Here it Comes

The Dems end their filibuster while the GOP agrees to hold a vote. We also have word that Pat Toomey is working with gun control groups again on “producing a bill that could pass Congress.” Hopefully this time, the good Senator won’t get hoodwinked by Chuck Schumer into gutting the FOPA safe travel provision.

Next time Toomey is up, it’ll be an off year, and his ass needs to get primary’d.

This better be one of those “we give up almost nothing and get something in return,” or “we have the votes to beat this and just want to get some more lawmakers on record.” If not the GOP majority in Congress is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

This is the time to start calling. No more gun control. Period.

Our Allies: Know Who They Are

It’s not just crazy gun nuts who have serious concerns about using abusing the no-fly or terror watch lists, we have allies in unexpected places.

It’s good to know there’s still good old fashioned liberals out there who still share that passé concern for civil liberties. Cristian Farias over at HuffPo: “The NRA Has Actually Got Something Right On Gun Control.

The ACLU has been an ally against the terror watch list for a while now.

I know this will be controversial for some of my readers, but any chair in a bar fight will do: CAIR is against the terror watch list.

Pink Pistols are an LGBT gun-rights group, and they have an excellent release on the attack at the pulse night club. We will definitely need their voice as this train starts moving.

Tom G. Palmer (yes, that Palmer) in the New York Daily News: “In wake of Orlando, gays should arm themselves: Otherwise, in gun-free zones like the Pulse nightclub, we’re sitting ducks to maniacs and terrorists.

 

Decentralized response to decentralized threat

In comments to an article by Megan McArdle (the article itself is interesting):

It’s basically peer-to-peer terrorism. And that makes it nearly impossible to fight, because there is no military headquarters to bomb, just like there is no single server to take down in a p2p network.

They’ve basically crowdsourced terrorism.

So we need peer-to-peer defense.”

I can’t think of anything to add to that.

A modest proposal for a “Racing Car Ban”

Imagine, if you will, a politician’s press conference transcript, reproduced below

In light of recent tragic street racing deaths caused by youths recreating closed circuit road racing in street-legal cars that look like NASCAR vehicles, I have a modest proposal that we ban these cars that are similar to cars of racing.

A car should be considered a “racing car” if it meets the below-listed criteria:

A 4-seat car with an automatic transmission and the ability to be refueled from a portable tank and has at least 2 of the following:

  1. A driver’s seat that adjusts in height or can be moved forward and back on rails
  2. A shift level mounted in the center console
  3. A “Bull bumper” or a “ramplate”
  4. A 2″ or greater exhaust pipe or a muffler designed to accommodate a 2″ or greater exhaust pipe
  5. A weapon mount

A 2-seat car with an automatic transmission and the ability to be refueled from a portable tank and has at least 2 of the following:

  1. A fuel fill port behind the license plate
  2. A muffler capable of accepting a 2″ or greater exhaust pipe
  3. A steering wheel grip cover
  4. A manufactured weight of over 5000 lbs with an empty gas tank
  5. A street-legal copy of a track-only vehicle

A SUV with any number of seats that has an automatic transmission and at least 2 of the following:

  1.  A driver’s seat that adjusts in height or can be moved forward and back on rails
  2. A shift lever mounted in the center console
  3. More than a 15-gallon fuel capacity; and
  4. the ability to be refueled from portable containers.

The original

A Sign Things May Not Be Going Well on Capitol Hill

From NRA:

We are happy to meet with Donald Trump.  The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed.  The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period.  Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing.  If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist.  At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed.  That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate.  Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.

The thing that worried me from the get go is when you start arguing on constitutional grounds, people either don’t understand or their eyes glaze over. That’s why it’s always, “Politician is going to take X from you.” It’s a sad state of affairs, but most people are not ideological. They don’t care about higher principles. What motivates them is whether their ox is going to get gored by this or that. That’s why Trump has done well among non-ideological voters in the primary. People will burn down phone switches if they think their ox is getting gored. Abstract principles appeal to fewer people. So it is incumbent among us who do get and do care about due process to call our Congressmen and Senators and tell them no new gun control laws. Keep it that simple.

Both the ACLU and NRA are opposed to the Terror Watch List, but don’t expect that to get in the way given that civil liberties are out of fashion among progressive lefties, and “law and order” populists have never been very concerned.

