Thursday May 22, 2014 News Links


OCT Fallout:

Legal Insurrection’s Andrew Branca, author of The Law of Self-Defense, does not go kindly on the Open Carry In Your Face crowd.

SayUncle notices something disappearing down the memory hole at NRA. This doesn’t happen very often, but I’ve seen it happen before. What probably happens is the person who puts together the news links puts up something NRA doesn’t want to take a position on. As annoying as the OCT crowd is, it’s best for NRA not to comment on it, even if it’s just offering up a link, and even if Shannon Watts is egging them on.

Esquire salutes the moms who got guns banned from Chipotle.

Christian Science Monitor’s Patrik Jonsson covers the broader issue and notes “The Chipotle decision, analysts say, may spur further campaigns to prod corporations to stake out ground on publicly displayed guns and whether they should become part of everyday life for Americans.” Yep. Thanks Open Carry Texas.

Bloomberg’s gun group now says it’s safe to eat at Chipotle. Obviously they’ve never tried their burritos. “Despite its new gun policy, Chipotle insists it is a neutral party in the Second Amendment debate.” They were a neutral party. Then you caved to Shannon Watts. Personally, I never really liked their crappy food.

Newsbusters takes a look at Jon Stewart’s reaction to the OCT demonstration in Chipotle. I don’t watch The Daily Show anymore, because I don’t like Stewart’s politics, but OCT gave him irresistible ammunition.

The havoc in their wake.

General Gun News:

Bob Owens of Bearing Arms talks about how the gun review world works. I’ve never been a fan of Truth About Guns because I don’t like sensationalism and don’t appreciate how they’ve interacted with the gun community. And that’s a shame, because sometimes their content is excellent.

Dave Kopel talks about the vagueness challenge to NYC’s interpretation of their gravity knife law.

Laser engraved bolts for the 10/22. I’ve always wanted to build a custom match grade 10/22. This would be a nice looking addition to such a project.

Dems pushing to restore CDC funding for using your tax dollars to undermine your gun rights.

SAF notes that being more gun friendly could help New Jersey’s economy and budget. They don’t care. As far as the anti-gun politicians in New Jersey are concerned, those are jobs for the wrong kind of people.

You would think that the Army Times would know something about guns.

Weird Crime Stories:

Another mass knifing, 4 killed and a dozen injured.

Those Crazy Anti-Gunners:

Tam: Clutch the pearls! Takeaway quote: “[Y]ou could turn up better out of the cabs of the pickup trucks in the parking lot of any blue collar employer in flyover country.”

Another MAIG Mayor charged with a crime. Everytown might be a stupid name, but can you blame the guy for rebranding?

OK, this one isn’t about anti-gunners, but a university in North Dakota kicks a fencing team off campus. It won’t just stop with guns. These people are mentally deranged.

It’s always good to talk to antis who are willing to talk, as Joe Huffman relays.

Hot Court Action:

Cal-FFL and Cal-Guns are taking Attorney General Kamala Harris to court again.

The Brady Center is suing Gander Mountain, they seem to assert that you can’t go shopping for firearms with a friend, spouse or girlfriend because that’s indicative of a straw buy. We’ve called out the anti-gunners before for equating women buying firearms as automatic suspected straw buyers.

John Richardson takes a deeper look at Brady’s suit against the NJ Attorney General to file the smart gun reports.


Massachusetts gearing up to make its gun laws worse. Yes, it’s apparently possible.

Off Topic:

P.J. O’Rourke’s commencement speech to Rutgers, if he had given one.

17 thoughts on “Thursday May 22, 2014 News Links”

  1. Regarding the memory hole issue: What probably happens is the person who puts together the news links puts up something NRA doesn’t want to take a position on.

