What Publishing Permit Information Gets You

I’ve said before that no gun owner ever complained about permits being public record until newspapers decided to be bozos and publish lists of permit holders. If the Brady Campaign and MAIG were smart, they’d be the first on the phone to these papers telling them to knock it off. I would have no problem with papers iterating through the permits finding and reporting on people who legitimately should not have them. But that’s not what they do. That’s what we would call real reporting, and no newspaper has the money to do that these days.

But why should the Bradys be against publishing? Because that will create a backlash that will cause the law to change.

Thursday, a House committee voted 11-0 to keep information about gun permits from being released to the public — information The Indianapolis Star has used to document how guns have fallen into violent hands.

The NRA lobbyist for Indiana is Ashley Varner, mentioned in the article, who used to handle NRA’s media relations with bloggers when she was working in ILA’s Public Affairs office. A lot of us bloggers know her, so I think I can speak for us all when I say “Go get em Ashley!”

Well, At Least Now They Admit It

The Star Press is admitting that they are treating gun owners in Indiana like child molesters by publishing their permit information for people to search. The problem is they think this is how it should be, because those sex perverts could have gun permits, you know. Can you think of any offense that involves fondling children that doesn’t make one a prohibited person? I can’t.

Corzine Signs Bill Weakening His One-Gun-A-Month Election Scheme

When John Corzine thought that pushing gun control was the key to his re-election bid, there was nothing more important that the legislature could possibly do. Without fanfare, he signed the measure that makes the law slightly less of an abuse on the law abiding gun owners of New Jersey. I guess the theatrics don’t matter to him anymore now that he’s politically irrelevant.

Phoenix, Not Philly

It would appear that Philadelphia is making a play to grab the 2012 Democratic National Convention.  Phoenix is also submitting a bid, though they will also try to get the Republican National Convention.

Here’s hoping that the Democrats find the desert air refreshing enough to choose Phoenix.  It comes with our endorsement as a great convention city.  If Phoenix wins, it means that I won’t have to go on vacation to avoid the added stench of dirty hippie blended with corruption.

Legitimately Unsure

If you’ve taken enough new shooters to the range, you’ll run across one who becomes less frightened/disturbed/bothered by firearms, but they still don’t quite get why people enjoy shooting.  It’s not that they have a bad time, they just don’t get as into it, and they are legitimately curious about people who do enjoy it.  What do you tell those people when they ask why you are a gun owner and shooter?

One LA Times columnist wants to know before she writes her next column.

Light Reading: Analysis of The Stevens Dissent

Dave Hardy has a law review article out examining the Stevens Dissent in DC v. Heller, here’s the intro:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER ESTABLISHED THAT THE Second Amendment’s right to arms existed as an individual right, with no requirement that the rights-holder be functioning as part of a well-regulated militia. While the majority opinion has been subjected to extensive review and commentary, the Steven dissent, joined by four members of the Court, has not. The dissent came within one vote of becoming the majority; it clearly merits close examination.

Had the dissent become law, the Court would have informed the American people, seventy percent of whom believed they had an individual right to arms, that their rights-consciousness was sadly mistaken. If done on the basis of sound research and reasoning, this would involve no more than the Court performing its duty. An examination of the dissent suggests, however, that the Court would have been taking this position based upon surprisingly thin reasoning and evidence.

Footnotes removed for purposes of quoting. I joke when I say light reading. It’s very in depth. I won’t have time to read it all until later, but it looks good.

Upgraded

Snowflakes in Hell just got an Internet upgrade. It’s been about four years since I signed up for FiOS Internet, and my connection was 15 megabits down and 2 megabits up. I noticed when I posted pics of my Webley Mark IV, it was getting pretty pokey when enough folks were downloading. I also noticed Verizon didn’t even sell my package anymore, so I quickly realized I might be able to get an upgrade without paying anything. Typically you have to ask, as Verizon will be happy to sell you slow service for yesterday’s price.

Calls to Verizon are aways rough, because I have an unusual account. When you call, they ask for a telephone number to cross reference account info. I have Verizon FiOS for Small Business, because I need a static IP so you all know where to find me. My phone number is a standard residential POTS line. Invariably they ask for your phone number to determine your account, which always sends me to residential service, who quickly realize they only have a phone account for me, and transfer me to business support, who then look at my phone number and say “Oh, this is residential service, let me transfer you back.”  A back and forth twice, finally being able to say “No, no.. it’s a residential phone line, but I do have a Small Business FiOS account!” Finally I get to talk to someone, but someone who ends up being very nice and helpful.

