The NRA “Gun Cult”

Wow, this particular post got me pretty riled up:

As Buzzflash says, you can thank the NRA for this “surge” in the vicious drug wars devouring thousands of people in Mexico. As the Post notes, the NRA-led lapse of the U.S. ban on assault weapons is a primary cause of the escalation in the scale of violence.

It helps to know what you’re talking about before typing out accusations like this. The assault weapons ban applied only to semi-automatic rifles, not to automatic rifles like AK-47s. AK-47s have been illegal to import into this country since 1968. You won’t find them at gun shows, because they are illegal. What you will find are semi-automatic rifles that look like AK-47s.

Grenades and grenade launchers are destructive devices and are heavily regulated by the federal government, and generally forbidden to civilian use. There is no such thing as a “cop killer” bullet. Any center fire rifle cartridge will penetrate soft body armor, including rounds common for hunting.

Picked up largely at the many unrestricted gun shows in the Southwest and smuggled in piecemeal past overwhelmed – or bribed – border guards, the heavy weaponry is overpowering Mexican law enforcement and degrading civic society.

Except all the same laws that apply normally, which include background checks for purchases, filling out your form 4473, showing ID and proof of legal residence are as much required at gun shows at everywhere else.

The assault weapon ban lapsed in September 2004, with little demur from the Democrats, who were too busy chasing the mythical “NASCAR vote” to risk looking “soft” on selling souped-up, body-shredding death machines to anyone who put down the cash – terrorists, druglords, mafia goons.

It was allowed to expire because it was worthless. Machine guns are already, for all practical purposes, illegal. The assault weapons ban covered things like pistol groups, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs. Can you explain how any of these impacts the function of the rifle?

Read the rest of the post. It’s vile stuff. I sincerely hope this blogger can put aside the hate, and start having a serious debate with us about the merits of the laws he proposes we pass.

Barrage of Death Threats?

SayUncle mentioned that Jayne Lyn Stahl was getting some vile e-mail from pro-gun people. She suggested death treats too, though we never saw any of them. Neither, I would wager, did this blogger.

Look folks, I have no doubt at all that there are bozos out there on Al Gore’s Internets. I am intimately familiar with how they operate, and the kinds of things they say. Color me skeptical, though, that she’s getting a barrage of death threats. I would buy one or two. Death threats ought to be reported to the FBI, which I hope Ms. Stahl is doing for those that sent them to her. These aren’t people we want being part of our community.

We’d all be happy to hear and blog about the results of whatever interaction Ms. Stahl has with law enforcement on this matter.

UPDATE: Robb says in the comments:

That site you link to is funny. Bitches about non-proven death threats yet has a banner that calls for the beheading of political opponents. Priceless.

True, but then again I have a joke about Rudy pushing Hilly in front of an oncoming NYC subway train. Then again, I’m not sure this guy is joking.

Don’t Believe the Lies

Diane Edbril, Executive Director of CeaseFire Pennsylvania, has a letter to the editor in the Daily News:

AS EXECUTIVE director of CeaseFire PA, I’d like to respond to some comments made by letter-writer Tom McCourt. Contrary to Mr. McCourt’s assertions, CeaseFire PA has no interest in taking guns away from responsible, law-abiding Pennsylvanians.

Unless that gun happens to be an evil “assault weapon”, such as this one, which is considered an assault weapon under New Jersey’s ban, which is held up by these people as a model for the country.

Our only goals are to reduce gun violence, injury and death. To that end, we support measures that will make it harder for convicted felons and violent youth to obtain handguns, as they do so easily now.

Pennsylvania already has laws on the book that bar violent felons and people under the age of 18 from possessing handguns. It is illegal to sell a handgun to anyone under the age of 21. It is illegal to sell, give, transfer or lend a firearm to someone who is prohibited from possessing a firearm. It is illegal to sell a handgun to someone without a licensed dealer or a county sheriff handling the paperwork requirements and background check.

Evidence shows that when gun laws are tougher, criminals have a harder time getting guns, while legitimate gun owners remain unaffected.

What evidence? Pennsylvania already has a lot of laws on the books to stop criminals from getting guns. They aren’t working. Why is the solution more? Ms. Edbril, would you care to answer Just One Question?

Moreover, CeaseFire PA, like the writer, also supports tougher sentences for illegal handgun traffickers, increased funding for police and more support for education and rehabilitation.

Funny, I only ever see you guys lobbying for gun control laws.

We do not support legislation action in place of any of these other interventions, but in addition.

Oh I understand now. You won’t support getting tough on criminals unless you get your gun control laws.

Only through comprehensive action on a variety of fronts will we succeed in reducing Pennsylvania’s unacceptable rate of gun violence.

Absent Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s crime rate is on par with Western Europe. Philadelphia has a crime problem because the justice system there is a revolving door for criminals and the cities political leadership refuses to do anything about the problem short of blaming Harrisburg and the rest of the state for is. Forgive me if we don’t want to give in to their cop outs.

We invite the writer to visit the CeaseFirePA.org and Handgun-Sanity.org Web sites so they can get their facts straight.

I already did. You guys should really update your web site before you tell people to go to it. There are broken links, and half the events are out of date. You might think you guys are having trouble raising money or something.

