Category: Gun Rights

If we could get op-eds like this printed in local newspapers throughout the country, using the arguments outlined here, we’d be in far better shape for fighting on this issue than we are right now:

However, if some people had their way, my father would be a felon the next time he passed on a firearm to a family member. These people complain about a so-called “gun show loophole,” which, if you were to accept the rhetoric of firearm prohibitionists, is responsible for an endless stream of death and carnage.

In truth, attempts to close the “loophole” are really attacks on cherished freedoms that have been quietly enjoyed by millions of Americans since the founding of our nation. With the exception of those unfortunate residents of a few nanny-states, citizens of the U.S. always have been able to gift, buy, sell and trade firearms without the interference of government.

Read the whole thing.  It’s very well done.  There’s even a nice bit at the end declaring the laws will be defied, and its only purpose will be making criminals out of people like his father, which is, of course, the idea.

American Manifesto managed to get a letter to the editor published in the Philadelphia Inquirer.  He followed Bitter’s advice about waiting until they actually publish the letter before blogging about it.  It’s a good idea, since papers won’t print what’s already been printed.

Greg posted Part II.   If this is true, then I think most NFA rentals are probably unlawful?

The biggest misconception of the NFA is the definition of Transfer. Most lay people (non lawyers) would use the definition found in a dictionary to interpret a transfer. Unfortunately that is not the way it works with the law. When a word is defined in a statute, you must read the statute with the definition that is contained within. In this case the word transfer creates many pitfalls for the typical consumer. Until recently if you asked anyone if it was ok to let someone else use your silencer, SBR, or Machine Gun while in your presence at the rage, they would almost always say it was permitted.

In fact, this is a violation because it is a transfer under the NFA. Only in the last year or so, since I began pointing it out to consumers has there been anything written on this topic.

I always figured a transfer only happens if you assume physical control over the device outside of the supervision of the person who legally possess it.  In other words, shooting a friends legal subgun on the range is fine.  Taking it home with you is a transfer.

Joe Huffman thinks it might be violating the law.  Depends on the details, but based on what we know, here is the law:

“(i) Prohibition Relating To Establishment of Registration Systems With Respect to Firearms.—No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may—

“(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system established under this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof; or

“(2) use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United States Code, or State law, from receiving a firearm.

The county where I grew up was slapped with a federal civil rights lawsuit yesterday for refusing to return lawfully owned guns to residents after they’ve been seized.

The plaintiff, Thomas DeOrio, 21, of Glen Mills, argues that the county government, judges and Sheriff’s Department illegally retain confiscated guns – even if a crime hasn’t been committed – when the owner is entitled to retrieve them.

In DeOrio’s case, Brookhaven police seized his collection of handguns and rifles in October and turned them over to the sheriff when his girlfriend filed for a temporary protection-from-abuse order. Shields said she perceived something he had said to be threatening. Three days later, after a court hearing, a judge dismissed the order, records show.

But DeOrio soon learned that getting his guns back wouldn’t be as easy.

Although the protection-from-abuse order had been thrown out, Shields said the sheriff’s office refused to return the firearms unless DeOrio filed a “legal action.”

The sheriff’s office is claiming that the county doesn’t give him authority to return the guns.  Unfortunately, the state does say the guns need to be returned.

The plaintiff is represented by the same attorney who NRA is working with to defeat the illegal Philadelphia gun laws.

Because it’ll be a full three ring performance people will have to go through to exercise their rights:

The mayor said he’s looking at new D.C. laws requiring gun owners to go through five hours of safety training, register their firearms every three years and undergo criminal background checks every six years.

He must be worried he’s going to lose on the incorporation question.  I would suggest this is progress, but we really want incorporation.  If the laws are modified, they should be challenged, but we do not yet have a ruling yet from the Supreme Court which says these kinds of restrictions are a violation of the Second Amendment.  All we have now is you have some vague individual right to a handgun in your home.

I don’t think you can condition the exercise of a fundamental right on having to jump through hoops.  That’s not to say I think responsible gun owners shouldn’t get training.  They should.  I am not opposed to all safety training, just using it as a prior restraint on being able to purchase a firearm.

Gun shop owners negotiate with anti-gun organizations at their own peril.  These people are not interested in coming to an understanding — they want you out of business and your product banned.  Give them nothing.  Do not talk to them.  We are your customers, and we’re just warning you if you want us to continue patronizing your businesses.

Sensibly Progressive talks about his record on guns.