Guns – Page 104 – Shall Not Be Questioned

I Guess Pat Toomey Didn’t Learn His Lesson

I had hopes that perhaps Pat Toomey was largely bamboozled by Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer, and after experiencing the backlash first hand, would leave the gun control issue alone for the rest of his term, and perhaps even kiss up to us by giving us a few critical votes before he’s up for re-election. Alas that is not to be:

Though the effort is far from being fully formed,Â Toomey also said heâ€™s looking for opportunities to reintroduce something related to combating gun violence.

â€œWhat Iâ€™m trying to figure out is, is there something that could get the support of the 60 votes that we would need in the Senate,â€ Toomey said. â€œJoe Manchin was and is a great partner and someone I will continue to work with, and Iâ€™m open to exploring what is possible.â€

We all know that “combating gun violence” is a dog whistle for gun control. If it’s not, then Toomey needs to be more specific about what he’s going to specifically propose rather than blowing dog whistles for the other side. He’s already lost any support I might be willing to give time or money wise. He’s quickly trying to ensure I don’t vote in the Pennsylvania Senatorial election in 2016. Toomey has been a real disappointment.

Pennsylvania has a strong tradition of political moderation. The last hard-core conservative we had in statewide office was Santorum, and he only lasted two terms. I fear the lesson the PAGOP took from that is moderation in all things, rather than the fact that Santorum’s positions on social issues and advocacy for government involvement in America’s bedroom turned off a lot of socially liberal Republican and independent voters in the Philadelphia suburbs (which contains about 2.4 million of the state’s 13 million population).

So why is Toomey cozying up to gun control advocates? In my opinion, he’s buying Bloomberg’s silence. I believe the PAGOP is scared to death of Bloomberg’s money, and are very concerned he’ll flood the airwaves at election time with attack ads painting Republican candidates as radical on the issue. But really, Pat Toomey should be more afraid of us than Bloomberg, and I have a feeling he may find that out in 2016.

Weekly Gun News – Edition 5

I know we missed the gun news last week, but this week we have some tabs to clear! I’ve also been busy with extreme home brewing. I’ve been wanting to make more lagers. The problem is, I still won’t them very often, and I don’t want to have to buy a whole refrigerator just to lager the occasional lager, nor do I want to use my kegerator and then not have beer on tap for eight weeks while it ages. So what about using one of those big gatorade coolers (which I already have in my equipment inventory) to jacket water around a carboy fermenter? Then cooling the water with a Peltier cooler? Turns out it works, but thermoelectric coolers are a pain in the ass because they a) take up a lot of DC current and b) don’t like being controlled by ordinary thermostats. They need PID control with the output filtered to smooth out the pulse-width modulation. They also don’t like being wired in parallel, which is a problem when you’re dealing with a 15VDC 6A device. So I’m trying to decide between driving the 3 TECs with 3 of these, or one of these, with the TECs wired in series. Or maybe just build my own current source, which is the ideal way to drive TECs. Anyways, enough of that. Here’s the news:

Obama backs Australian gun laws. Remember that Australia engaged in mass confiscation of all semi-automatic rifles and pump-action firearms. At one time, this was considered a losing issue for Democrats. He also condemned the big gun rushes that follow his pronouncements. I would encourage readers to go to your local gun store and disappoint the President.

Add Uber to your list of anti-gun companies. They banned guns for drivers and passengers. I’m sure the criminals will be the first to comply!

John Lott points out what the VPC doesn’t want you to know about justifiable homicide statistics.

Joe Huffman refutes one of the big straw men built up by gun control advocates.

The judge who awarded attorneys fees to Lucky Gunner explains his ruling. LG will donate all the money to a gun rights charity. Please go and vote for a responsible gun rights group. I think it would be a real shame if GOA were to get that money. Might as well burn it.

A surprise to no one, it turns out that compliance with New York’s SAFE Act is practically non-existent. They can erect their utopian laws, but it doesn’t mean we have to go along with their scheme. Even when registration was tried in Canada, the compliance rate was low.

It’s be awfully nice if we could convince people that walking around a Wal-Mart racking a shotgun is, frankly, just being a jerk for the sake of getting people to pay attention to you. One of these days, one of these clowns is going to get his ass shot, and I’m not going to feel sorry for them.

More carrying guns at people.

The killer in Charleston looks to have purchased his firearm at retail and cleared a background check, despite the fact that he shouldn’t have. Our opponents are wringing their hands demanding to know how this happened. Well, you know, government is mostly incompetent even on a good day. Do you wonder why we don’t like relying on the government for our personal security? If they want to do that, fine. But don’t force that choice on me!

It’s open season now that the Supreme Court has basically given the lower courts free reign to ignore Heller. The bill in New York has passed the Assembly.