Diane Edbril, Executive Director

CeaseFire PA

Need Some Precedent

The Gary Indiana suit is moving forward despite the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.  We’ll probably need to get some precedent from higher courts before this really has any teeth.  It’s very telling of how activist lower courts are willing to be on this issue to ignore a federal law that blatantly applies to this situation.  The people who allowed this to go forward have no place sitting on the bench.

Maryland State Police Update

After a very good interview on Cam & Company on Friday, Sebastian has an update about his permit to carry woes in Maryland.  I think he’s successfully put the corporal in an uncomfortable political spot, and if I were a betting man, I’m guessing he gets his license in the end.  I’m glad I live in Pennsylvania.

I certainly wish him luck.  What we need to fight crime are more Sebastians, not more silly gun control laws.

Suspended for Shotgun Shell

If this can happen in Arizona, is there anywhere it can’t happen? Competitive skeet shooting kid left a box of shotgun ammo in the back of her car and got caught when she got a parking ticket. We seemed to do better back in the days when schools had rifle teams than we are today.

Bad Ideas

There’s an article by Jennifer Collins of Concurring Opinions describing why she thinks tossing out the gun ban might have a tremendous impact on crime-fighting The District:

I think it’s worth acknowledging the primary functions of the law as it’s used by prosecutors in DC: the gun ban is both a preventive detention statute and an intelligence-gathering tool. At one time when I was a prosecutor, we were prohibited from extending a plea offer in gun cases unless the defendant agreed to come into the office (with his attorney, of course) and be “debriefed” about his knowledge of criminal activity in the city. The statute was also a mechanism for locking up individuals perceived as violent, but against whom other cases could not be brought for whatever reason. It’s pretty simple to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual was in possession of a gun without a license and a lot tougher to prove that he committed a violent crime.

I have issues with this method just from a civil liberties standpoint.  The question should not be, as a society, what makes life easier for prosecutors and the police.  After all, it would make life for prosecutors easier to allow door to door searches of homes in bad neighborhood for drugs and guns, but we would, quite properly, find that unconstitutional and reprehensible.  This law is also guaranteed to disproportionately affect the law abiding.  If I were to be caught transporting a firearm through DC (DC claims FOPA doesn’t apply to them, stupidly enough), I have nothing to offer a prosecutor in terms of information or a deal, so they will just charge me with the weapons violation.  Robb is correct to point out:

I want the government to catch and prosecute criminals. What I fear is that Uncle Sam keeps broadening the definition of criminal to make it impossible to not be one.

I think government has an obligation not to cast such a large net that they catch the good people along with the bad.

But as Dave Hardy points out:

Those seem rather doubtful objectives for a law of this type… but even so, could have been met with almost any other form of law, even permissive CCW licensing. Odds are that persons suspected of ongoing violence already have a criminal record that would disqualify them, or at the very least, wouldn’t care for the attention that would follow filing an application.

I agree with Dave, and I think Ms. Collins overestimates the impact this will have on crime fighting.  How often are people being caught in their homes with a firearm rather than being pulled off the streets with a concealed firearm?  How often are people who are caught not already persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms?  Before assessing how large the impact would be, one would have to know these things.

ATF Appropriations Language

Here’s what I get for being behind.   I got the same e-mail that SayUncle and Joe Huffman got, but I was busy all weekend and didn’t get a chance to post it:

Based on concerns raised by NRA, the House Appropriations Committee report on the Commerce/Justice/Science appropriations bill (H.R. 3093) includes the following language: 

“The committee has heard reports that [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] has pursued license revocations and denials against firearms dealers based on violations that consist largely of recordkeeping errors of various types that are unlikely to impede tracing investigations or prosecution of individuals who use firearms in crime.  The Committee encourages ATF to consider lesser gradation of sanctions for recordkeeping errors.”

This is a continuation of NRA’s longstanding efforts to reform the BATFE, and to ensure that any penalties administered by BATFE against FFLs appropriately fit the transgression and that BATFE does not abuse its authority.  Last spring, NRA-ILA secured passage in the U.S. House of H.R. 5092 (http://www.nraila.org//News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=8224), a bill that included many reforms to the process by which BATFE punishes violations of federal law and regulations (more information on bill here: http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=205). These reforms would have provided a fairer process for FFLs accused of violations.  Passage of the bill followed on the heels of House hearings (also prompted by NRA’s efforts) on BATFE abuses with respect to FFL enforcement and gun show operations. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to consider the bill before adjourning for the year. 

Others in the pro-gun grassroots community have reported on this issue, including Ryan Horsley of Red’s Trading Post, and numerous other bloggers.  Working together, it is our hope that we can continue our mutual efforts to reform BATFE once and for all to reduce and eliminate unjust harassment of legitimate gun dealers.

It’s a good start.  It’ll be very very difficult to get any meaningful reform out of this Congress.  While they might be scared into inaction by the NRA, the anti-gun leaders in Congress aren’t going to bend over backwards to kiss our asses either.  At the very least, the ATF bureaucracy knows that Congress may be less than happy with some of their activities.  But they also know they probably don’t have much to fear from the people running Congress.  While I am not at all happy with the Republican Party being a bunch of corrupt and incompetent boobs, I’ll take incompetence over Hillary and Pelosi any day of the week.