Category: Gun Rights

This basically spells doom for the possibility of ratification of the UN Arms Trade Treaty. I don’t think there was any possibility that the Senate would have ratified, but it’s good to have them on record, regardless. The real danger of the UN treaty is not so much that the blue helmeted troopers would come during the stealth of night and take your guns, but that the rest of the world would refuse to allow firearms to be exported from their countries to the Untied States, due to the fact that the United States lacks sufficient international controls. That’s an awfully large percentage of the available civilian stock.

Note that both Chris Cox, and Wayne LaPierre, have been spending time at Turtle Bay. If anyone doubts the intent of the governmental and NGO interests pursuing this treaty, just look at the reaction to the Canadian proposal to exempt hunting weapons:

Gun-control advocates following the treaty negotiations blasted Canada’s stance, calling it a “poison pill for treaty negotiations.”

Remember, they don’t care about grandpa’s deer gun. Yeah right.

Dave Hardy has some thoughts on the legal aspects of the Canton, OH, police department situation. It’s quite interesting. One thing to ponder is that what this situation essentially creates, is a great example of how coming down on like a ton of bricks on the wrong kind of person (in this case, concealed carry permitees) can cause some amazing resources to be marshaled against you, including some very talented attorneys contributing ideas to the people who are ultimately going to be suing your ass.

I’m going to bet, when all is said and done, Canton, OH police officers are going to be treating permit holders much differently in the future.

The usual suspects, including misdirector-in-chief Elijah Cummings, are introducing a federal gun trafficking bill today. I’m very curious to see this bill. I can almost promise there will be a way for otherwise law abiding folks to get tripped up in this and nailed with a felony. Why? These people have demonstrated time and time again to have no regard for careful drafting of legislation to avoid it.

I mentioned back in the 2008 election that Jack Markell was going to be a real problem for Delaware gun owners. The good news is that he did not get the worst of his proposed agenda, which was ending private transfers and sales in Delaware. The bad news is that he managed to get some of his agenda through, though it looks like the damage was fairly minimized.

The most questionable item was being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated, but the resulting bill is relatively benign. There is no implied consent, as probable cause is required to submit to testing for BAC, though if you refuse your refusal can be used in court. That may not be constitutional, though I’m not an expert on 5th Amendment law.

My main issue here is that the penalty is way out of line from the danger. Drunk driving is far more dangerous than possessing a firearm while intoxicated, and in Delaware it takes three offenses to get to a Class G felony. The licenses suspension is also a max of 30 months. For having a gun, you lose your CDWL for five years.

Note that I have problem with criminalizing possession of a firearm while intoxicated outside the home, or handling a firearm while intoxicated anywhere. But I do have a big problem with those penalties being harsher than driving while intoxicated, which is a far more dangerous activity.

For various reasons I don’t think the comparison is fair. For one, Watergate didn’t result in anyone being killed. But I also don’t think the political implications are likely to be as dire for a couple of reasons. For one, the media isn’t that interested in the story. Sure, they are willing to write about it, but no one in the main stream media is really digging. Two, we’re pretty close to an election year, and I think the GOP will be looking for embarrassment, and to make this a campaign issue. Watergate hinged on the threat of impeachment, and Nixon knew the Democratically controlled Senate had the votes for it. Trying to unsuccessfully impeach Clinton hurt the GOP, and I doubt they’ll want to repeat it. Watergate also hinged on key administration officials failing to protect the President. That is unusual, since it’s commonly accepted administration officials fall on their swords to protect the big guy if necessary.

In order to up the ante in Fast and Furious, there needs to be a criminal investigation. There really needs to be a special prosecutor, if this is going to go to the next level. Administration officials will be willing to lose their jobs to protect the Administration. Going to jail for it is another thing entirely.

The House is acting to block the new rule, by prohibiting ATF from spending any money to implement it. While the new rule is unlawful, this would add some teeth to it, since ATF couldn’t enforce the measure without misappropriating funds.

Dave Hardy has an analysis. It looks like this statute may have indeed been violated in Fast and Furious, but I doubt you’re going to see charges unless a special prosecutor is appointed in this investigation.

Burgers and Boomsticks as a copy of the letter. Worth a read.

John Richardson has the details about the Obama Administration’s move to require multiple rifle sales to be reported along the southwest border. The move is patently illegal, and I suspect will be successfully challenged. The relevant section of US Code is Title 18, Section 923:

(3) (A) Each licensee shall prepare a report of multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of, at one time or during any five consecutive business days, two or more pistols, or revolvers, or any combination of pistols and revolvers totalling two or more, to an unlicensed person. The report shall be prepared on a form specified by the Attorney General and forwarded to the office specified thereon and to the department of State police or State law enforcement agency of the State or local law enforcement agency of the local jurisdiction in which the sale or other disposition took place, not later than the close of business on the day that the multiple saleor other disposition occurs.

You will not that a long gun is not a pistol or revolver, by terms of the Gun Control Act. Combine with:

(g)(1)(A) Each licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, and licensed dealer shall maintain such records of importation, production, shipment, receipt, sale, or other disposition of firearms at his place of business for such period, and in such form, as the Attorney General may by regulations prescribe. Such importers, manufacturers, and dealers shall not be required to submit to the Attorney General reports and information with respect to such records and the contents thereof, except as expressly required by this section.

Emphasis mine. I would say the Obama Administration is skating on thin ice, but in this case the Administration is apparently trying to skate on liquid water. There is just no possible interpretation of the Gun Control Act, with modifications from FOPA, that this move is legal.

SayUncle is reporting ATF is reclassifying these rounds as handgun ammunition, which means they need to meet the federal definition of not being armor piercing. This would mean a round made of 100% copper would be so classified. This is coming from one company, who was apparently raided, so it’s hard to assess its validity. I believe classification of ammunition as handgun or rifle is a matter of policy, rather than being part of the Code of Federal regulations, but I still believe a policy change has to be printed in the Federal Register, and I can’t find such a policy change being published. Here’s the federal definition of armor piercing ammunition:

Projectiles or projectile cores which may be used in a handgun and which are constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or full jacketed projectiles larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile. The term does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, frangible projectiles designed for target shooting, projectiles which the Director finds are primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectiles or projectile cores which the Director finds are intended to be used for industrial purposes, including charges used in oil and gas well perforating devices.

So the standard is “may be used in a handgun,” not primarily used in a handgun. I’ve always wondered under this definition why Corbon DPX is legal, but I always figured they had a determination that said it did not fall under the definition, since the AG can issue exceptions. It’s possible that Barnes, Corbon and other manufacturers got exception to manufacture their product, and Elite Tactical did not.

UPDATE: I missed the lack of comma between beryllium, and copper. Beryllium copper is a specific alloy.

UPDATE: Looking more at the actual bullets, it would appear they are turned brass. Brass is a no-no alloy. Barnes makes these bullets too, but they are marketed by Barnes as hunting rounds. Possibly Barnes received an OK from ATF to sell these under the sporting purposes exception. ET seems to be marketing them differently. It’s also possible Barnes doesn’t use enough Zinc to be considered brass. Also possible ATF is being completely arbitrary, which would not be the first time.