Category: Gun Rights

Canada has gun laws that our opponents in the gun control movement would no doubt love to see here, and yet a mass shooting still happened:

But society as a whole can do more by banning private ownership of handguns. Blair said pistols were obviously used in the devastation on Danzig St., with police recovering one at the scene. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine how this could have happened at all if the shooters didn’t have access to easily concealed handguns.

So do they really expect me to believe if we adopted Canadian style gun laws, and our numbers and political power were subsequently reduced greatly, major political figures would not also be calling for total prohibition? I can see the examples of what happens right before my eyes when gun owners are reduced to what they have been in Canada. No thanks. That’s why when gun control supports say “How can you be against it? It’s reasonable!!” Hell, I’ll admit, sometimes I think it is reasonable. But I’m not giving them anything that could strengthen their hand. I know what the end game is. You can see that end game being pushed in Canada.

The DOJ in Wisconsin is busy adding on more requirements to obtain a concealed carry license. Having this be in the hands of bureaucrats is certainly not a good thing. While training is a good idea, I’ve never been convinced states that mandate training have measurably better results than states that do not mandate training. A moron is going to be a moron no matter how much you train them, and someone who isn’t a moron is going to seek out information and training on their own. Given that we can’t have moron tests for exercising rights, I tend to think mandated training only serves to discourage people from exercising their rights, rather than serve any serious public safety purpose.

From the polling firm McClatchy:

Nearly 65 percent say the 2005 law — which allows people who believe they are in grave danger to use deadly force to defend themselves

[…]

The 2005 law — which eliminates the so-called “duty to retreat” during a confrontation in a public place — remains popular in Florida, with only 18 percent saying it should be repealed.

Heritage is really doing an excellent job of covering the proceedings, without a lot of hysteria. He speaks of potential dangers in the treaty, some of which I share:

Second, most major U.S. arms manufacturers have an international financing, insurance, and parts and components chain. The ATT could become a means for foreign countries to pressure U.S. firms to exit the market, reducing the ability of Americans to make effective use of their firearms rights.

[…]

Just because the ATT is not a “gun grab” treaty does not mean it raises no domestic concerns: “Gun grabs” are less plausible than “death by a thousand cuts.”

Go read the whole thing. Extrano’s alley is pointing out that Graham and McCain are signaling weakness, and might need some encouragement. I suspect they just want to have specifics to base any opposition on, and we do not yet have a draft, but a friendly reminder to the Senators would probably help if you are one of their respective constituents.

The ATF has issued a response to the public comments it received on their original 2011 guidance on the importability of shotguns. Their response is best summed up thusly:

We have listened to your concerns, and have decided to summarily dismiss them. But you may have a point with those forward pistol groups, so we’ll give on that.

Lots of talk about the urgent need of the treaty, along with assurances that this won’t affect domestic gun policy:

The Arms Trade Treaty should not in any way handicap the legitimate right of self-defense. Acting together, we can strengthen international peace and security and the rule of law by requiring universal establishment of responsible national standards for the arms trade.

[…]

Moreover, we must acknowledge and respect that this negotiation is not an attempt to intrude, either in principle or process, into states’ internal activities, laws, or practices concerning the domestic possession, use, or movement of arms. Rather, this treaty will regulate only the international arms trade. Any attempt to include provisions in the treaty that would interfere with each state’s sovereign control over the domestic use or movement of arms is clearly outside the scope of our mandate.

And interesting question will be, if the treaty draft does indeed come out to not affect civilian arms, and Obama gives the treaty his endorsement, how does that affect this as an election issue? The other issue is that once the treaty is established, the anti-gun NGOs will be pushing to expand the scope of the treaty.