Turns out I can upgrade to 20 megabits down and 5 up for the same price, but for ten dollars more a month I can do a whopping 25 megabits down and 15 up. Hell yeah, I’ll take that. Apparently I can also save money bundling my phone and TV service with my Small Business Account, which I couldn’t do before. I’m going to look into doing that. To make a long story short, Snowflakes in Hell now has over 7 times the upload bandwidth it used to, and I’m hardly paying any extra for it.

Never Here

What two brothers are going to in order to get their permits approved for getting pistols before a ban goes into effect in Ireland.  Doesn’t look good. How would you like to find yourself having to do this?

“[IPSC’s] not in the Olympic arena?” the Inspector asked. “No,” the applicant replied.

“I’d like to say that the Superintendent might have had concerns at the level of security but that wasn’t being mentioned to us at any point,” he said.

His brother took to the stand and described a Glock pistol as a semi-automatic 9mm firearm which is used in competition.

He said the gun is “popular because it is reliable and cheap”. “Is it fair to say it is easy to conceal?” Inspector Ruane asked. “If you were wearing a trenchcoat it would be easy to conceal any gun.”

The Inspector told him he was engaging in semantics and put it to the applicant that a Glock pistol is “the weapon of choice to criminals in this jurisdiction.”

The applicant said he was entitled to a licence under that legislation in place in October, 2008. “You were entitled to be considered for the licensing of a firearm” Inspector Ruane clarified. The applicant agreed.

Yes, before a judge, being treated as if you might be a common criminal, just because you want a Glock to do IPSC competition. You might hide it under your trenchcoat, you know. It’s the “weapon of choice” for criminals. Where have we heard that before? Never here.

Webley Mark IV .38 S&W

Many of us, when we think of Webley revolvers, think of this iconic movie image, of Michael Caine and Stanley Baker playing Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead and Lieutenant John Chard in the 1964 movie Zulu, firing away with their Webley Mark VI in .455 Webley. Unfortunately for the movie, the iconic image is wrong. The revolver in question wasn’t introduced until World War I, thirty six years after the British Army fought the Battle of Rorke’s Drift. Nonetheless, the movie helped introduce more than a few people to the Webley, including me. When I noticed Century was carrying some Webley Mark IVs in their catalog late last year, I decided to grab one, since I had just renewed my C&R FFL. Delivered to my door a few days later. These aren’t very collectible revolvers, which their low price reflects, but they are in good condition, and should be a solid shooter, and a good introduction to the gun. The pistols are in .38 S&W, which is an older, than the .38 Special, and definitely more anemic than the man stopping .455 Webley. Unlike the Smith & Wesson designs, the Webley uses a top break reloading mechanism, where the entire barrel and cylinder can be moved away from the frame. This requires two hands to accomplish, so offers some obvious disadvantages to the more modern designs, but its’ still neat.

In the picture showing to the left, you can see the cross block safety that Century installed on these guns. That’s the main thing that kind of ruins these for collectors. Apparently it was done in order for Century to be able to import them under the ATF point system. Firearms explicitly listed on the C&R list can be imported by definition, without consideration to the point system (you can thank FOPA for that), but only the Webley Mark I is explicitly listed on the C&R list. These revolvers are C&R by virtue of the fact that they are older than fifty years. That gets it delivered to your door if you have a C&R FFL, but it doesn’t get you around the point system for importation.

In the picture to the right, you can see the origin of this particular pistol in Birmingham, England. I had wondered whether Century got these Webleys from one of the commonwealth countries, but I haven’t noticed any marks indicating that would be the case. I’m pretty sure that this Webley was never issued to any Commonwealth authority. It seems difficult to believe that it was imported directly from England, since I would imagine their export laws for pistols would preclude that possibility. In the picture to your left, you can see the proofs I am speaking of (click on the picture to see up close). Apparently all guns sold in the UK had to be “proofed” by one of several proof houses. This was one proofed by the Birmingham Proof House. The BV is the “Birmingham View” proof, indicating that the pistol passed visual inspection. The BP proof is a black powder proof mark, and NP is the “nitro proof” mark for certifying it will accept smokeless cartridges.

In the picture to the right, you can see up close how the Gun Control Act of 1968 forced Century International to butcher this pistol’s hammer. This would be a good collector piece otherwise. I didn’t even get a picture of the importer’s mark that was stamped on the underside of the barrel, something Bloomberg is demanding we make deeper and larger, in addition to adding a standardized extra serial number, further butchering imports and ruining them for collectors. You can see from the bit of serial number I didn’t Photoshop out, that it begins with A5, indicating a manufacture date of 1953. Had this pistol been imported into the United State prior to 1968, it would have been legal to import untouched, and an excellent collector piece. Thanks to our gun laws, it’s a shooter. I’m happy to finally have a Webley, and someday maybe I’ll spring for a collectable one. But for now I’m just happy to have something new to shoot.