Category: Gun Rights

Very good to see something like this in the Daily Beast, even though I’m a long time reader of Megan’s that predates her gig there:

That’s not really surprising, because long guns aren’t used in the majority of gun crimes, and “assault weapon” is a largely cosmetic rather than functional description; the guns that were taken off the street were not noticeably more lethal than the ones that remained. It was a largely symbolic law that made proponents of gun control feel good about “doing something”.

She goes on to speak about marginal regulations in general, but I think this particular issue goes even beyond many of those kinds of regulation which have disparate economic impacts. Sure, the AWB was an economic regulation if you’re a firearms maker. But laws on this subject generally go beyond that.

If you think an assault weapons ban is so important, you need to question whether it’s important enough to enable a SWAT team break down one of your neighbor’s door early one morning, pointing guns at his wife and and children, possibly shooting the family dog (often SOP for SWAT teams), and ransacking his house looking for evidence that he put the wrong parts kit on his legal firearm and a cop saw him at the range with it and took note. That is, fundamentally, what the assault weapons ban enables. And for what?

Our opponents often paint our opposition to these laws in selfish terms, as just a bunch of “guys who care more about their guns than they do children” but they often should look in the mirror. I don’t want to subject otherwise law-abiding hobbyists and enthusiasts to the wrath of the law so that the leaders of the Brady Campaign, Mayor Bloomberg, and CSGV, can feel better about themselves. How is that not as selfish as what they accuse us of?

National German gun registry moves forward.

I’m not all that familiar with Washington State gun laws on registration, but this looks like the same thing that happens in Pennsylvania. I don’t think this is an issue of federal law at all, and the original posting that Dave Hardy links to misunderstands FOPA, as Dave points out.

Much like Pennsylvania, this information is likely obtained from state required forms, which don’t fall under the purview of the federal government. In Pennsylvania’s case, the “Record of Sale” is used to compile a computerized registry. If Washington State has a state form for gun purchases, it’s coming from that. Otherwise, Washington State is a partial Point-of-Contact state for Brady Act purposes, so it’s Washington State, not the FBI, which process background checks for every handgun sold. It’s also likely that system is tied in with a state “registry” as well. In Pennsylvania, a registry is supposed to be illegal by statute, but the State Supreme Court ruled that computerizing every Record of Sale was not a registry, because it wasn’t a complete record of firearm ownership. Of course, in the past, that hasn’t stopped the police from treating it as such, and confiscating guns at traffic stops for not being “legally registered” to the owner.

Take their guns, and then shut them up so they can’t complain about it.

Been very quiet on the gun news front these days. Almost too quiet.

From The Blaze:

What the Harvard study finds is that those who claim more guns do equal more death cannot bear the burden of proof “because there simply is no large number of cases in which the widespread prevalence of guns among the general population has led to more murder.” And those same advocates cannot consistently show that “a reduction in the number of guns available to the general population has led to fewer deaths.” It appears that gun ownership is, in fact, irrelevant (or has little relevance) to a nation’s murder rate …

Read the whole thing. It’s always been a myth that gun ownership in Europe was relatively rare. Certainly rarer than here, but in most cases if you’re willing go jump through the hoops, guns in most of Europe are relatively legal and not entirely uncommon.

Clearly positive attitudes are not spreading very far and wide among political elites in the Golden State. Says Burke Strunsky, Deputy DA for Riverside County:

But the problem is, the handgun is a lethal weapon–that’s too damn handy.

Yes. Yes it is. Which is why the ownership of a handgun is constitutionally protected.

Laws that mandate a waiting period before buying a gun are well grounded in the fact that humans tend to act impulsively. These waiting periods are wise and necessary. They give people an opportunity to reflect and cool down, to use their heads first and not their handguns.

Because every time I’ve gone to buy a handgun, I’ve been in a huff and angry and itching for some murder. How many people buying a handgun are doing so because someone else is in a huff and angry, like, say an abusive ex-husband? And why do waiting periods make sense at all for someone who already has a gun? Does he imagine this happens: “Sorry, my current handgun is black, but if I’m going to murder my wife, it just has to be stainless. She deserves nothing less!”

The ballot measure adding a firm RKBA provision to Louisiana’s constitution has passed handily, with 75% support. Dave Hardy notes, “With ‘shall-issue having succeeded everywhere it’s likely to, and some places where it wasn’t likely, this may be the next wave.”

I think it needs to be, because the likelihood Heller and McDonald are overturned is much higher now than it was yesterday. In addition to getting stronger protection at the state level, we need to grease the machine for a Federal Amendment should the Supreme Court remove the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights. I think Pennsylvania would be a worthy state to try this in, because to be honest, I think gun rights is politically doomed in Pennsylvania if we don’t have strong protection from the Courts.

UPDATE: For those who want to know, our process is that an Amendment must be passed in two consecutive sessions of the legislature, and then voted in the affirmative by the people.

Good news for Canadian gun owners, but there’s still a dispute about Quebec registrations, and that is sticking around until that dispute is resolved.

While the then-governing Liberals sold the registry to gun owners as a minor, reasonable bureaucratic nicety, they also had the bad habit of trotting it out in public as a sign of their government’s commitment to public safety and ending gun violence. You can’t blame the people who had to register their firearms for feeling like the government was treating them as mass-shooters in waiting. Or, at the very least, a political punching bag.

That’s one of the primary things that motivates my opposition to gun control, because in fact, they do think we’re all mass-shooters in waiting. It’s patently obvious from their rhetoric that’s the case. But I don’t think they can solicit donations being nice to gun owners. The reason all the anti-gun groups have become so hateful is likely because that keeps the checks rolling in from those looking to buy a stronger self-image at the expense of looking down on others.

Canadian gun owners are well within their rights to thank the Tories for scrapping the hated registry while still demanding changes — clarifications and improvements, mostly — of Canada’s gun laws. Clarifying safe storage laws and rationalizing the classification system that divides guns into non-restricted, restricted and prohibited groups (with different regulations for each) would be a good place to start.

It is very important for Canadian gun owners to build on that victory, and not just go home and savor the victory. Canada will likely never be like the United States in terms of gun laws, but it could probably be better than it is today.