Category: Gun Rights

The LA Times is falling for it too:

High-powered automatic weapons and ammunition are flowing virtually unchecked from border states into Mexico, fueling a war among drug traffickers, the army and police that has left thousands dead, according to U.S. and Mexican officials.

Except that high-powred automatic weapons aren’t something you can just waltz into a gun store or gun show with a straw buyer and get your hands on.  This narrative has been repeated in so many papers, presented in the exact same manner, you almost have to believe they are using a template of some sort.

Tom King talks about one member of the United States National Shooting Team being arrested after attemping to transport a firearm in checked baggage as allowed by federal regulations.  Bloomberg apparently wants to host the Olympics at some point in the future.  Hopefully it New York does host, they won’t arrest all the shooting team competitors as they come into JFK.

Someone reporter in Massachusetts is apparently getting his panties in a bunch because some of us believe the Second Amendment means exactly what it says.  I guess the prospect that we can read plain English is indeed frightning to some who believe most of us can barely read.

They are considering banning guns at airports entirely, despite what state law may say about the matter.  Since when did airports become federal installations?  I’m sorry to say, but if this passes, Philadelphia will, no doubt, exercise this authority, which means I won’t be able to go to the GBR III event, since it seems to indicate they can just ban them:

The Airports Council International said in a recent letter to Hartsfield, “There is no justification for permitting firearms at any airport.” Policies vary from state to state and from airport to airport. Some bar guns fully, others allow them, sometimes in areas such as a parking lot, said Charles Chambers, the council’s security chief.

Hartsfield spokesman Herschel Grangent said that someone firing a gun in the airport would force a massive evacuation that could disrupt flights nationwide. Hartsfield, with 89 million passengers in 2007, is the world’s busiest airport.

Just one more reason to avoid flying.  This is going to be a bitch on competitive shooters if TSA doesn’t make exceptions.  Does TSA even have the legal authority to do this?

UPDATE: Looking at the relevant US Code and Federal Regulations regarding airport security, it is my, admitedly non-professional opinion, that the banning firearms from airports entirely would require a change in the Code of Federal Regulations (which is subject to the rulemaking process), but because the US Code demands the screening of all passengers and property, essentially you’d have to make the entire airport a secured area, meaning banning them in the parking lots would be largely impossible.  The Aviation and Transportation Security Act doesn’t seem to grant TSA the power to regulate activity in the non-secured areas of airports.  They seem to be able to issue recommendations, so they could certainly recommend to the State of Georgia to ban guns in its airports, but in my reading, they can’t force the issue.

Thanks to Caleb for having me on his show “Extreme Gun Activism” (I feel like I need to buy a helmet and knee pads).  Kurt says:

Ironically, the vituperative howls of indignation from the “pragmatics”–the calls to silence us less “polite” gun rights advocates (good luck with that, by the way) are what kept this issue on the front burner, and provoked us to dig in our heels. It’s “gun rights advocates” volunteering to shoot us, who make us all the more determined.

Invectives were definitely flying from both sides in what is, obviously, a highly emotionally charged topic.  My initial reaction to the letter was emotional as well.  But I am not looking for a new enemy to fight.  I don’t really consider Kurt, David, or even Mike an “enemy.”   I have strong disagreements with them on methods, but in the end, I recognize we have common goals, and common foes.

As much as I’d like to say we should all just be able to get along, the fact is, we won’t always.  We will have disagreements, and we will air disagreements, and invectives will fly.  As I said last night in the show, one of the advantages the anti-gun folks have over us is solid control of their message.  Because they have no substantive grass roots, they get to have these arguments behind closed doors where only people like Mary McFate get to hear them.  Because we are a grass roots movement, we don’t get that luxury, so arguments over tactics and messaging happen out in the open where everyone can see it.

