Guns – Page 1063 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Some Context on the Swiss Thing

I noticed Jeff blogging about the Swiss Militia not storing ammunition at home, but letting them keep their rifles.Â I used to work with a Swiss guy, and had this explained to me once.

Basically, ammunition that’s issued by the government in the home is tightly regulated.Â You are not allowed to open that ammunition except under orders, or in a national emergency.Â The government keeps track of ammunition issued as part of your militia duty.Â AmmunitionÂ for practice and shooting is commonly available in Switzerland, so this change in law won’t affect the ability of the Swiss to store ammunition in their homes, or to buy ammunition for sport shooting, hunting, or self-defense.Â They just will no longer be issued ammunition by the Swiss government, to be kept and not used except in a national emergency.

This is entirely a symbolic victory for the gun control forces in Switzerland.Â That’s not to say this isn’t something to worry about, we know how the gun control movement operates, and they will take their symbolic victories, and use it to build a movement for greater restrictions.Â The Swiss ought to be worried, very worried, as this is just a first step. Â But as a first step, it’s a really small one.

Clearing Up Definitions

Armed Canadian offers the media some lessons in the definition of the word “loophole”

Advocates of Regulating Black Powder Arms

All this PSH about black powder guns is reminding me of a local Congressworm by the name of Joe Hoeffel.Â Joe is the guy that unsuccessfully challenged Arlen Specter in the 2004 election.Â I don’t like Specter much at all, but I’ve still voted for him, and this is why:

After a disgruntled former employee of Norristown State Hospital took two hostages, killing one and seriously injuring the other with a replica of an antique firearm, Joe introduced legislation that would bring antique and replica firearms under the same federal regulations as modern firearms.

But then gun control advocates tell us “You want the right to bear arms?Â Fine!Â You can have muskets and flintlock pistols, just like they had during our founding father’s times.Â Our founding fathers never would have imagined an AK-47.”Â Bogus argument, made even more bogus by the PSH over black powder arms when incidents like this sprout up.

They Say “Loophole” I Say “Freedom”

Why the hell does everything have to be a loophole? The Media in New York is all over this St. John’s University .50 caliber muzzle loader story:

It’s a replica of an antique firearm and federal and state gun laws do not apply to antique-type guns. It can be purchased without any background check.

The gunman’s attorney says it was perfectly legal.

“You can go to any gun store in New York, Upstate New York, wherever you want and purchase it,” Rosemarie Rotondo, Hiraman’s attorney, said.

As it should be!

A former agent for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms says for state and federal law not to consider this rifle a firearm is crazy.

“It is totally outrageous to have this type of firearm considered to be an illegal type of firearm, especially under federal and state law,” said former ATF agent Domincik Polifrone.

What? Is it just me or did that statement make absolutely no sense, and the reporter just interpreted to say what he wanted it to say?

Hat tip: Dave Hardy

American Airlines Issue

Some of you may know that American Airlines banned firearms on overseas flights to Europe and Asia.Â Needless to say that makes it a little difficult for competitors and hunters to attend competitions and hunt in other countries.Â Â I originally found out about this from the AA web site, that I had to look up because I’m using AA to fly to the GBR.Â Fortunately, it looks like we’ve made some progress here with the company:

“After a series of meetings, involving NRA and Safari Club International (SCI), we are pleased to report that there has been some progress. American Airlines has decided that it would amend its policy to allow legally declared firearms to be transported on nonstop flights to other destinations in Europe outside of the UK, and to Asian destinations. We have been informed that due to continuing onerous policies by the government of the United Kingdom, American Airlines is still not allowing civilian transport of firearms into the UK at present.

That’s good news.Â It would seem the UK government was the responsible party for this whole policy. Â This is another significant illustration of the danger of the international gun control movement, which I’ve detailed here before.

A Bit on Section 302 of MHPA

I notice Larry Pratt keeps bringing up a Pennsylvania case where a man was committed involuntarily for observation under Section 302 of Pennsylvania’s Mental Health Procedures Act. This provision is described as follows:

Section 302 is the part of the Act relating to treatment without consent for observed behavior constituting a clear and present danger to the individual and/or others. The behavior must have occurred in the past 30 days. Under Section 302(a) any responsible party can petition for an involuntary evaluation by stating that an individual may be severely mentally disabled.

Now, it should be noted that for purposes of a federal firearms disability, this section is insufficient. The regulations specifically exempt persons held for observation.

Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

But that’s federal. The PA Uniform Firearms Act is also a controlling law:

A person who has been adjudicated as an incompetent or who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for inpatient care and treatment under section 302, 303 or 304 of the provisions of the act of July 9, 1976 (P.L.817, No.143), known as the Mental Health Procedures Act. This paragraph shall not apply to any proceeding under section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act unless the examining physician has issued a certification that inpatient care was necessary or that the person was committable.

