Guns – Page 1018 – Shall Not Be Questioned

More on the New Jersey Issue

Armed and Safe doesn’t like the legislation either, but mentioned one thing I wanted to talk about:

The amendments also remove language specifying that the legal owner of a lost or stolen firearm who complied with the reporting requirements would not be civilly liable for any damages resulting from a crime.

Yep–the bill initially contained language that would protect the owner from liability stemming from his being the victim of a crime, but the legislators, in their infinite wisdom, removed that provision.

That’s actually a bit we wanted them to remove. Currently there is no tort that exists for a person being held responsible for the criminal misuse of property that was stolen from them. By removing liability on the part of a gun owner who reported a lost or stolen firearm, the legislature would have been implying a tort did exist for those gun owners who failed to report a lost of stolen firearm under this statue. Therefore a gun owner in violation could not have only been fined, but also could be sued by the victims.

Not too Late for New Jersey

The vote is today.Â Call your senators and ask them to oppose this legislation.

Gun Safety Is Back!

Joe is right that it’s old news, but I hadn’t seen it in the media for a while.Â Now it’s back just in time for the elections.

The families say they want to make sure guns are not allowed on college campuses. And they want lawmakers to require that everyone who purchases a gun in Virginia first go through the FBI’s instant background check system that blocks felons and the mentally disturbed. Although federal law requires background checks, it applies only to federally licensed firearms dealers. No checks are required when a private dealer sells weapons at a gun show. Fifteen states have closed what gun safety advocates call the “gun show loophole.”

Emphasis mine.Â Can you get any more biased than that?Â At least they were kind enough to call us gun-rights advocates rather than the “gun lobby”.

I don’t doubt that these folks are undergoing a serious grieving process over the loss of their loved ones, but none of the bills they are proposing would have stopped Cho from being a murderous asswipe.Â We have already fixed that problem.Â I feel for these people, but once they choose to enter a political scuffle, the laws they are advocating should not be beyond debate, nor should their position be given absolute moral authority.Â We should not decide public policy based on grief and emotions.Â The family members of Virginia Tech victims are advocating removing liberty from their fellow citizens, and that should create the utmost burden for them in terms of defending that position in the public sphere.Â A pity the Washington Post doesn’t seem to feel that way.

Losing in New Jersey

Looks like those bills are passing. Here’s how they think of honest gun owners in The Garden State:

Failing to report a loss or theft could result in fines of $500 for a first offense and $1,000 for all subsequent offenses.

Assemblyman Louis Manzo, D-Hudson, said the intent is to force straw purchasers to either risk large fines and exposure to lawsuits or report to law enforcement they’re losing handguns in bulk.

“Taken alone, as they would be for an honest firearms owner, the fines are not financially devastating. But for straw purchasers, who would have to report 10, 20 or even 50 guns at or near the same time, problems quickly start to arise,” Manzo said.

Yeah, I mean, it’s only a few thousand dollars for you honest gun owners who get a gun stolen but don’t know about New Jersey’s onerous reporting requirement. It’s not a big deal right? Not to mention the humiliation of being put through the ringer by the legal system. Louis Manzo can go to hell.

I do want to make a point that a lot of folks over in New Jersey, particularly Scott Bach of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, have worked very hard to try to defeat these bills. It’s worth pointing out that the bills that eventually passed are far less bad than they would have been had it not been for the efforts of ANJRPC. Why don’t you drop Scott a note and thank him for the effort he’s put into this. It’s New Jersey, so we won’t always win, but we have to fight there, and it helps those people who decide to stay and do that on our behalf to know their efforts are appreciated.

Heller Brief

Looks like DC filed it on time.Â I guess you have to hand it to their attorney, who’s timeliness was rewarded by a sacking.