But you know what?  I wouldn’t trade our grassroots for what the anti-gun folks have.  I think people on both sides of the gun rights debate need to step back, and realize these squabbles are going to happen, and they shouldn’t be taken too personally.  As much as it might seem, no one really expects the other side to just shut up and go away, and I’m not sure our movement would be better off if people did.  I’ve heard more than a few people ask “Can’t we all just get along?”  To which, I’m afraid, the answer is no.  But I’m not sure that’s necessarily a bad thing.

On Caleb and Bonnie’s Blog Talk Show, Martin, from The Liberty Sphere asked a question of me, about whether I thought there was ever a time when it was justifiable to violently resist an out of control government.  The answer to that is yes, but as to what the line should be, I would defer to Judge Alex Kozinski, in his eloquent Silveria dissent:

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees*. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

I also agree with Joe Huffman, who said on this topic:

Anyone considering “shooting the bastards” needs to realize that even if taking that step is fully justified (justification basis deliberately omitted as being beyond the scope of this post but this could be a starting point) one needs to look at the long term direct and unintended consequences of such an act. They need to have a reasonably good idea what the position of society will be a day, a week, a year, and a decade after they “pulled the trigger”. And after evaluation they conclude the world will be a better place by most measures. They need to be a grand master chess player with only a small fraction of the pieces visible on the board and see ten moves ahead against opponents who are known and unknown. Or they need to know, with near certainty, things can’t get any worse if they do take the shot.

I contend no such grand master “chess player” exists. Hence before “taking the shot” the existing or reasonably projected conditions need to be so bad as to replicate something like a Nazi concentration camp or Soviet Gulag. We aren’t there yet.

It’s not that I have no line in the sand, it’s just that as long as we can change our government without using violence, and if the people really wanted to change it, they could, we’re obligated to work within the system.  That’s not to say we need to stand by while two wolves and a sheep decide what’s for lunch, but things aren’t that bad yet.

I thought the show was interesting.  Too short, really.  I was also having a hell of a time hearing Kurt.  There wasn’t enough time for callers.  Caleb says he’d revisit the topic at some point.  I’d be happy to participate, but someone else should probably get a chance.

Kevin Baker has an uberpost he’s been working on for a few days on the great kerfuffle.  Go have a read.

UPDATE: Kevin closes with

Our job, then, is not to “Frighten the White People,” it’s to make them MAD. It’s to make them “pro-freedom, pro-individual, pro-principles.” It’s to educate them.

Which explains why I had such a harsh objection to the Letter ot the Editor.  Anything that makes it easier for the population to dismiss our message is not helpful, from my point of view.  The great thing about our system is, if you get enough people angry, you don’t need a revolution, because we can throw the bastards out in the voting booth.  We did it in 1994, but we didn’t follow through.  People need to get mad, and stay mad, until things really change.  That’s a tall order, and I share Kevin’s hope that it’s not too late.

I will be on Caleb and Squeaky’s live podcast show tonight at 11PM, where I will be engaging in epic battle with Kurt of Armed and Safe to the death!!! We will discover once and for all which side of the second amendment debate can survive in The Cage.

Either that, or we’re going to have a calm discussion centered around the great kerfuffle of last week, and I just said that to get you all to listen.  In fact, it’s going to be more a Q&A type deal rather than a debate, but it should be a pretty good discussion about the benefits and advantages or drawbacks and disadvantages of each type of advocacy. Tune in!

War on Guns has a very detailed post up on what happened to one of Carolyn McCarthy’s constituents who had his guns seized after exercising his first amendment rights to petition the Congresswoman for a redress of grievances.

We covered this a bit here, and pointed out last week that this whole incident has Tom King, who is normally a pretty easy going guy, up in arms.  Or maybe I should say reasonably agitated, since they tend to be a bit touchy up there.

The text of HR6691, the Bill by the House Democrats to enforce the Heller decision on the District of Colombia is H.R.6691.  No surprises, really.  It’s actually a bit better than the Republican version, since it allows DC residents to obtain firearms in Maryland and Virginia.  NFA stuff will still be illegal in DC, and it does not address prohibition on carrying firearms.  I call that a good start, so hopefully we can get this through Congress before the elections.