Here We Go Again

This one almost flew under my radar screen, but fortunately, David Codrea picked it up before I missed it:

Hoping that the new Democratic state House will be more receptive to gun-control legislation, state Rep. Dwight Evans yesterday said he will reintroduce a series of gun bills that previously failed.
“We have 50 new members in the House who are not entrenched, who can listen to reason,” Evans, a Democratic candidate for mayor, said at a City Hall news conference attended by a crowd of state and local leaders.
“What we want is common-sense gun policies that can stop the flow of illegal guns on our streets,” said Evans.
The package of 13 bills, which he said he’d introduce on Feb. 22, includes proposals to limit gun purchases to one a month, to ban assault weapons statewide and to allow cities to enact their own gun laws.
If the new Democratic house passes any of this shit, you’ll be out so fast your heads will spin. When Evans’ steaming pile of gun control manure came forward last year, culminating in the Committee of the Whole meeting, which I traveled to Harrisburg to attend in September, there was overwhelming opposition to all the measures Evans and his gun control cohorts wanted. Again, Philadelphia politicians are failing to understand that the city has a criminal problem and not a gun problem. Pushing the gun angle is a way to make it look like they are doing something, but it’s a dodge because they have no political courage to actually tell people what the problem is and solve it.I’d really like not to have to travel to Harrisburg again this year, but I will if it becomes necessary. My state rep at the time, who I met in last years session, and was sympathetic to the cause, was unfortunately voted out this fall. My new state rep, who’s part of the new Democratic caucus in the house, got an A rating from the NRA during the campaign, and I will have to write to him to make sure that he lives up to rating. I didn’t vote for Mr. King, but I have nothing against him, and would be willing to become a supporter if he keeps good on his promises.

More XCR Gun Porn

Here’s some more neat footage of the XCR in action.  I mentioned that it could easily convert from 5.56x45mm to 7.62×39.  Here’s the procedure:


Firing 7.62x39mm


I really want one, but sadly I spent all my money on new Windows for the upstairs.

Give Bruce a Hand

The Ten Ring asks us to help out Bruce of mAss Backwards, who has recently escaped from the People’s Republic of Taxachusetts to Live Free or Die in New Hampshire. He’s looking to raise funds to buy himself an evil black rifle that would make Mayor Mumbles crap his pants. Maybe some of my Massachusetts and formerly Massachusetts readers would like a Live Free or Here T-shirt.

Depending on how well the fund raising goes, I have a great suggestion for a pretty sweet black rifle that I’ve been drooling over for quite some time. Robinson Arms XCR. Note how easy it is to switch from 5.56x45mm to 7.62x39mm. I haven’t shot one, but it looks pretty sweet. Bask in the glory:

Damn, we really need to figure out a way to get rid of The Hughes Amendment. They do make a civilianized semi-auto version though.

The Need to Work Together

SayUncle posts: The fudds are upset because they aren’t fuddy enough. I think we EBR folks need to have a sitdown with the fudds..

For my non gun blogging LiveJournal followers, Fudds are hunters, and EBRs are Evil Black Rifles. Hunters are a big component of the gun-rights movement, but traditionally they’ve been difficult to motivate in comparison to their numbers, and some are quite often willing to accept compromises that leave other types of gun owners hung out to dry.
I’m willing to make the Fudds a deal, that if they’ll go to war with me to help me keep my evil black rifles, I’ll go with them over preserving land use rules to favor hunting. Here’s the things the Fudds need to understand: your numbers are shrinking, and in a few generations there may be very few hunters left. You need us EBR types to fight along with you, but that means you need to fight with us, and not throw us under the bus every time Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein try to assure you they will never take your sniper..err.. I mean hunting rifle. But we EBR types need to understand that we need you too, so we’ll have to agree to fight to preserve hunting, even though that’s not important to us. We’ll also help fight off weenies like PETA. We may not agree on priorities, but we can probably at least agree that PETA deserves a kick in the nuts.
The gun control groups have long had wet and wild dreams about pulling hunters away from the gun rights movement. It’s mostly wishful thinking on their part, but it’s a fact that many hunters are difficult to motivate to care about gun rights. But we can probably seek comfort that the fake pro-gun groups run by the gun control movement will probably find it difficult to motivate the same people.

Cartoon of the Day

Sorry, but color, me, skeptical. The cartoon is right about one thing though. It’s not just Democrats that want to close the gun show “loophole”. It’s Republican Mike Castle of Delaware spearheading the effort! So Mike, if you or any of your staffers come across this post, I’d just like to point out how much you suck, and that I’m really glad I don’t live in Delaware.

National Reciprocity

Pro-Gun Progressive seeks some feedback on the issue of of National Concealed Carry Reciprocity:

Lots of folks on our side of the issue are wary of the Feds deciding who carries and who doesn’t, which doesn’t strike me as unreasonable. I think much of this stems from the fact that shall issue CCW laws have thankfully found their way on to the books in all but a handful of states. If you live in one of those states, you’ve already got what you want and would understandably not be all that eager to have the Feds step in. If you live in NJ, IL, MD, or NY, you might be a bit more willing to look to the Feds for some help.