Puerto Rico has gone constitutional carry, and for purchase, federal law is now what’s controlling, since a court tossed their gun control laws.Â SAF took this case through Puerto Rico Commonwealth Courts. I don’t know how long this will last, but it’s an interesting development.

Are New York Republicans the biggest impediment to getting New York’s ridiculous knife laws repealed? I can totally believe this. Remember, without Republican cooperation, SAFE would never have passed.

Speaking of Delaware (linked in the previous article), it’s in trouble. The truce is off, and it’s a blue state. Once the blue establishment becomes convinced the gun vote can’t hurt them, you have nowhere to go but down. I hate to be a pessimist, but we are fast becoming two Americas, and the courts aren’t going to do anything to stop it. Worse? Their America is growing.

Meanwhile, in Oregon, activists are trying to show the gun vote can still hurt.

Remember, the media are the enemy. They are bitching about losing access to permit data. Given what happened in New York, they have no room to complain. The media has shown nothing but contempt for gun owners.

Martin O’Malley is still a git. I think Bernie Sanders is probably a bigger threat to Hillary.

Bill Clinton: “You can’t have people walking around with guns.” Does that include his armed security detail? No. Of course it doesn’t.

An old lady who worked Intelligence in WWII died, and they found she was still keeping a Sten submachine gun in her house.

Charles C.W. Cooke takes Obama to task for his gun control proposals, none of which have a thing to do with the Charleston shooting.

Colt: Free to a good home!Â Only comes with hundreds of millions of dollars of debt!

Ace on NRA’s “Extremely Strong Grip” on Congress: “Obama’s real enemy is now, as it as always been, a powerful special interest lobbying group called The Majority of American Citizens.”

In New Jersey, if your spouse is a prohibited person, you are too.

Off Topic:

Is the New Deal in trouble? We can dream, can’t we? The Supreme Court has done the right thing for raisin growers.

Ace describes Obama’s technique of trying to channel “stray voltage.”

How Does the US Rank in Terms of Rampage Shootings?

According to this piece put together by IJ Review, we’re in the middle of the pack for the years 2009-2013. Norway is a small country, and the attack on the AUF summer camp was horrendous. Same with Finland. It’s a small country and that will tend to drive stronger per-capita numbers when “lightning” finally does strike. It would probably make more sense to consider the European Union as a whole rather than individual countries, but the point is still made: these incidents are hardly limited to the United States and hardly uncommon outside of it, as our Commander-in-Cheif has claimed. This is not even considering the horrendous attacks that have occurred in other parts of the world that involve weapons other than firearms. Only a few days after the shooting in Charleston, a man in Austria plowed through a crowd with his vehicle, then got out of his car and started stabbing people. Three dead, with thirty people injured and ten critically injured.

The biggest conceit of the left is that evil does not exist, because man can be perfected, if only you put the right people in charge. One reason many hate on gun owners so much is because we’re in the way of that perfection. We’re a constant reminder that people are fundamentally imperfect, and capable of heinous things even under very civilized conditions. We insist on living as if things were that way, and refuse to go along with their utopian dreams.

The Pope is a Hypocrite

Not being Catholic, and therefore believing the Pope is just a man like any other, I don’t think much ofÂ pointing out that the Pope is a hypocrite for declaring that weapons producers and sellers can’t possibly be Christian, and using all manner of pejoratives to describe them. One has to wonder if this includes the weapons producers who make the firearms for his Swiss Guard, which include SIG, Glock, H&K, and Styer? Is that not a who’s who of top global small arms companies? Surely the Swiss Guards themselves are Christians? So how, exactly, are the companies who manufacture, and the people who ultimately sell firearms to his armed guards suddenly not Christians?

This is ludicrous, but I wouldn’t expect much more from someone who very much seems to believe in Liberation Theology. He should disarm the Swiss Guards before he casts stones at others.

This isn’t good news, folks

A lot of people are pointing toÂ a CNNÂ articleÂ that references an official statement that the shooter bought the pistol used in the attack himself (and thus passed a NICS check), rather than being given one; despite being under indictment for a disqualifying charge. This is being used as a talking point about the uselessness of BG check. That’s not a good argument against universal background checks, though, certainly not one for our side. It’s an argument for doing away with NICS, yes, but replacing it with the kind of invasive and lengthy background check that predated NICS, and is still in use in NJ and some other places.

We need to be very careful about handing talking points to the other side – pointing out flaws in NICS gives them ammunition to replace it with an actual background investigation.

