Category: Gun Rights

A bill, HB1224, has passed out of committee in the Democrat-controlled Colorado House. HB1224 would ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and shotgun magazines that hold more than 5. This would ban many common shotguns. It doesn’t matter of the magazine is detachable or fixed. It would make it a crime to give a magazine to a friend to shoot, and then take it back. It also prohibits manufacture for civilian use. Magpul has threatened to leave the state, and take approximately 1000 jobs with them, if this passes. Democrats are showing they care more about their far-left agenda than they do about jobs.

Gun owners in Colorado need to do everything they can to assure that this does not pass. Flood the Capitol!

Bitter alluded to the Durbin hearings earlier today. We aren’t watching this particular dog and pony show live, because it’s a side-show of a dog and pony show. But Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has been quite effective at organizing a counterweight to Durbin’s push for draconian gun control. We’ve had several of our pro-gun scholars contribute, and I think their articles are all worth highlighting.

• Here’s one from Clayton Cramer.
• Here’s Dave Hardy’s letter.
• Here’s Dave Kopel’s letter.

Many thanks to all three for publishing the contents of their letters.

UPDATE:

• Randy Barnett

No guns for thee, at least that which you do not allow for civilians. Actually, I would be fairly pleased with the constitutional standard being anything that’s in common police use is protected. That would certainly include pistols that hold more than ten rounds, as well as the AR-15. It would also make the increasing militarization of the police have consequences. The feds might think twice about surplusing so many M4s and M16s to police departments if the consequence of that is that we have a right to them too.

From Emily Miller:

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley appears to have used his executive power to get the personal emails of citizens with hunting licenses in order to push gun control. The second-term Democrat is using the information in an attempt to divide gun owners to build support for his extremist legislation to abridge Second Amendment rights.

Let us hope this backfires in a big, big way. I think this really shows how poorly they understand the community. Sure, there are hunters that might tell a pollster that they support certain gun control measures, but it’s not an issue they are going to go to bat over. But many hunters hate gun control, and it’s quite likely here all Governor O’Malley is doing is helping get the word out to our people. The hunter license list, I’m sure, is reaching a lot of people NRA and the rest of the gun rights movement has difficulty reaching. This likely will mobilize more people against gun control than mobilize them for. I think this was a gross miscalculation on the part of the Governor.

I didn’t watch today’s dog and pony show run by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin today because, as a subcommittee hearing, it’s just not quite as big of a dog and pony show. However, I did sit down to read the submitted testimony from Suzanna Gratia Hupp, one of the scheduled witnesses. I thought it was worth sharing some highlights.

On the issue of gun free zones:

Since that time, we have seen dozens of these mass shootings. Isn’t it interesting that nearly all have occurred in places where guns were not allowed. If guns are the problem, then someone explain to me why we haven’t seen these mass shooting at skeet and trap shoots, or NRA conventions, or the dreaded gun show. We will never know if lives could have been saved at Sandy Hook if a teacher or two been armed. …Rid the country of gun free zones. Don’t get me wrong, you won’t be able to stop someone from going into a workplace and shooting his estranged wife and the person sitting next to her. But you will prevent the high body bag counts we are seeing now.

On misinformation from lawmakers about guns they want to ban:

Look, guns are just a tool. They are tools that can be used to kill a family, or tools that can be used to protect a family. It merely depends on whose hands that tool is in. You may wonder why I take issue with an assault weapons ban. That is simple. It is because there’s no logic involved with the proposed ban. I believe that the public and much of the media have been misled to believe that assault weapons are rapidfire, automatic, machinegun-like weapons. I know this from the many interviews I have done on television, radio and newspaper.

On the argument of a bill of needs:

I have heard many pundits and legislators say, “Why would anyone need this type of gun or a magazine that carries this many bullets?” Well, in this Land where Freedom hangs by a thread, I hate to think we are going to begin having government committees determining what each citizen needs. They may decide you don’t need to drive a particular car, or need send your child to private school.

And in this Land of Liberty, it is not only our right to keep and bear arms, I would go so far as to say it is our duty.

