Category: Gun Rights

Why is it that anti-gun folks love pushing bills in response to tragedy that would in no way shape or form have even remotely prevented it? Latest from Nebraska:

The NRA is urging its members to fight a bill in the legislature that calls for, among other things, mandatory trigger locks. The NRA is convinced this latest gun control plan would have a “drastic effect” on law-abiding gun owners.

But Action Three News has learned that victims of the Von Maur massacre, some who lived, some who’s relatives died, are ready to fight for the bill.

The trigger locks would be required on any gun, rifle, or assault weapon. In addition once gun owners know a weapon is lost or stolen, they’d have 48 hours to report it. Finally no one found mentally ill in the last 10 years could buy a gun.

Do these people really think a trigger lock would have stopped this guy? And what kind of “assault weapons” is not also a gun or rifle? This is the usual panel of gun control being pushed by the anti-gun groups everywhere else. In this case, exploiting people who are mourning the loss of loved ones promoting a political agenda, that wouldn’t have prevented their tragedy. The shooter in the Von Maur shooting was already prohibited from owning a firearm by existing laws.

UPDATE Joe’s Crabby Shack, which is a local Nebraska gun blog, has a lot more detail about this.

Via War on Guns a quite good editorial taking The Administration to task for its brief:

Which raises the question:  What the heck was the Bush Administration thinking?  For decades, a critical component of the Republican coalition has been working class gun owners who are bothered by the Democrats’ embrace of gun control.  Republicans actually seem to have won that battle, with Democrats backing off of gun control legislation in the recent Congress.  Why after enduring so much hostile press would the Bush Administration sell out the NRA at this critical juncture?  And why make the reversal in a difficult election year, when the support of gun control opponents will be so critical to Republican fortunes?

What’s it have to lose selling anyone out at this point?  Bush is about as lame duck as they come, and I’ve never gotten the impression he’s all that concerned about his party’s fortunes.  The Bush family are wealthy New Englanders with no real connection to the gun culture.  As the article points out:

The less generous answer lies in the reality of the Bush Administration.  Contrary to the caricatures painted by liberals, there are precious few issues that the Administration has not sold the Right out on.  No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit, monstrous budget deficits, McCain-Feingold, Patient’s Bill of Rights . . . all of these issues cross the gamut of modern politics, and all of them are issues where the Bush Administration’s Rovian plotting has placed it at loggerheads with standard conservatism.  Even on judges, where the Administration usually wins plaudits, conservatives forget Harriet Miers, and forget that two of Bush’s first ten Court of Appeals appointments were Clinton appointees.  Is it really that hard to believe that the Administration would lurch to the left on the issue of guns?

No, not hard to believe, but we still get to be pissed.

The Virginia Senate rejected the gun show bill 9-6.

Sailorcurt went, and has some pictures.  This commentary I think is pretty telling:

 One final observation. The VCDL estimates that there were about 400 gun rights supporters lobbying in the General Assembly building and about 200 that attended the “lie in.” I would assume that a good 80 to 90 percent were armed.

All of those guns around amongst all of those people who disagree on the issues so fundamentally (and, in the case of the anti-gunners, so rudely and with barely concealed anger), and NOT ONE PERSON was shot. NOT ONE FIREARM was brandished. The Anti-gunners were perfectly safe even when outnumbered by armed individuals by a factor of two or three to one.

Curious counterpoint to their argument that “guns kill people” now isn’t it?

Yep

Apparently Ruger doesn’t want to include evil black versions of its venerable 10/22 in their photo contest.  I’m not believing they don’t have any, since there are several stocks out there for doing such a thing.  Ruger doesn’t exactly have a stellar history of standing up (see “Controversy” section) when the anti-gun groups get uppity.  If Ruger wants to remain politically correct, that’s fine, but they will continue to lose money in that case.  They’ve put out some impressive products lately, but gun owners support companies that support them.  By pretending black rifle shooters aren’t doing mods for the 10/22, they are feeding the notion that these types of rifles aren’t normal, and that does no one a favor.

Armed and Safe has a roundup of the situation there. I’ve heard turnout in Richmond was something like 3x that of the anti-gunners. VCDL has quite the grass roots fast reaction force, and it’s good to see it at work here.

UPDATE: Bitter has more.

Protest Easy Guns (what exactly is an “easy gun” anyway?) is planning to descend on Richmond to lobby for bills to outlaw private sales.  They plan on protesting in groups of 32, to symbolize Virginia Tech victims, who were killed by a deranged lunatic who did not get his firearms through private sales.  I don’t get the logic either, but then again, this is a gun control group we’re talking about.

Apparently Arizona has decided that the dubious science at work in linking California Condor deaths to lead ammo wasn’t good enough to screw hunters in The Grand Canyon State.

Dave Hardy isn’t sure what the gutted version of HB89 really accomplishes other than allowing carry in State parks.

The news article says that it’s limited to CCW holders who have permission from the employer. But that’d make little sense — if you have the parking lot owner’s permission, anyone can store a gun there. So I have no idea what the Senate bill would do in that regard.

So what are the chances of getting rid of Georgia’s other carry restrictions at this point?