Brady Loses Another “Bad Apple” Dealer Suit

This was the case in Alaska, where a guy came into Rayco Sales gun shop and stole a gun when the dealer had his back turned. Remember that the Brady Campaign are preying on grieving families by backing their filing of these meritless suits:

â€œThe family is crushed,â€ Mark Choate, co-counsel for the Kims, told the Empire. â€œ… There was so much evidence that showed there was something being hidden about (Coxeâ€™s) behavior.â€

I feel sorry for those people, but the odds were very much stacked against success from the beginning. Their grief was exploited by a gun control organization that is struggling to find relevance in a movement increasingly centered around Mike Bloomberg and his fat wallet.

Choate said even though the jury found Coxe did not sell the weapon to Coday, it doesnâ€™t mean Coxe wasnâ€™t negligent. But a federal gun law â€” called Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA for short â€” shields guns dealers and manufacturers from claims of gross negligence, he said.

At first I thought he was wrong about PLCAA covering gross negligence, but it only exempts negligent entrustment andÂ negligence per se. That means they had to prove that Coxe violated a statute or regulation, and couldn’t just argue that overall, he was a sloppy dealer. They jury did not find Brady’s argument credible. Negligence and gross negligence is a more subjective standards, which is probably why they were not exempted. Find the right jury, and they might be willing to side with a plaintiff on those claims even if they are meritless.

This was the Brady Center’s best case, and best hope for a victory, and it’s now gone down in flames. PLCAA is not quite a brick wall for the Brady Center, but it’s certainly harding up very quickly.

Guest Post: CeaseFirePA – So Small They’re Almost a Rounding Error

Introduction (By Sebastian). I’ve decided that since I’m having more spouts where I’m unbelievably busy these days, I would start taking guests posts from readers who had some writing skills and something to say. If you’d like to take a stab at your own guest post, contact me via e-mail (address on the sidebar) and tell me a bit about what you want to write. We can do submissions anonymously, or with credit. Your choice. This article is from a reader who asked to remain anonymous.

We recently had a chance to look at CeasefirePA’s financials. The only conclusion you can draw from them is that CeasefirePA is not nearly as mainstream or well supported as they would have anyone think.

Every non-profit is required to file an IRS Form 990 and to make that form available for inspection. Many can be found on the Internet at sites like www.charitynavigator.com or www.guidestar.com.

CeasefirePA, dutifully filed its forms and we got copies of their filings from 2012, 2013 and 2014.

Like the NRA, CeasefirePA has two different entities, a 501(c)(3) non-profit that is also a charity (to which contributions are tax deductible) and a 501(c)(4) political entity (to which contributions are not tax deductible).

According to CeasefirePA’s 2013 Form 990, their Education Fund – their charity – received 605 individual donations totaling $71,000 in all of calendar year 2012.

By comparison, in that same year, NRA had nearly 200,000 paid members in PA.

To understand how much bigger NRA is in PA alone, Veteran’s Stadium in Philadelphia once held 71,000 people. Lincoln Financial Field holds 69,000 people. The Wells Fargo Center holds 20,000 people for basketball. Citizens Bank Park where the Phillies play holds 43,500 people. NRA’s paid Pennsylvania membership could simultaneously fill all of these facilities to capacity while CeasefirePA’s 2012 paid membership could barely fill your local Cheesecake Factory restaurant.

Collectively, in 2012, CeasefirePA’s board raised $3,000 – a pittance for a board. Most of the rest of their funding (then and now) comes from liberal foundation grants (Heinz, Joyce, William Penn).

In more recent years, they have raised more from their board, but still nothing compared to NRA.

Fast forwarding to calendar year 2013, CeasefirePA reported that they received donations from 766 people totaling $58,280. That’s 161 more people than in 2012. In total. Across the Commonwealth. That’s nearly 2.5 new supporters per county in PA or .79 new paid members per PA General Assembly House District. Way to go! Literally.

In their Form 990s, CeasefirePA tries to make up for this pitiful number of paid members by talking about how many people they send e-mails to – 30,000. Even there, however, NRA’s efforts swamp CeasefirePA’s.

In the 2012 election cycle NRA’s political arm (NRA-ILA) dropped a 715,000 person mailing – physical pieces of mail – to support gun friendly candidates. That mailing reached about 8.5% of the Commonwealth’s 2012 registered voters. And that wasÂ just one of the NRA’s activities in Pennsylvania that year.

Next time you meet one of your state legislators, ask them whether they’d rather side with the 766 or the 200,000.

Time: “Gun Control Stricter in 1920s and 1930s”

Anti-gunners are busy spreading this story around, about how the gun laws of the 1920s and 1930s were more strict than they are now. I’ll call that bluff. If they really believe that, then let’s introduce a bill in Congress that takes us back to the gun laws of the 1920s and 1930s then? Repeal the Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments in its entirety? Where do I sign up? Hey, let’s pick a year in the 1930s. How about 1932? That would get rid of the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, and the National Firearms Act of 1934. Basically, in 1932, there were no federal gun laws, except that you couldn’t ship a pistol by US mail without a license. Or maybe the 20’s instead, say 1922? In 1922 there were no federal gun control laws whatsoever. Let’s just list some of the things we could do.

