Category: Gun Rights

North Carolinians Against Gun Violence is trying to convince people that their laws would have stopped the Tucson Shooter. I’d be willing to bet money they would have issued. He could keep himself together long enough to plan, and acquire weapons. While North Carolina law enforcement do have discretion, my understanding is if you’re legally qualified to own a gun they will issue. This guy had nothing in his record that would have disqualified him.

Robert Levy, on the board of the Cato Institute, has said he sees no reason a magazine ban shouldn’t be constitutional. I appreciate what he did with funding Heller, but he’s not a gun guy, and should leave this stuff to organizations who have been doing this a while. To me it’s unacceptable from a libertarian standpoint to suggest liberty can be limited in this way, while the state is given an exemption to whatever ban might be proposed. It’s also hard to argue that greater than 10 round magazines, which are a common part of ordinary police equipment, and are equally popular among civilians, do not pass the “common use” test posited in Heller.

A while ago, someone at NRA e-mailed me talking about how they managed to get some pro-gun language inserted into the Defense Authorization Act, mostly under the radar. Sadly, before I could report on it, the Arizona mass shooting happened, and there wasn’t much room to squeeze it in. Chris in Alaska found the easter egg. Basically it prohibits the military from enacting their own gun control for military personnel while off property controlled by the Department of Defense. The National Defense Authorization was passed in lame duck, and signed by the President.

The Daily News has waded into the debate on the Arizona mass killing on the side on not casting blame, except on our gun laws:

That act, which followed an attempt on President Ronald Reagan’s life, requires that background checks be conducted on individuals before they can buy a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, manufacturer or importer, unless an exception applies.

Despite his obvious troubles, Loughner didn’t have a criminal record, so he was easily able to get a gun. And what a gun: He used a Glock 9mm pistol, modified with a high-capacity magazine that fires 33 rounds. These types of high-capacity magazines were outlawed by the 1994 assault-weapons ban. That ban expired in 2004.

THAT ALLOWED HIM to convert his rage from a single shot that might have missed his target into a deadly bloodbath whose victims included a 9-year-old girl.

Again, the assault weapons ban didn’t ban anything. It banned manufacture, and exempted police agencies. I got plenty of 30 round magazines legally during the ban. The Glock 19 is probably one of the most common handguns around today. Certainly it is very common among police agencies. There’s nothing odd or particularly deadly about it that’s not true of most other firearms. Then you have the lawmakers and anti-gun folks:

Robyn Thomas, executive director of Legal Community Against Violence, which was formed after the 101 California St. killings, said such weapons have “absolutely no legitimate sporting purpose or self-defense purpose.”

OK then, so your bill isn’t going to have an exemption for police officers then, right? If this is true, I see no reason for the police to have them either.

They are definitely getting better about covering Second Amendment issues:

That is not hair-splitting, inasmuch as high-capacity magazines for Glocks were and are commonplace — almost as commonplace as Glocks themselves — and remained so even while their manufacture and importation were banned. Most Glock 9mm magazines are usable in any Glock 9mm pistol, regardless of model. Glock makes at least four different 9mm pistols at the moment — 9mm being one of the most common calibers — and a high-capacity magazine sold for almost any of those could have been used in the Glock 19. Third-party manufacturers make them as well, and have made them for years and years, meaning that AWB or no AWB, finding one is not very difficult. The only difference the AWB is likely to have made is that the shooter would have had a used magazine instead of a new one (assuming he did in fact have a new one), and he probably would have paid five bucks more for it.

Most of the magazines I own I bought during the ban. Most of the magazines I own hold more than ten rounds. With the exception of Glock factory mags, which did get more expensive during the ban, prices were unaffected. Magazines are and were always plentiful. Glock aftermarket magazines were still cheap during the ban. There’s good evidence the shooter used an aftermarket magazine.

That’s the ATF designation for the multiple sale form for long guns that ATF is going to unlawfully insist dealers use. It won’t include having to send a copy to local law enforcement. After all, this is only meant to feather the nests of federal bureaucrats, not county sheriffs.

Like you and me, only better.

John Richardson has the details, including this tidbit:

At the heart of this “delay” is stiff opposition from gun rights groups and their allies – including Democrats – in Congress. The Montana delegation has been particularly vociferous on the issue.

That’s because Tester and Baucus were out there in front telling people Obama wasn’t anti-gun. They have the most to lose if Obama makes them into liars. Tester is up in 2012, and Baucus in 2016. Tester, particularly, has a lot of credibility that can be flushed down the toilet if Obama decides to pick a fight with us, especially since both he and Baucus voted yes on Obama’s court picks, which we opposed.

I agree with John’s conclusion that it’s time to turn the heat up. The White House may be looking for a face saving way to say no to ATF. I would focus on the fact that they lack Congressional authority to act in this area, and are statutorily prohibited from doing what they are proposing.

Dave Hardy is working to bring the history of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 into the digital age by getting it all online. I know I’ve been frustrated at the difficulty of finding good information, and this will be a great help. This was our major legislative victory of the 1980s, and it’s a shame it’s been stained with the stench of the Hughes Amendment, because it really did represent a pretty significant restructuring of the Gun Control Act.

This was to be expected, but in this Senate he might have a hard time getting through. What we have to be concerned about is Obama cutting a deal with the GOP on some other issue, in exchange for them moving on his nominees.