The heat in the kitchen must be getting rather high if Leland Yee is playing the race card. I have no doubt that Yee is getting some racist nastiness, because like any large and diverse group of people, some of us are assholes. But to represent all the opposition in this manner is as wrong and uncalled for as the people suggesting Senator Yee, who is as American as you or I, should “go back to Communist China.” It lowers the debate to the gutter and dismisses the legitimate concern many of us have for preserving the Bill of Rights and the Constitutional rights of all Americans, including Californians. We should aspire to more than the gutter, and so should Senator Yee. Even the Brady Campaign is turning on the legislation, suggesting this isn’t the proper way to go about things. They are pressuring the Attorney General to change the law through regulation, and are threatening a lawsuit over it.

I find the Brady Campaign’s position interesting, and I’m debating what their strategic thinking is, if they have any. If I had to theorize, they are largely out of the legislation business, since everything seems to be happening under the auspices of the Brady Center, the 501(c)(3), these days. Litigation is something they can fund, and a quick letter and a few meetings with a friendly Attorney General could accomplish the same goal as legislation without engaging in a knock-down drag out fight with our grassroots in a big legislative battle. California may have a very anti-gun legislature, but I think we can still cause headaches for them there, and they’d rather do this easily, and without risking their 501(c)(3) status.

See the Politics and Guns podcast for this week, by Paul Lathrop. This week features myself, noted insurrectionist militiaman Thirdpower, and Charles Heller of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Not all at the same time, but in the same episode. I’m speaking mostly about the UN Arms Trade Treaty, in the last segment.

You often hear our opponents speak of unlicensed dealers at gun shows. Here’s an example of what happens to unlicensed dealers, and why we suggest that another word for “unloosened dealer” is “felon.” You can be  private, unlicensed seller, making an occasional sale or trade, or liquidating a collection, but as soon as you have a “principal objective of livelihood and profit,” you’re committing a felony if you do not first obtain a Federal Firearms License.

And I’d note the guy charged here is among those class of people our opponents tell us have magical gun powers, and are the only ones who can be trusted with firearms. Clearly if he hadn’t been under the influence of the “Demon Ruger,” this never would have happened.

US News and World Report notes the big bad gun lobby’s opposition to a treaty that everyone says won’t affect domestic firearm policy, despite the fact that the treaty is being pushed by notable anti-gun NGO’s. Trust us, they say. Yeah, we’ve heard that one before. Investors Business Daily is offering more publicity to Dick Morris. Maybe he’ll sell a lot of copies of that book he’s hawking. My only hope is that Morris’ self-promotion will get people’s attention, and cause them to seek better information. Nothing riles gun owners up more than the old “blue helmeted bastards at the UN are coming for your guns” meme, but I certainly hope people can move beyond that and actually become engaged.

Ted Bromund at Heritage is doing excellent reporting of what’s going on with the Arms Trade Treaty, which includes useful information like Australia paying to bring delegations from poor countries. Australia is a major backer of the Arms Trade Treaty. He speaks of the real division on the conference:

There are (1) nations (mostly in Europe) that do not for a moment intend to stop selling arms or are trying to beat the Americans out of contracts but also want an ATT at least in part because they naively hope to curb a few state-led human rights abuses; (2) nations (mostly totalitarian or autocratic) that don’t want an ATT at all unless it disarms their opponents, enshrines their right to buy, and does not limit their access to technology; (3) nations (mostly African) that want capacity-building assistance and whose motto might as well be “show me the money”; and (4) Russia and China, which don’t really want an ATT but don’t really want to stop it openly either. The U.S. doesn’t fall into any of these camps, which is why it spoke for the Permanent Members.

Read the whole thing. He goes into other detail about the nature of the proceedings, which gets to my fundamental discomfort with the United Nations entirely; it is a fundamentally undemocratic body. It seems to me the Europeans want an ATT because they are under the illusion that gun control actually works. You won’t stop totalitarian regimes that abuse human rights from getting guns any more than you’ll stop drug cartels from getting guns. This whole endeavor is a fools errand, and all we’re creating here is a vehicle for NGO’s to drive gun control at the international level.