Category: Gun Rights

Countertop notes that Virginia residents can now apply for a temporary recipricol permit if they are visiting the US Virgin Islands.  Why would you visit the Virgin Islands?  This would seem to be a good reason.

The public comment period has begun.  Just so you understand the process, in order to affect a change in the Code of Federal Regulations, the change has to be published in the Federal Register, and offered a public comment period.  That’s the part we’re in now.  You can examine the proposed rule change here.  Basic summary is this:

Under the proposed amendment, an individual will be able to possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded and operable firearms in any state park in the state in which the federal park, or that portion thereof, is located. Possession of concealed firearms in national parks as authorized by this section must also conform to applicable federal laws.

This is a big help to those of us in the east who drive thorugh NPS land regularly without realizing it.  I occaisionally travel through Valley Forge National Park when I’m heading to visit friends in that part of Chester County, and Independence National Historical Park is part of the City of Philadelphia, and doesn’t have clear boundaries.  Now, I would note that buildings within the park will still be considered a federal facility, and still off limits to carry.  That’s a different law, and will require an Act of Congress to fix/clarify.

… that sold a car to a drunk driver that killed a loved one in an alcohol related fatality?  I wouldn’t.  I don’t see why Eric Thompson doesn’t deserve the same consideration.

UPDATE: Also note that the VPC study Bryan links to reports gun deaths, not gun homicides as Bryan claims.  There’s a difference between the two.  Gun deaths include suicides.  I do believe that lower levels of gun ownership tends to reduce the incidents of gun homicides, much like I believe that the lack of tall buildings in Boise probably translates into it having a lower per-capita suicide rate by jumping than, say, New York City or San Francisco.

It’s a sign of the time I suppose, from a CMP email:

AMMUNITION PURCHASE LIMIT: During the past 60 days we have experienced a ten-fold increase in orders for HXP .30-06 ammunition. This activity has significantly reduced our inventory. To ensure that the current inventory last another few years, effective immediately we are establishing an individual maximum purchase limit of ten cases of .30-06 HXP item # 407-Case and 10 cases of item # 415 per year.

NEW HXP .30-06 AMMUNITION PRICES:  New prices are: Item #407-Case – $238 per case; item #407-Can – $60 per can; item #415 – $134 per case; item #415-CN $67 per can. New prices are effective 5 May, 2008. CMP will honor the old price for all orders already received, but not yet processed.

It’s disappointing, but I’m not sure there’s going to be any more cheap .30-06 once the HXP runs out.  One thing I think gun owners need to work on changing is the prohibition on the US military selling surplus ammo to civilians.  While that won’t help the .30-06 situation any, it might help reduce prices for more modern military calibers.  Cutting off military surplus ammo is also one of the chief dangers of international arms control.  HXP is of Greek manufacture.  Imagine a world where no one can sell anything to civilians.  Think about how many of your favorite guns are foreign made, and you see how this becomes a big problem.

I read this paper that Dave Hardy linked to.  I agree with Dave that it’s a very good read, in the sense that they outline a lot of the racial overtones that have been part of the history of gun regulation and the gun culture.  But I can’t agree with the conclusion, which is that the courts and legislatures should defer greatly to local concerns about restrictiong weapons in urban environments in response to the overwheliming problem of black-on-black violence.

It’s either an individual right, or it isn’t.  If it is, we don’t restrict that right in local jurisdictions because inner city communities can’t control their own problems with gangs and violence.  Urban blacks, who are not criminals, and who live in these communities that are affected by violence, have every bit as much right to have a firearm to protect themselves from criminals as I do.  In fact, their need is more dire than mine.  Even if 70% of blacks in inner cities would like to see guns banned, the nature of a right is that the 70% does not have the power to tell the othe 30% they may not have the means to protect themselves.

Maybe it is because I was born after the Civil Rights Movement, it’s difficult for me to view the modern gun rights movement in any way related to the antebellum “gun rights” movement in the south, the racist Jim Crow laws, or the 1967 California law, that pretty clearly had racial motivations.  Ultimately, I find the conclusion offered in this paper no better than others that prescribe magic pills, because I think they misunderstand the most important cultural issue that the gun debate is a metaphor for, which is the individual vs. the collective society.

The gun rights proponent ultimately views that his individual right to protect home and hearth trumps any community illusion that security is a collective rather than individual function.  At this point in our history, I think it’s time to put these racially tinged debates behind us and get to the root of the issue, which is that every human being has the right to defend home and hearth, regardless of the desires of the political elites to collectivise security.  Certainly there’s been enough of that on all sides of the racial debate at this point.

Odd choice of language USA Today uses for this article.

South Carolina last week became the latest in a growing number of states to make the names of people who have a license to carry a concealed weapon a state secret.

Five other states might not be far behind in a battle that pits a public policy of open government against the right of people to keep their gun ownership records private.

A few choices phrases from our friends at the Brady Campaign:

Weaver, of the Brady Campaign, said there’s no evidence to show that open records put people who carry concealed weapons in greater danger.

“We feel that the greater danger is putting concealed-weapons permits in the hands of convicted felons and people that should not be allowed to have them,” he said.

One wonders whether Colin Weaver would feel similarly to have his wife’s jewelry collection published in the local paper.  Look, guns are valuables, and you would think the Brady Campaign would support these laws, which deny firearms traffickers a convenient list of which houses have firearms.  More particularly, a license holder house is more likely to have a handgun, which are most in demand on the streets.

The “felon” issue is completely laughable anyway.  Can the Brady Campaign name a single instance of the public availability of permit records being a factor in a getting a permit that was misissued recinded in a shall-issue state?   I know that happens in may-issue jurisdictions like New York City, where the criteria for being issued is basically whether the police feel like it, but in shall issue states, where everyone goes through the background check, I’ve never heard of it happening.