Ruger”

R51 Photos. PDB has some concerns about their marketing. I’m not sure “our product will make you into a ninja,” type advertising has ever been fail if your target audience is men.

The MG-34 Maschinengewehr.

And now for some non SHOT links:

Local opposition stymies SAFE Act. Note that SAFE is not any kind of happy medium, as the anti-gun folks push for even more laws. I wonder how Remington feels now about investing in New York.

Chicago has been given a six month stay to reform its laws about gun sales and transfers. As an Obama appointed judge in Utah showed on gay marriage, when the issue in question is favored, they know how to issue immediate injunctions.

Joe thinks California will be shall-issue eventually, nothing a recent lawsuit victory.

OC Tactical Soundness

Robb asks: “I cannot, for the life of me, comprehend the argument against Open Carry that states ‘I prefer the element of surprise’. Not against it being legal, mind you, just the argument about the act of openly carrying.”

For me I’m not sure it’s so much about the surprise part, so much as carrying the sidearm concealed increases my options. Surprise might be one of those options, but it’s just one. As long as the firearm is concealed, I get to choose whether, when and where it comes into the confrontation. If it’s openly carried, the attacker gets to choose that. Most people are offering up the example of the local Stop and Rob, and that’s certainly one possible scenario, but I can think of others. I may not want to introduce deadly force into a confrontation only involving physical force, but that suddenly changes if that person goes for a grab. I don’t really want to be in a situation, before a jury, arguing with a witness or survivor who disputes my claim that he was going for the gun, which is why, ladies and gentleman of the jury, I shot an unarmed man over a potential fist fight. I also generally don’t want to have to worry about a retention situation in a crowd, in line at the store, or any number of other scenarios that can be imagined.

I tend to think anecdotes are of limited value in debates like this. The fact is that most of us are in demographics that are incredibly unlikely to ever need to use a firearm in a self-defense situation, so the sample sets aren’t very representative. Most people who OC will probably do so their whole lives without a problem, and the same goes for people who conceal carry. But for me, I consider the tactical advantages to keeping the firearm concealed to outweigh the advantages of carrying it openly. I think he primary tactical advantage of OC is visual deterrence, but I’ve never wanted to risk the possibility of encountering the type of criminal who is not impressed by the display of a firearm.

UPDATE: More here. Robb notes, “There’s also the great advantage that, should the bodily waste impact the air moving device, you have options to engage / not engage that might not be there with OC (a rare, rare, rare, rare thing, but definitely in the realm of possibility).” I’m not sure that’s so rare. The most likely scenario I think most folks are likely to encounter is an unruly drunk, or some other tough guy, who might decide to start a confrontation before noticing your pistol. I don’t want to be in the situation of having to hope for good judgement on his part as to where the whole thing escalates from there. I’m not sure most confrontations start out as such clear deadly force situations. There’s usually an escalation to deadly force, and I tend to think it’s better to have options at each stage, without necessarily revealing the trump card unless the situation has gotten to that point.

The Latest: I’m a Gun Seller…. but

Jeff Soyer points to an article in the WVU school paper:

Speaking from experience as a gun salesman, just about anyone can come in and buy an AR-15 as long as they don’t have a felony, which leaves room for a pretty broad horizon of people.

Gun salesman? Dude worked for Wal-Mart. Give me a fscking break. I don’t offer this guy any creds as a gun salesman. There’s a big difference between slinging guns over the glass for many years at a real gun store, where you might actually have to learn a thing or two about what you’re selling, and “Attention all Wal-Mart employees. Customer needs help at the sporting goods section. Customer needs help in the sporting goods section.” I usually question any time someone claims some credential or another to give their argument some extra weight. Usually someone doing that is selling you a bridge, even if the topic isn’t gun policy.

HHS Proposed Rulemaking on NICS and HIPPA Published

Appearing in the Federal Register:

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or “the Department”) is issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking to modify the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule to expressly permit certain HIPAA covered entities to disclose to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) the identities of individuals who are subject to a Federal “mental health prohibitor” that disqualifies them from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm. The NICS is a national system maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct background checks on persons who may be disqualified from receiving firearms based on federally prohibited categories or State law. Among the persons subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor are individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution; found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity; or otherwise have been determined by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others or to lack the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease. Under this proposal, only covered entities with lawful authority to make adjudication or commitment decisions that make individuals subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor, or that serve as repositories of information for NICS reporting purposes, would be permitted to disclose the information needed for these purposes. This disclosure would be restricted to limited demographic and certain other information and would not include medical records, or any mental health information beyond the indication that the individual is subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor. HHS notes that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has proposed clarifications to the regulatory definitions relevant to the Federal mental health prohibitor. The DOJ proposal is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. While commenters should consider this proposed regulation in light of the clarifications proposed in DOJ’s proposal, we note that those clarifications would not change how this proposed HIPAA permission would operate.

This honestly won’t do much, because my understand that it’s state privacy laws, not federal, that prevent many of the states that don’t report from reporting.

Maryland Cops Harassing CCW Holders?

First question I have is how did he know:

Ten minutes later he’s back, and he wants John out of the Expedition. Retreating to the space between the SUV and the unmarked car, the officer orders John to hook his thumbs behind his back and spread his feet. “You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”

“At home in my safe,” John answers.

“Don’t move,” says the officer.

And they say we have nothing to fear from registration? Bullshit. Apparently the guy is thinking about giving up his permit. I’d consider a civil rights lawsuit before I considered anything else. This guy was lucky. When I drive through Maryland, I’m usually transporting the gun in compliance with FOPA. I’d probably have been arrested and charged. I really hope this guy files a lawsuit, because we need to send a message to Maryland authorities that it is not OK to harass law abiding gun owners transiting through their state.

Second, we all need to ensure that permit information is private in our states. Pennsylvania provides a means to verify a license given one in hand, but as far as I know the cops can’t pull up whether your licensed or not on their systems. Though, we do have that PSP registry I do believe the authorities, at least in Pennsylvania, can pull up. I’ve heard of cases of people getting pulled over in Pennsylvania and challenged by officers who had brought a gun with them when they moved from out of state, and thus it was not “registered” to the owner.