Hat Tip to Dave Hardy

A Letter to Mike Sullivan

I’m glad to see this is happening, at least.Â As I’ve said before, there’s a big difference between grassroots opposition to Sullivan and the NRA coming out officially against him.Â It seems they have decided to take the route of trying to engage Sullivan, rather than try to defeat his nomination.Â Combined with the hold placed on his nomination, will this be enough to get his attention and do something?Â I hope so.Â We’re stuck with Sullivan for another year, even if he never gets confirmed officially for the job.Â Who we have after that is anyone’s guess.Â The only long term solution to this problem is to pass HR4900.

Can Britney Own a Gun?

With all the talk about the Iowa Caucuses, we can’t, of course, forget about the important matters.Â It looks as if Britney Spears has been committed!Â Now, while I’m not one worry too much about whether celebrities live or die, I wouldn’t be particularly unhappy if we could end this huge national trauma by Britney offing herself.Â Â But as Bitter was wondering earlier, can she even buy a gun?

It has now emerged that she is reportedly being held under a so-called “5150 hold” within a unit at Cedars Sinai hospital in Los Angeles, according to TMZ.com.

A “5150” order means staff believe there’s evidence she is a danger to herself or others. The California order allows a clinician or officer to involuntarily confine a person, and requires signs of mental disorder and/or grave disability.

5150 holds are observational, and thus don’t qualify you for a firearms prohibition under federal law, but California law is different.Â Under California law, you are not permitted to possess or purchase a firearm for a period of five years after your commitment, unless you request a special hearing to have your rights restored.Â Now, if it is determined that Britney is mentally disturbed, and the state decides to pursue a 5250 commitment, that is considered an involuntary commitment under federal law, and she would be barred for life (until HR2640 becomes law, that is, and there is a process for restoration of rights).Â California law doesn’t treat 5150 or 5250 commitments differently for the purposes of firearms possession.

Of course, that’s just the law.Â Would you sell that nutty woman a gun if you had a gun shop? Â I wouldn’t either.

Compromise

Robb Asks:

Waiting periods for firearms purchases will be waived if the person purchasing the firearm has, on their possession, a firearm (unloaded, of course).

Because waiting periods are to “cool off”. If you already own a gun (and simply having it on you means you have plenty of access to it) then there is no reason to make you wait for another.

Any takers on why this would be a bad / non workable idea?

In California, or any other jurisdiction that already has a waiting period, this would be a good compromise to make.Â In a situation where the passage of a waiting period is a political inevitability, it would be a good compromise to make.Â Absent that, don’t make it.Â The only time you ever offer a deal is when there’s a good chance you’re going to lose anyway, or you’ve already lost, and you’re just trying to make things less worse.

Georgia Gun Issues

According to this article, NRA is heading down to Georgia to talk about H.B. 89, the bill to allow people to have firearms in their vehicles while on company property.

As I covered a few days ago, there is another bill that’s really worth looking at in Georgia. Georgia has among the worst carry restrictions in The South, and it’s high time we looked at getting rid of some.

In the interest of full disclosure, I don’t agree with the NRA on the pursuit of H.B. 89, because I think they are an infringement on the private property rights of employers.Â This expands government regulations into areas they have no business interfering with.

It’s Here!

I am now happy to finally own my very own M1 Garand. I’ve wanted one of these for a while, but since I joined a CMP affiliated club, I decided it was time.

This one was likely produced in 1955. Not a WW II model, but I wanted a good shooter. The history isn’t quite as important to me. The receiver looks to be in good shape. The ~~blueing~~ parkerizing is still very much in tact.

The manual can be rather amusing. Here’s a caution about “M1 Thumb”:

A SYMPATHETIC WARNING ABOUT “M1 THUMB”

The bolt of the M1 rifle can slam shut unexpectedly if the shooter has not strictly followed these instructions. If your thumb or finger is in its path, a painful condition called “M1 Thumb” is a strong possibility. In a half-century of military service with the United States and its foreign allies, the M1 has bitten thousands of recruits in this manner. No one ever died from it, but it did lead to a deplorable expansion of vocabulary in many languages…

… If one day you get careless and acquire an M1 Thumb, think of it not as a digit but a diploma. It shows that you’ve learned not to do it again.

Heh. Now I just need to get some .30-06 and get to the range.