    While I have no idea what happened in this specific case, I can say that this has absolutely happened before. If you notice, the style of link was a news link with the summary largely drawn from the story. It was not a statement from ILA or anything like that. When I lived in Massachusetts, whoever did the news links for the website & daily email put in a piece that was touting a bill that the media took to be a gun control bill, but was really full of improvements. Because the person just gathering up news links didn’t bother to check with anyone running bills in Massachusetts, they had no idea how wrong the summary ended up being and it cause a lot of headaches for those gun groups working on the bill. Because checking in with every person who works with every state or on every single part of the issue means there wouldn’t be a news round up each day, I get why they don’t do it. I’m just surprised that the person who did put this out there didn’t stop and think about it a little more before hitting publish/share.

  2. Re: Gander Mountain,
    Nguyen, now 24, was convicted in April of falsifying a firearms form when she bought the guns.

    This person, along with the shooters estate, are the only people who should be sued. Saying GM “should have known” is really stretching it and obvious deep pocket prospecting.
    I have yet to meet a gun store employee that had ESP.

    1. The Reese family in New Mexico is undergoing a multi-year criminal prosecution on the grounds that they “should have known” federal agents were lying on their 4473s. They pretty much lost everything in the “asset seizure” phase, and aren’t being allowed to access their assets to put up a defense; it’s being funded by volunteers and donations.

      No charges on the federal agents who actually, y’know, lied on the 4473s – a federal offense.

      My question on the whole Gander Mountain suit is: Shouldn’t this fall under the PLCA? How is this lawsuit being allowed to proceed at all?

      1. You can plead around the lawful commerce act by alleging that specific statutes / regulations were violated.

  3. A few thoughts:

    On Jon Stewart: A news story appeared on the Book of Face about Jon Stewart ripping at the NRA for “opposing smart guns.” I think we can all agree that’s factually inaccurate; the NRA doesn’t oppose “smart guns,” but they absolutely oppose “smart gun” mandates. There’s a less-than-subtle difference, but I don’t expect a mainstream journalist – let alone a sensationalist like Stewart – to get it. Sensationalists go after the low-hanging fruit; the trick is to not give them any (granted, that’s a real trick, but still…).

    On the Cal-FFL/Cal-Guns suit: I’ve been trying to get clarification, but it seems to me that AG Harris has determined that if an FFL holder has a “Certificate of Eligibility” (for a personal handgun purchase), they fall under the one-handgun-a-month rule, and therefore can’t restock their handgun supply until the certificate expires. IOW, they can’t make a “business” purchase if they’re approved for a “personal” purchase. Is that a correct interpretation?

    On the CDC funding for “gun violence” research: I’d almost be willing to allow this, on the grounds that nobody has full, accurate numbers on firearm injuries, DGUs, deaths, etc. However, there are some strict caveats:
    – It must be unbiased research. The best way to do this, given the CDC’s generally anti-gun leanings, is to force them to partner and cooperate with pro-gun researchers during the course of the study. Have the NRA select and send an equal number of researchers to counter the CDC, and maybe invite John Lott and Gary Kleck, for flavor.
    – If the pro-gun and anti-gun voices can’t agree on the conclusions, no study is published. Period. Full stop.

    Just my $0.02.

    1. @Archer re: Suit against Kamala Harris.

      I got this clarification from Brandon Combs of Cal-FFL:

      What’s happened is that Harris/DOJ is taking the position that:

      – the “FFL03+COE” exemption in the Penal Code (at 27535(b)(9)) to the 1:30 handgun purchase limit only applies to curio and relic handguns, not modern handguns;

      – the use of an FFL03 for the purposes of meeting the conditions of the exemption to California state law violates the Code of Federal Regulations; and

      – the legislative history for AB 202 (1999, Knox) supports their view (it does not).

      Restocking under a commercial FFL is not affected by the policy; it does, however, severely squeeze handgun sales. We’re talking numerous shops going out of business bad.

      Harris is trying to prevent C&R holders from buying more than one “off-roster” non- C&R handgun per month.

  4. Re: Open Carry Teas

    We will continue to suffer dolts like this until we ostracize them from the normative community.

    That means we get their names, then distribute them to gun ranges and deny their access. If a range wants to offer refuge for a person who hurts the cause, we need to call them out.

    I speak from experience. Texas is not the only state to have OC long gun on the books. The difference is that some groups work hard to educate and involve all parties. We also call out those who work against us.