I live in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, about 10 miles from Trenton. Needless to say, I conduct quite a lot of business in New Jersey, such as buying liquor and beer, but also other things, and I would dearly love not to have to think “I left the pistol at home right?”, every time I cross the border. It’s 7 years in prison over there for forgetting if you get pinched. It would also have been nice if, on my travel to Virginia last month, I didn’t have to stop at the Delaware/Maryland border, put my pistol and ammunition in separate locked hard sided containers to be FOPA compliant, only to reverse the process after crossing into Virginia 40 minutes later. People in The South and West (minus California), don’t have to worry about this, because you can drive for days without having to worry about the law changing remarkably. Criminals don’t have to worry about this either, because they don’t give a crap about the law.

So the law would benefit me, but I’m still opposed to it as it stands, because the federal government simply has no power under the commerce clause of the constitution to force one state to accept another state’s law, and the proposed bill that I saw relied on the fact that the gun once moved in interstate commerce as the hook to give Congress regulatory power. I’ve heard this called “The Herpes Theory” of the commerce clause, and I think Congress and the Courts should renounce it, because it obliterates the distinction between what is local and what is national, that the constitution was meant to preserve in the first place. It seemed that The Supreme Court in United States vs. Lopez had rejected this argument, but quite a lot of federal gun laws still rely on it. Given the Raich decision, perhaps The Court is retreating from Lopez, but I’d like to hope Raich was only a bump in the road toward a more limited reading of Congress’ commerce power.

So what national reciprocity would I support? I think Congress could use two powers to allow it. It could use it’s militia powers to allow any licensed person to carry anywhere in the US as a national defense measure. In a world filled with asymmetrical warfare, this isn’t really such a far fetched notion. Alternately, the Fourteenth Amendment says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. … The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. … The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

So Congress can just declare the remaining state’s restrictive statutes null and void under the Fourteenth and Second Amendments, and be done with it.

But we all know that’s never going to happen. Considering how much federal gun laws are based on herpes commerce clause theory, I’m afraid I have to come out against this one even if it benefits us. Unless, of course, passing it makes The Court rediscover the wisdom they originally displayed in Lopez, and clearly retreat from the herpes theory once and for all.

Dinner Suggestions

Pop on over to see Bitter’s squirrel skinning video. Yum! I’ve been trying to convince my friend from Texas to come on to guest blog some fine squirrel recipes.

Having been born an raised in the Philadelphia suburbs, I can’t say I’ve ever looked at squirrel as a food source, but my friend from Texas assures me it’s very good, which prompted me to reply, “Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I’d never know ’cause I wouldn’t eat the filthy motherf****r.”

But maybe I’ll give it a chance next time I go down to visit her.

On Order

I just ordered a copy of Dave Hardy’s documentary In Search of the Second Amendment. I’m sure most of you gun bloggers already have ordered a copy (you have haven’t you?), but some of my LiveJournal folks might not have heard of it.

The title makes me think of Leonard Nimoy’s old PBS series “In Search Of…”, but I don’t think the documentary features a gun toting Mr. Spock. So head over and buy a copy if you’re interested. I know Dave has spent a lot of time and effort on it, so I expect it will be good.

An Open Letter to Congressman Fattah

Congressman Fattah,

I read today in the Philadelphia Daily News about your crime plan for Philadelphia which is summarized as:

More cops investigating illegal guns, better rewards for tips about dirty firearms, and extra surveillance cameras to catch gun-toting bad guys.

Those are the basics of mayoral candidate Chaka Fattah’s plan to fight illegal guns, which he will announce today at Mercy Hospital of Philadelphia.

Philadelphia does not have a gun problem, it has a criminal problem. Until you shift the focus away from the guns and toward violent individuals that are committing crimes, you’re going to keep having this problem. I am happy to see that you at least admit this:

The majority of guns used to kill people in Philadelphia and around the nation are illegal,” said Fattah, a Democratic congressman.

Which is true. So why does your Congressional record and public statements contain so much support for restricting lawful gun ownership? Also, how does “targeted gun officers” that “clear firearms off the streets.” help anything? I am in favor of adding more officers to the city streets, but they need to go after the criminals, not the guns. The guns are a symptom, not the cause of your city’s social ills. Even if all the guns could be cleared off the street, if you left the criminals, they will just get more guns and commit more crimes, leaving the city right back where it started.

I’d also like you to explain how “a network of 1,000 police video surveillance cameras throughout the city” would help catch “gun-toting bad guys”. I’m fairly certain that gun toting bad guys aren’t openly carrying firearms around the city, such that they would be caught on camera. I also hope you are aware that there are approximately 32,000 citizens in your city who are lawfully licensed to carry firearms for self-protection, and approximately similar numbers in all the suburban counties. I hope your “gun officers” will treat these people with the respect and courtesy that they deserve.

We all want to see Philadelphia become a safer place, but I’m disappointed you’re perpetuating the myth that guns cause crime. We all know that’s not true. I would encourage you to focus on the criminals, and on finding productive ways to bring jobs and people back into the city. Focusing your energy on inanimate objects is only distracting people from the real problem, and doing a disservice to the city you want to be mayor of.