Category: Gun Rights

It looks like Open Carry is off the agenda for this year in Texas.  Over time I have not become the biggest advocate of open carry as a form of activism, but I will always support it being legal, and for people being able to do it, if they so choose, without being harassed by the authorities.  I am also not a fan of all or nothing approaches when it comes to legislation:

State Rep. Debbie Riddle, whom the open carry folks tagged months ago as the bills presumptive sponsor, had the legislation drafted but never introduced it. Her chief of staff explained to open carry members in an email that such legislation was unlikely to pass and that talks of an open carry proposal have already caused difficulties for other Second Amendments bills.

If it’s any consolation, Riddle, R-Houston, did file legislation earlier this week that would allow a disabled person with a concealed carry license to openly carry a firearm if their disability prevents them from otherwise concealing it.

“That’s not exactly what we were going for,” McCarthy said.

The situation is that you have a friendly legislator on the matter, who was willing to draft legislation, and who says the votes aren’t there, and offers a compromise that will pass.  She offered to make a bill that would cover disabled people who can’t easily conceal.  Why not run with that, if the votes aren’t there for full open carry?  I don’t see much of a reason to hold off.  It’s not what you really want, but it helps get you somewhere.  Is it that Texas open carry advocates still want to be able to use that issue?  Well, once they offer to deal with that for you, it’s not really a bargaining chip anymore.  If your legislator is offering to run that bill for you, for God’s sake, take it!

The article goes on to describe how the TSRA and NRA did not get behind the legislation.  This will further fuel the rumor tha NRA is against open carry, but this is not really true.  It is true that it’s not been a high priority for them, but I believe they will support a bill when the right political opportunity presents itself.

Looks like the City of Chicago is going to pick up the tab for defending Oak Park against NRA’s lawsuit.

Last year the over 2000 showed up in Springfield, and got almost no coverage from the media.  This year they seem to be getting at least some.  Chiefly from the St. Louis Post Dispatch, and CBS2 Chicago.  But the downer event this year is a House committee approving anti-gun bills including gun rationing and an assault weapons ban, and the Illinois Senate rejecting the concealed carry bill.

I guess that’s way to at least get the Chicago Tribune to at least mention the rally: passing an anti-gun bill while it’s happening.  Unbelievable.  Keep your spirits up Illinoisans, the Land of Lincoln will be free again.  True, this is a slap in the face to every Illinois gun owner to do this while you’re there lobbying, but now you know what to do come election time.

NSSF Press release about it here.  The rule doesn’t go into effect until 2010.  The NPS press release is here:

The new lead reduction efforts also include changes in NPS activities, such as culling operations or the dispatching of wounded or sick animals. Rangers and resource managers will use non-lead ammunition to prevent environmental contamination as well as lead poisoning of scavenger species who may eventually feed upon the carcass. Non-toxic substitutes for lead made in the United States are now widely available including tungsten, copper, and steel.

Bzzt… sorry NPS… that makes your ammunition armor piercing, and makes it questionably legal, and requires a special license to manufacture.  There are all copper alternatives, but they are expensive.  My carry load happens to be lead free, but most people’s isn’t.

What I can’t tell, though, is whether this is an agency initiative, or whether it applies to visitors in parks, particularly people carrying with licenses.  I haven’t seen the actual rule.

Looks like they are open to making a deal:

House Democratic leaders are offering the National Rifle Association (NRA) a separate vote on legislation that would weaken the District of Columbia’s gun laws, trying to wriggle out of a conundrum created by their centrist members.

An amendment supported by the powerful gun-rights lobbying organization is holding up a bill that would give the District of Columbia a voting member of Congress. That legislation is a priority for Democratic leaders. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the chief advocate among leadership for D.C. Voting Rights Act, confirmed Tuesday that a standalone bill on the gun provisions has been discussed.

“Is that an option? Yes, it is, and if that frankly got us there, I’d be for that option,” Hoyer told reporters Tuesday. “I’m for the option that gets us there.”

Hoyer knows as well as I do that a separate bill is highly likely to be vetoed by President Obama, and would start the whole debate over again.  If the Democratic leadership is OK with the idea of NRA running a bill, why not just pass this one?  They wouldn’t make this offer if they didn’t already know DC Second Amendment rights has no future as a separate bill.

Keep the pressure on.

The Buckeye Firearms Assocation takes a look at AHSA’s reaction to Holder’s call for a new semi-auto ban and wonders why they seem surprised.

The Supreme Court has denied cert on the appeal of New York City’s suit against gun manufacturers.  This lets stand a ruling in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled the lawsuits could not proceed due to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

I like this article because it gets the message out to hunters that they are under threat from many of the proposals too.  Whether Angel Cruz or Bobby Rush realize it or not, they are tremendously useful to the cause, because they introduce bills that go nowhere, but serve as examples that hunters and shooters will not find rescue if they throw high-power competitors and “self-defense whackos” off the lifeboat.