    So far, the people we have talked to about this kind of “activism” come to terms quick with the realities of the issue. The upside is we have worked with smart people. It seems OCT draws the other half of that coin.

    And hell if they can’t dress. Seriously, that is about as close to “in drag” as I have ever seen in public. And I once lived in San Fran Bay…

    Drama Queens. Pure and simple.

  5. That was good tactical advice you gave the NRA about OCT. You should follow it.

      1. While I am uncomfortable with the tactics of OTC or their splinter, I don’t think it is helpful to engage in internecine warfare. If you don’t like their tactics don’t do it. The gay movement was similarly split back in the 80’s but they didn’t bash each other to nearly the extent that our civil rights movement does. They won. Our movement tends to be much more conservative than theirs and thus more uncomfortable with in-your-face guerrilla theater. This may or may not be right but from the perspective of 30 years, clearly the in-your-face gays didn’t doom the success of the movement.

        Clearly no one is going to think you are behind OTC. While you are not the NRA you were giving them (good) advice.

        What I am suggesting is just chill. Take a deep breath and step back for a while. You don’t have any influence on the OTC splinter so bashing them is just going to encourage them. And meanwhile you too are giving talking points to the media.

          1. It has caused their nominal parent organization to say something. It is not clear to me that OTC is really in the saddle. As for the actual protesters, you don’t persuade people by calling them douchebags. Go read Joe’s collection of penis jokes and blood libels from the left and see how willing to see the other side that makes you. Others were more out there than you. One of your commentators called for excommunication (banning them from ranges). Perhaps 30 years from now we will see who is right about tactics.

            1. When did I call anyone douchbags? I’ve offered some hard criticism, but insulting people isn’t usually my style. Some of the commenters have been harsher, but I generally have a policy of not censoring comments.

              1. “One problem I have with the tactics that OCT uses is that it had a very high likelihood of bringing out attention whores and other people with less than great social skills.”

                Admittedly there are others that are far worse like some of your commentators and people you have linked (I agree with not censoring) but I am hassling you because you actually think your way through things and may be flexible. I don’t agree with OTC splinter tactics any more than you but I think there are better ways of dealing with them than “calling them out”. I also thought that Chris from AK had excellent ideas. Having someone they trust sit down with them and go through how that would better support their goals would, in my judgment, have much better results. Alas, social media is all about confrontation.

                1. You make good points, I do admit. But I also think if everyone had treated them with kid gloves they probably would have not revised their tactics. Sometimes it takes a blacklash, which isn’t always pretty, or thoroughly reasoned.

                  For me it comes down to not liking to lose. Especially when there wasn’t great gain to be had if everything turned out perfectly well. It’s one thing to choose a hill to die on that’s worth fighting for, and then losing it. It’s quite another to choose a hill to die on that most people don’t think is worth fighting for. Personally, I’m not all that interested in normalizing OC of rifles and shotguns, because that kind of thing has just never been normal in American Society, outside of the frontier.

                  1. Perhaps. But I think a quiet sitdown would have been more effective which is what matters if you want to win. The Internet unfortunately tends toward loud, public disputes. I would not be surprised to see the people in TX or others like them do it again. You probably don’t view yourself as The Man but I will guarantee that they do and tweaking The Man is ever attractive. Which is why I recommend chill except when dealing with The Enemy.

                    As an aside, I am not interested in OCing long guns or even pistols in a burrito place. However, I spend a lot of time camping and hiking in places with large dangerous animals. I have had close range encounters with griz and black bears, wolves, moose, pumas, and feral hogs. I have missed the polar bears and jaguars though I have camped in places where they were present. While I regard 2-legged predators as far more common, I like to upgrade my defensive tools to be able to take care of the 4-legged kind as well. Realistically, that means a long gun. Given the locations, people probably think I am hunting. The bad news is that the Fish and Game guys do to. So I would like to normalize long guns.

  6. RE: PJ O’Rourke

    He had me right up until the blindingly stupid comment about game theory.

Comments are closed.