Category: Guns

More Eating Our Own

If folks want to know why I will never join or give a dime to GOA, this is a big part of the reason why. I followed over to their site, and found the accusation in the fall newsletter. Now, given that it was the Wisconsin Ethics Board that made this mistake, I can understand how this made it into the newsletter. I think a phone call might have been in order, but it’s a pretty official source, so I’ll give them a break on the original inclusion.

But now, knowing it’s a mistake, do you think maybe a public retraction is in order? It seems like the honorable thing to do. But I’m afraid WGO is more interested in crapping on NRA than being honorable.

I don’t think it’s healthy for gun owners to only have one voice, but it’s definitely not healthy gun rights activists and organizations to form a circular firing squad, and I won’t have any part of organizations that promote it. It’s one thing to disagree, it’s another to do what GOA and their state affiliates have been doing as of late.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Call Fred
  2. Armed Robber Dead in Philly
  3. Force Disparities

Gone With the Wind

Despite temperatures in the mid 30s, and winds of 25 mph with gusts up to 50 mph, my club was still shooting trap tonight.  We’ve been rained out the past few weeks, so I was eager to shoot a few sets, despite the conditions.

Winds that high either send the clays into the upper atmosphere, when you’re expecting it to crest, or send it out so quickly that by the time you get a bead on it, it’s so far out your chance of hitting is narrow.  Clays thrown more sideways really go that way if the wind is helping it.  Let me also say, it’s also amusing to see the wadding shoot a few feet out, and then go sideways.

All in all, a fun time, despite my score of 18 and 13.  I think it’s good to shoot under adverse conditions.   If you can keep your game together when it sucks out, you’ll be better for it when it doesn’t.  I’m not sure I’d consider 13 keeping my game together, but I’ll take 18 given the conditions.  I was considering a third set, but on my second, the snow flurries started, and I figured that was my cue to call it a day.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. A Match for Cold Occasions (Winter Gun Blog Rifle Match)
  2. Because You Su… Wait, We Suck!
  3. Tall Tales of High-Power Shooting?

FBI NICS Additions

First Dave Hardy talked about it over here.  Clayton Cramer doesn’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing.  David Codrea thinks it’s madness.  I agree with Clayton that the mentally ill are more likely to be stopped by background checks rather than criminals.   But is NICS constitutional?  Technically speaking, it’s a prior restraint on the exercise of a right.  If it were printing presses we were talking about, it wouldn’t be a constitutionally permissible law.

NICS exists because the vast majority of Americans think people should have to pass a background check to buy a firearm.  Even among gun owners, it’s rare to find people who argue that abolishing the instant check system is a worthwhile endeavor, but I have to admit I find Bruce’s commentary here telling:

If anything can be learned from the events that unfolded in Rochester this afternoon, it’s that more must be done at the federal level to prevent persons of questionable mental status from purchasing duct tape and road flares.

Or to paraphrase what I’ve heard from others: if someone can’t be trusted with a gun, they can’t be trusted with matches and gasoline either.  There are a lot of ways to cause mayhem and destruction for those who wish to do so.

I’ve said before that I consider NICS to be a minor infringement, and I’m not certain it’s worth burning political capital to eliminate it in the current political climate.  I wouldn’t underestimate the value it has in making the public feel good that the current laws are adequate.  But is it constitutional?  Is it a worthwhile restriction, aside from making people feel better about guns being legal?  Should we make getting rid of it a priority?   I’d love to hear people’s opinions in the commentary.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. NICS Improvements
  2. Background Check Issues
  3. Brady Campaign Originally Fought NICS

Akins to Fight

Apparently the Akins Accelerator folks are going to fight the ATF determination in court after all. I wish them luck. I’m rather skeptical about being able to recover damages from ATF for the determination. How would the suit overcome soverign immunity? I would think that ATF, acting in it’s capacity to adminsiter the GCA 68 and the NFA would be able to claim soveirgn immunity against a damages suit. Can any attorney’s comment on that?

Though, filing suit over the determination strikes me as meritorious, and given ATF’s track record in court, probably has a good chance.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Consequences
  2. More on the San Francisco Case
  3. On Attorney’s Fees in Second Amendment Cases

The Pushback Begins

Pennsylvania Democrats, particularly Western Democrats, are pushing the house leadership to drop the gun control issue.  They know it’s going to hurt them if gun control becomes a big issue, and Democrats are seen as the ones pushing it.

Kotik says the Democrat-controlled House should be focusing on issues such as property tax reform and health care. Kotik says he and the other members who signed the letter should not be asked to put up votes on social issues he believes are likely to go nowhere in the Republican-controlled Senate.

He’s absolutely right.  It makes no sense for Democrats to address an issue like gun control when there’s no chance of passage.  Ed Rendell has a lot to learn about the state he governs.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Elections have Consequences
  2. Bloomberg’s Gun Show Bill
  3. Castle Doctrine Introduced

They Want Your Opinon

The Philadelphia Inquirer wants our opinion on gun control, and they provide an e-mail address (chesterletters@phillynews.com) to send your opinion to in 200 words are less.

I think it’s very important that the Inquirer hear from a lot of gun owners on this one, especially those of us in Pennsylvania. I will publish the letter I will send shortly

UPDATE: Bitter tells me newspapers typically won’t publish what’s published elsewhere.  So I will have to hold off on posting here until I have a link to offer or, if they choose not to print it, I’ll post what I sent them.

Thanks to David Codrea for the pointer

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Now We’re a Cancer
  2. Inky Looking for Content, Finds Brady Campaign
  3. Dueling Op-Eds

It Does Not Mean What You Think It Means

Paul Helmke has been busy reading “all the words in the Second Amendment, not just the ones we like”. Unfortunately for them, I’ve been reading all the Miller decision, not just the parts that the Bradys like. You know, like this part:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [p179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Emphasis mine. I think the Bradys are very much misreading the Miller opinion. Jack Miller was dead by the time the case was heard, and it was only the government’s position that the court entertained. The court was presented no evidence that the firearm in question was in common military use at the time. The Miller test, therefore, was on the firearm in question, not on the status of the individual. By the Miller test, it would seem to me that an M16 would qualify as protected by the second amendment. Considering that, the Bradys shouldn’t be so enthusiastic about touting Miller. If the court adopts that test, I may be able to get M16s rather than AR-15s, which would make me rather pleased, but probably not Paul Helmke.

UPDATE: Ian Argent has more over on his blog.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. A Little Poke at the Antis
  2. Militia Resurgence?
  3. Surprising Daily News Coverage of Brian Aitken