So unless the person actually ends up being involuntarily committed to a mental health institution, there’s no prohibition under federal or state law that prevents him from owning a firearm in the future, unless he’s committed.Â It should be noted that Pennsylvania already has a mechanism in place for restoration of rights for commitments and adjudications.Â In the editorial I mentioned last, a PA district attorney was quoted as saying:

“I contacted the sheriff and had his license to carry a firearm revoked. And I asked police to commit him under Section 302 of the mental health procedures act and that was done. He is now ineligible to possess firearms [for life] because he was committed involuntarily,” the district attorney reported.

I think that particular DA needs to read the law, because he’s wrong.

This Is Getting Crazy

Folks, it pains me to criticize other people who are on my side, and who I consider allies in the cause, but I feel the need to speak up when I think there’s misinformation getting out there to gun owners.Â WND has an editorial here:

The legislation would allow a person’s right to own a gun in the U.S. to be permanently removed under a wide range of circumstances.

“You’d think that when rabid, anti-gun legislators like Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy join together to pass anti-gun legislation, it would raise a few red flags,” the alert says. “But these two New York Democrats are currently planning to roll over gun owners with H.R. 2640 â€“ legislation which would bar you from owning guns if: You are a battle-scarred veteran suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder; or as a kid, you were diagnosed with ADHD.”

Gun Owners Executive Director Larry Pratt told WND that those are just two of the circumstances that legitimately could be used under the pending proposal to permanently remove an individual’s right to own a weapon in the U.S.

This is just not true.Â Read the legislation.Â It goes even further off the deep end:

Someone in counseling during a bitter divorce, a child who at one point gets into a scrape on a school yard and is put on Ritalin, or even someone given “counseling” for issues such as depression during recovery from an accident or work-related injury are some other situations that could trigger such “disarmament by diagnosis,” he said.

There’s no provision in this bill at all that would create that circumstance.Â By now I’ve looked at it pretty extensively, and what Larry is claiming here just isn’t in this bill at all.

The plan, described in Congress as an expansion of the Brady Gun Bill that requires background checks for potential firearms purchasers, would require people who have such a diagnosis in their health record to be permanently banned from owning a gun.

This bill does not do that.Â Gun Control Act of 68 is what gave us life time prohibition for mental health commitments and adjudications.Â HR 2640 actually enables those with mental health problems in their past to clear their names, something they can’t do currently.

I feel like a broken record here, but Larry Pratt’s claims on this issue just keep getting more and more absurd to anyone’s who’s actually read the legislation.

Quote of the Day

From Arms and the Law reader David Lawson:

It is true we have protection against prosecution for unlawful use of a weapon or failure to register the weapon or possession of an illegal (non-NFA) weapon due to the Hale De Mar act. However, I am certain he will not see that firearm back unless it is sold by the police to some gangbangers that then use it against him.

Emphasis on the part I think makes the joke complete is mine. Also, I’m really happy to see Dave Hardy has set up a new blog:

http://www.chicagohandgun.org/

If Heller wins, it’s because folks like Dave have laid much of the groundwork for the victory. It’s good to see he’s already working on the next step, should Heller prevail before the Supreme Court, as I believe it will. Let’s win Washington, then onto Chicago!

UPDATE: A commenter points out that it might be the commenter Dave, and not Dave Hardy, that has the Chicago site.Â If it is, then great for commenter Dave!Â Doesn’t really change what I said, other than pointing out the fact that there are too many Davids in this issue!Â We gunnies definitely have the biblical metaphors wrapped up.

I Need a Case

I’m looking for a case that can hold two rifles, but in a configuration where I don’t feel like I’m carrying around a telephone pole.Â The case has to be OK for flying, and has to have a lock.Â I would prefer metal, but polymer is OK as long as it’s tough.Â Â I’m going to take out to the Gun Blogger Rendezvous:

AK-74
AR-15 carbine
Glock 19

I’m thinking about taking my S&W 629 is lieu of the Glock, since I can’t carry concealed in Nevada, I don’t need to be all that concerned about having my carry gun with me.Â But I did pick the AK-74 and AR-15 specifically because I’m limited to 11 lbs of ammo on the plane, and both those platforms have lighter ammo, meaning I can take more of it.Â .44 Magnum loads are heavy.Â A case that had ample room for securely storing ammunition would be nice too.

Any suggestions?

Joyce Modus Operandi

GeekWitha.45 finds another Joyce funded Coalition of One.Â Interestingly, CeaseFire NJ doesn’t list itself as raising any money recently.Â Money is being raised by CeaseFire PA, however.Â I notice Bryan Miller hasn’t been very active on his blog recently.