Weekly Gun News – Edition 51


Hopefully I have enough actual gun news to make this work. I thought we were going to have our first post-election mass shooting first, but it looks to be a dude plowed into students at Ohio State with a car and then began stabbing them. I am not eager to see Trump tested if we were to have another really awful mass shooting.

Rolling Stone: All-American Killer: How the AR-15 Became Mass Shooters’ Weapon of Choice. Actually, the handgun is the weapon of choice for mass shooters. Could have been written by Bloomberg’s people themselves, from the magazine that bought you rape hoaxes.

Tamara Keel: Building a Handgun Starter Kit.

Where has this guy been for the past two decades? “Not everyone who owns a gun is a fan of the NRA. Not everyone who doesn’t own a gun wants to stop others from having them. Now if we could only find a way to get those special-interest groups together for a nice argument.” We’ve been having that argument. Their side is losing it.

Glenn Reynolds in Florida Law Review: “Permissible Negligence and Campaigns to Suppress Rights.” He compares the PLCAA to New York Times v. Sullivan, a landmark Freedom of the Press case.

Pennsylvania Superior Court has vacated its previous decision on carry on Primary and Secondary School Campuses. The case will be reheard.

I thought Trump was going to do this? Troops in US can now carry.

Suddenly it’s minorities who are interested in purchasing guns. As I saw on the Internet: “Come for the panic. Stay for the freedom.”

Background Check Laws May Actually Interfere With Suicide Prevention Efforts. No kidding? We were saying that before Bloomberg start spending millions to get these passed via the ballot and deceptive advertising, but we were told to fuck off. I am really looking forward to carrying legally in New York City.

Andrew Branca: The Journal of American Medical Association disgraces itself by publishing a fatally flawed study of Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law.

More from NRA on that JAMA study.

Surrender by Saul Cornell? Cornell, if you remember, was one of the academics who tried to make the case that the Second Amendment was not an individual right.

This is why I don’t like those state laws nullifying federal gun laws. If lawmakers don’t intend to back up their nullification with the force that would be necessary (like jailing federal agents enforcing federal law), why bother? Some damned fool might actually believe your nonsense.

This is the silliest gun product I’ve seen for a while.

Katherine Timpf: “Believing Every Bad Thing About Trump Is as Harmful as Denying Every Bad Thing About Trump


7 thoughts on “Weekly Gun News – Edition 51”

  1. “I thought Trump was going to do this?”
    Trump did do this. Some REMFs at DOD are covering their tails in advance, knowing what’s coming.

  2. Surrender by Sean Cornell? Perhaps lacking the best reading comprehension skills as it took me a couple passes to dissect what he said, but I find it hard to make a leap to “surrender” without wider context (original article behind paywall). For instance, I wonder which originalist opinions Cornell has in mind when he’s making his statement, or if he even cites and affirms the exceptions, e.g. Scalia’s Heller opinion.

    “Surrender” assumes Cornell recognizes those exceptions as valid, I suppose, rather than a more likely explanation that there is simply rich irony in his argument here relative to other views (he wouldn’t be alone in holding a double-standard on the convenient use of legal principles).

  3. I thought Trump was going to do this? Troops in US can now carry.

    Read the directive carefully — its nothing but a pre-emptive strike by the DoD’s civilian leaders to take the issue off the table with a policy that is essentially “no carry.” That way the DoD can claim “Yup, we already took care of this, case closed” and prevent something that was relevant from being shoved down their throat during the First Hundred Days agenda.

    1) The services MAY delegate arming authorization down to the O-5 level but no lower. The Army CoS has already made it clear he opposes this policy, so I doubt arming authority will be delegated below the General Officer level for the Army. For the AF it will likely remain at the installation commander or higher (O-6/O-7).

    The O-5 level is accessible to mid-grade officers and NCOs. That’s a battalion commander (Army) or Sq (AF). The gen officer level is much less accessible. It is a huge PITA to staff paperwork to that level. Remember, in the .mil paperwork goes through each level of command for review before signature… So to staff to the O-7 level you’d have to go through a company or flight commander (O-3 & NCO), a battalion or sq cc (O-5 & Sr NCO), then up to the brigade or wing level (O-6/7 & Sr NCO). In addition to the commanders, there are also execs to get through, so the staffing document will have about seven or eight layers on there after including the execs, Sr NCOs, JAGs, and commanders at each level.

    2) No carry in buildings without JAG concurrence, which is unlikely to be granted in the staffing process.

    3) No implementation timeline.

    4) Everything is strictly “may issue.”

    5) Implementation procedures require staffing paperwork to the National Military Command Center which is likely to be a hassle for commanders.

    6) Permission must be renewed every 90 days, which requires this whole staffing process to be repeated, which is a huge PITA for commanders, so again it likely will just not be done.

    Nothing but kabuki theater.

    1. Yep. Trump needs to require the carrying of weapons by all service members except in certain specific circumstances. Default to armed. That is why we call them the armed services. Give the 60 days to train to an acceptable standard.

  4. “Not everyone who owns a gun is a fan of the NRA. Not everyone who doesn’t own a gun wants to stop others from having them. Now if we could only find a way to get those special-interest groups together for a nice argument.”

    I don’t understand how this is supposed to change anything. Pro-gun people don’t need to own guns to understand the benefits; additionally, there are a lot of people who own guns and don’t like the NRA, for whom the conversation this guy wants will have to start with “Now, I know the NRA has supported gun control in the past, but I’d like you to see that the NRA has gotten somewhat better over the years…”

    I’m not sure what this guy expects from such a conversation….

  5. “This is why I don’t like those state laws nullifying federal gun laws.”

    Apparently it’s a felony in Kansas to prosecute someone for violating their nullification law. Is Kansas going to arrest the federal officer? If not, then the law means nothing.

    If, however, Kansas were to arrest the federal officer, then things will certainly get interesting…

    1. Depends on how far they want to take it. A federal court would quickly order the agent’s release. They’d have to be willing to ignore federal court orders. Then you’re getting into serious business.

Comments are closed.