Up until 1968, you could mail order a rifle. Up until 1927, you could mail order a pistol too. After that 1927, you needed a license to mail order a pistol though the US mail, but you could still do it via other carriers without a license, and doing so was common.
Sears was a big seller of firearms via the mail order.
Firearms could be purchased cash on the barrel. No background check, no forms. Up until as late as 1938, dealers didn’t even have to record sales.
Machine guns could be mail ordered until 1934. After that, they still could be as long as you paid the transfer tax and the gun was registered.
Soldiers could bring back rifles, pistols and even machine guns as late as 1968, as long as they registered them and paid the tax.
After 1938 and before 1968, a Federal Firearms License cost $1. The only requirement was that you keep an acquisition and disposition record. No form 4473. Prior to that anyone could get into the gun business, no questions asked.
Until 1938, it was legal to sell a firearm to anyone. Classes of prohibited people didn’t exist until the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.
In the 1920s, only a handful of states had any gun control laws, and those that did weren’t much more numerous than the states that have even worse gun control today (and they were in many cases the same states)
There were no federal laws restricting firearms to young people until 1968.
Firearms were not required to have serial numbers until 1938.
Until 1934, there were no restrictions on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, or short-barreled shotguns.
As late as when Antonin Scalia was a teenager in the 1940s and 1950s, you could openly carry a rifle on the New York Subway without anyone batting an eye. How’d the antis like to go back to that culture?

Of course, most states by then had restricted concealed carry, but you could still carry openly in most states without a license. In the 20s and 30s, what prohibitions on carry that existed were not uniformly enforced in many states. Either way, those are state issues. It’s absolutely ridiculous to argue that the 1920s and 1930s guns were more regulated than today. The market was a relative free-for-all compared to the restrictions we have today. Hell, I’ll even offer to go back to the federal gun laws of 1965! How about that deal?

These people really can’t be taken seriously most days of the week. The notion they are floating here is absolute pablum, and that’ll be evidenced by the fact that no one on the other side, in their right mind, would take me up on this offer. The majority of federal gun controls we have in this country came with the Gun Control Act of 1968 and subsequent amendments. Then, as now, most states are permissive except a small number of states where gun control is popular. The only thing they’d really undo is the gains we’ve made in reversing concealed carry limitations, and I doubt any of them would make that trade.

A Long Overdue Bill for Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives are debating allowing the use of semi-automatic rifles for hunting. We are the only state left in the United States that does not allow hunting with semi-automatics. If I were to take up hunting, I’d have to resort to an old military bolt action with open sights. I don’t actually own a scoped bolt gun, muzzleloader, or shotgun capable of firing slugs. Now I’m assuming this bill will only legalize semi-autos where it’s legal to hunt with rifles (around here in the Southeast, it’s mostly limited to shotguns (which ironically can be semi-auto), muzzleloaders, and bows).

It looks like there’s two competing bills. It would seem one bill would Â allow the use of .223 for hunting coyotes, with six rounds allowed in the magazine while hunting, while the competing bill would allow five rounds, but doesn’t mention species or caliber. Given the increasing problems with coyotes, either bill strikes me as a welcome thing for people living in the more rural parts of the Commonwealth.

I don’t think the Senate should be as much trouble as it has been with our bills last session. Where we had trouble previously is with Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Greenleaf, a C- rated Republican from Montgomery County, bottling up our bills. Since this is a hunting bill, itÂ would go through the Senate Game and Fisheries Committee, which is Â Chaired by Senator Scavello, who has an A rating and was endorsed by NRA in his last election. Even the minority chair on that committee, Senator Brewster, is A rated and was endorsed in his last election. If we can get this bill to the floor in the Senate, we’ll pass it. The elephant in the room with moving this bill forward is whether we can score a signature from Governor Wolf. Wolf might not want to upset hunters, but so far I he has not impressed me with his political acumen. It’s a good bill to send him, since it’ll make him put his cards on the table.

Maine is on a Roll

Maine passes a supressor hunting bill. Maine would be the 36th state to allow the use of suppressors while hunting. Many of these just never prohibited it. These bills are an important part of building a constituency for getting suppressors moved from Title II (NFA) to Title I (GCA), or just getting them delisted entirely (after all, it’s a hunk of metal. I suppose you could throw it at somebody).

As I’ve said before, hunting is a particularly good context to make the case for suppressors, since it’s one shooting sport where hearing protection can be a real burden, and even most anti-gun folks approve of owning guns for hunting, or at least feel the need to pay lip service to it.