The problem with government is that it doesn’t actually make any money. It only spends it. As such it is perpetually caught between the desire to get its hooks on cash and the necessity to leave some seed corn for future harvests. This is called public policy.
Author: Sebastian
Explaining The Gun Issue
Joe Huffman is trying to educate a blogger advocating reasonable gun control that the laws being advocated are neither reasonable, nor effective controls. Most people when asked why they support assault weapons bans, even though they are not often used for criminal purposes resort to “I just don’t see why anyone needs to have one.”
Well, I can think of at least one reason. There are certainly more.
“Pretty Safe Bet” from Montana’s Senator
Montana’s junior Senator, Jon Tester, is putting his seat on the line with his support of Barack Obama. I covered it here before when he was actively pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes on Obama’s record. I was disappointed that he went so far to deny that Obama has an anti-gun history, and I still hope that NRA takes those things into account since it went far beyond a simple endorsement of your party’s nominee.
Now, Tester is being questioned about the likely future of gun control since it’s clear gun owners and those who had, until recently, only thought of being gun owners don’t quite believe all of those election promises.
U.S. Sen. Jon Tester says he understands there are plenty of gun owners worried that there could be new gun control measures coming from Washington D.C.
But Tester says Wednesday that he doesn’t see it happening. …
But Tester says he would be really surprised if gun control cleared a Congress focused on other issues.
What should concern Montana residents is that in the same article, Tester doesn’t promise to oppose any gun control that either Obama or Pelosi pushes. He just says it’s a “pretty safe bet” that he probably wouldn’t support it. How about an absolutely safe bet, Senator?
It is true when he says there should be enough pro-gun votes in the House and Senate to stop any gun control from getting to Obama’s desk. But it’s also reasonable for people to be scared and to prepare for a grassroots battle with even some of the otherwise pro-gun Democrats. It hasn’t happened on gun control, but on other issues, Pelosi has been pretty successful at keeping the Blue Dogs quiet. Those who have battled her have been punished. But so far, she doesn’t seem to have overreached on issues the Blue Dog’s swing constituents are following closely. It is possible that with the new majorities, she may try to go too far expecting the Blue Dogs to give in like many have over the last two years. If she does or if Obama decides that gun control is an easy (and free!) issue to pick on when all of the other left-wing issues are complex and expensive, then Jon Tester will have egg on his face.
Federal Lawsuit Against Delaware County
The county where I grew up was slapped with a federal civil rights lawsuit yesterday for refusing to return lawfully owned guns to residents after they’ve been seized.
The plaintiff, Thomas DeOrio, 21, of Glen Mills, argues that the county government, judges and Sheriff’s Department illegally retain confiscated guns – even if a crime hasn’t been committed – when the owner is entitled to retrieve them.
In DeOrio’s case, Brookhaven police seized his collection of handguns and rifles in October and turned them over to the sheriff when his girlfriend filed for a temporary protection-from-abuse order. Shields said she perceived something he had said to be threatening. Three days later, after a court hearing, a judge dismissed the order, records show.
But DeOrio soon learned that getting his guns back wouldn’t be as easy.
Although the protection-from-abuse order had been thrown out, Shields said the sheriff’s office refused to return the firearms unless DeOrio filed a “legal action.”
The sheriff’s office is claiming that the county doesn’t give him authority to return the guns. Unfortunately, the state does say the guns need to be returned.
The plaintiff is represented by the same attorney who NRA is working with to defeat the illegal Philadelphia gun laws.
Chicago Going from Ban to Circus?
Because it’ll be a full three ring performance people will have to go through to exercise their rights:
The mayor said he’s looking at new D.C. laws requiring gun owners to go through five hours of safety training, register their firearms every three years and undergo criminal background checks every six years.
He must be worried he’s going to lose on the incorporation question. I would suggest this is progress, but we really want incorporation. If the laws are modified, they should be challenged, but we do not yet have a ruling yet from the Supreme Court which says these kinds of restrictions are a violation of the Second Amendment. All we have now is you have some vague individual right to a handgun in your home.
I don’t think you can condition the exercise of a fundamental right on having to jump through hoops. That’s not to say I think responsible gun owners shouldn’t get training. They should. I am not opposed to all safety training, just using it as a prior restraint on being able to purchase a firearm.
No Good Will Come from These Negotiations
Gun shop owners negotiate with anti-gun organizations at their own peril. These people are not interested in coming to an understanding — they want you out of business and your product banned. Give them nothing. Do not talk to them. We are your customers, and we’re just warning you if you want us to continue patronizing your businesses.
Obama’s Pick for Department of Interior
Sensibly Progressive talks about his record on guns.
Chicago Gun Ban Upheld in District Court
SayUncle has the story. This is not unexpected, since there’s controlling higher court precedent that binds the lower court.
More on CMP and the M-14
A reader yesterday made a pretty good comment that I feel I should share as a post:
History Lesson
1994 – Clinton gets the gun ban through Congress. Issues an executive order directing the Army to cease transfer of surplus-to-needs weapons and ammunition to the Department of Civilian Marksmanship. Also orders the Army to dispose of stored M14’s by foreign sale or destruction, in order to prevent their future sale through DCM.
1995 – Clinton issues executive order shutting down DCM permanently.
1996 – A newly elected Republican controlled Congress (primarliy due to Clintons’ gun ban) gives Clinton “the finger†by resurrecting the DCM as a congressionally chartered private corporation; the CMP. For political reasons the CMP is not chartered to sell the thousands of 1911’s surplussed by the switch to the M9. Doesn’t have much practical impact, though, as the company in Anniston that had been bandsawing Garands and M14s, and crushing 1911’s, had been running 3 shifts for more than a year. There are, for all practical purposes, no 1911’s left. Destruction of Garands and M14’s is halted. Remaining rifles returned to storage.
2004(ish) Army notes desperate need for long range rifle system for designated marksman program. Remaining M14’s, including most of the guns used by the USN for linethrowing and security, are returned to the depot at Crane for overhaul and re-issue to the Army.
Clinton managed to get rid of nearly 750,000 M14’s through foreign sales (at a dollar apiece) or destruction.
The domestic supply of M1 Garands was exhausted about 3 years ago. Rifles sold through CMP since then are lend-lease returns from foreign governments. Once those are gone, or if re-import is halted, thats’ it. Get ‘em while you can!
The Army is still short of DM rifles, and certainly isn’t destroying any serviceable M14’s at this point. Rumor has it that attempts are being made to repurchase some of those that were dumped overseas.
Regulating Pools
Blackfork notes that after many years of suggesting that pools kill far more kids each year than guns do, the federal government has actually started to regulate pools. I think we need to stop giving them ideas.