A Strategy for Opposing Terror Watch List Legislation

Charles C.W. Cooke is onto something here, in his very Glenn Reynoldsesque suggestion:

I shan’t re-rehearse my case against the civil use of terror watch lists here; those interested can read my three offerings from last year here and here and here. But I will suggest a modest course for those in Congress who remain opposed to this folly: Why not amend any bill so that it covers the entire Bill of Rights? Hillary Clinton is on record suggesting that the United States should impose some censorship on the Internet so that would-be terrorists cannot communicate with one other. Well, if the prospect of terrorists using the internet really is that dangerous — and if those who oppose Clinton’s coveted reforms are just dogmatically wedded to outdated concepts such as “freedom of speech, et cetera . . .” – then there shouldn’t be any problem with the federal government preventing anybody suspected of terrorism from using a modem, should there? Sure, at one point in American history it made sense to require due process before we stripped core rights. But that was back in the days of pamphlets and printing presses, not now when one can spread information across the world in the blink of an eye.

Read the whole thing. He also has clearly read his Alinsky: make them live up to their own standards. The arguments the Dems will make against this will destroy their own arguments for the gun portion of it.

Chris Murphy Filibustering for Gun Control

So says Roll Call. He started at 11:21. In this case he’s not filibustering to prevent a bill, but continuing to hold the floor in order to hold up the Senate’s business until it agrees to do some gun control, namely “Terror Watch List.” Personally, I think Senator Murphy can keep bloviating until he’s blue in the face. Holding up the Senate’s business? As far as I’m concerned, the less those people do the better off we all are. Senators, I say let him have his say, go out to Bullfeathers for a beer, and wait for him to finish his grandstanding.

Inquirer Reporter Commits Federal Felony

Go To JailReporter Helen Ubinas set out to show the world how easy it was to buy an AR-15, but then committed a federal felony, and violated a number of state laws. You see, Ms. Ubinas paid for the AR-15 with her company card, while answering “Yes” that she was the true buyer of the firearm. You see, if the company is buying it, then it’s a purchase by that corporation, and that corporation is what needs to go on the paperwork. If you put yourself up as the person buying, and the money is being fronted by your corporation, then that is a straw purchase.

After that she says “No need for a concealed carry permit.” Actually, transporting firearms in Philadelphia is illegal except under exceptions. One of those is having a License to Carry Firearms. Another is going directly from the place of purchase to your home. My Jersey readers are quite familiar with this type of transportation regime. It’s the same in Pennsylvania for handguns outside Philadelphia, but applies to all firearms in the City of Philadelphia. The only difference between New Jersey laws and Pennsylvania laws, is that licenses to carry are not difficult to get here, and they exempt you from all these transportation laws. But Ms. Ubinas admittedly drive around the city for a bit (not excepted, and thus illegal) and then drove to the police station (also not excepted, unless you’re under an order to).

I mean, I get that whipping out the company AMEX is an innocent mistake, but there’s no innocent mistake exception to what you put on a 4473. I’m actually surprised the dealer would run a corporate card through the machine without noticing. I hold out the possibility that this is all wistful fiction, and the reporter in question is a liar rather than a felon. But none of this stuff is as unregulated as the reporter leads us to believe. When dealing with guns, it’s very easy for uninitiated people to commit serious crimes without realizing it. Maybe Ms. Ubinas can have some sympathy when we argue that each new regulation, while seemingly well-intended, can often put well-meaning people in prison for understandable mistakes. If you’re going to be a serious gun owner and stay out of trouble, you have to know your law.

“It Felt To Me Like a Bazooka”

So says this Daily News article that has been making the rounds. That’s funny, because that’s pretty much the opposite reaction I’ve gotten, even from women and children. He even goes so far as to say the first shot gave him PTSD, and insult to people who have gotten PTSD from experiencing something far far worse. This guy is a tool. To me, the bigger story is who enabled the Daily News to come up with this hit piece: Frank Stelmach of Frank’s Double Tap Shooting Range at 4730 Blakiston St, Philadelphia, PA:

“There should be expanded background checks — extending into your family, friends and associates,” he said. “And there should be a mental health screening. In Europe, if you want to buy a gun, you have to see a doctor (for a psychiatric examination) to see if something’s not right.”

Something to keep in mind if you patronize that establishment. Psych evals? Really? At whose expense? Not just believe that stuff, but willing to say so to the media, and cooperate with the media to make gun owners look bad! I don’t really give a crap what you think as an individual, but the game changes when you announce as much to the media in a hit piece to a paper you know is doing a hit piece.

I would note that Classic Pistol is only 12.7 miles further if you live in The City. Pistol People is only 4.6 miles, and 10 minutes. Ready Aim Fire, 11 miles or 18 minutes. So really, you have no excuse.

Notice in the update the author apologized for his hyperbole about firing an AR-15 giving him PTSD. I’m glad to see our folks getting their Alinsky on: make them live up to their own standards.

UPDATE: Double Tap responds that their words were twisted by Kuntzman, and they do not in fact support any of the things the article claimed they supported.

How’s Do You Trump Supporters Feel Now?

Due process? What’s that? Anything can be sacrificed for a bit of good ol’ fashioned populist “law and order”:

UPDATE: To be clear, I’m speaking to those who supported him in the primary.