She also has a suggestion for lawmakers that includes not actually making a law, which I’m pretty sure has to cause smoke to come out of the ears of some legislators who just don’t comprehend the concept that not everything has to be about controlling behavior:

Encourage, not legislate, but encourage the media to quit using the murderers’ names in all of their follow-up reporting. I would love to see them never show the creep’s picture after the first day. If the killer is still alive and going to trial, wouldn’t it be great if they fuzzed out their names and faces as if it were obscene? We all know they have to report the news. But they could be part of the solution and help take the glory out of their horrendous acts.

There is one reference Hupp makes in comparing a mass killer to a rabid dog, and I’m not sure it’s such a good analogy.

Now it may sound odd to you, but I wasn’t angry at the guy that did it. That’s like being mad at a rabid dog: you don’t be mad at it. You might take it behind the barn and kill it, but don’t be mad it. I told the newspapers the next day that I was mad as hell at my legislators because they had legislated me out of the right to protect myself and my family. The only thing the gun laws did that day was prevent good people from protecting themselves.

The reason I take issue with this analogy is because I’m not sure how many people would really get it. I think many urban and suburban dwellers understand that a rabid dog is a bad thing, but I’m not sure how many consider it a) a real threat, or b) something that needs to be shot. I know this sounds crazy, but it’s amazing how many people don’t understand the natural threats around them anymore. I had an encounter in college where I had to talk back some friends – educated women – who thought an animal that showed possible signs of being rabid was just so cute and nearly tried to pet it. I mentioned Old Yeller, and they just blinked. To make the argument to them that rabid animals should be shot would horrify them. If they ever had a rabid pet, their solution would be to take it to a vet. If the vet says put it down, they wouldn’t make the connection that it’s the same as shooting it. To them, the idea that the individual could diagnose the problem and provide the same final solution for the animal is just beyond them. That’s what we have vets for – official people with titles and government sanction, at least according to them.

That said, I don’t think that the analogy makes or breaks the testimony. I think it’s overall good written testimony.

Here’s a picture of Joe Biden’s gun control shindig in Philadelphia. You will note Attorney General Kathleen Kane and Alyson Schwartz seated near him. Alyson Schwartz is preparing to run against Tom Corbett for Governor. Alyson Schwartz is a leader on gun control. This is going to be it folks. One reason we aren’t worrying too much about Pennsylvania right now is because Governor Corbett came out early and said gun control wasn’t going to be a solution in Pennsylvania. If Schwartz wins and denies Corbett a second term, the game will be over for gun rights in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia and the far-left coalition that controls the near suburbs will control the state. The House Republicans will probably try to hold the line for a while, but that won’t last long term. Corbett has to win, and we need to pull out all of the stops to keep him in office for another term.

This was hiding out in the far reaches of my tabs, but this article by Clayton Cramer in America’s First Freedom is well worth reading. The primary motive behind the new law was racism. The law was so poorly received it was repealed a few years later:

Less than six years after that editorial from The Daily Alta California in support of the conealed weapons ban, the same newspaper ran an editorial arguing that the law was both impossible to enforce and unconstitutional because it violated the Second Amendment …

But I thought the notion that the Second Amendment was a fundamental, individual right was invented by the NRA in the 1970s, and sold to the rest of us stupid, unthinking yokels who can barely read, let alone know history?

So Glenn Reynolds notes, along with a New York Times article that highlights the growth of women in the movement. Now to be fair, there’s plenty of old, white women in the gun control movement too. I’ve long pondered whether our success was a result of previous generations of culture warriors dying off, leaving behind younger generations that don’t care as much for the practice.

You could bowl me over with a feather:

“A coalition of House Republicans is willing to thwart the National Rifle Association’s opposition to broadening background checks for U.S. gun purchases. That may be President Barack Obama’s best chance for advancing tougher gun regulations this year.   Representatives Patrick Meehan and Michael Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania are among Republicans expressing openness to expanding the background-check system, including mandatory screening of buyers at gun shows …”

I guess we have some more writing to do around these parts. They are betting on not being as bad as the other guy.

The coalition of House Republicans is probably no larger than 40, according to advocates of tighter gun restrictions, though it may grow once such measures advance in Congress.

Forty is a larger than the margin, though the Dems won’t all be together on the issue. The margin is 32 seats the GOP holds over the Demcorats.

h/t Jacob