The mouth foamers over at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence are objecting to Andrew Branca apparently speaking anywhere. His sin? He believes that the rule of law prevailed in the Trayvon Martin case. For a coalition of supposedly peace-loving organizations, the folks who run CSGV sure are a bunch of hate filled, narrow minded goons who try their best on a daily basis to shut down the free exchange of ideas. If gun control is such a good idea, why are they so afraid of debating the issues on their merits in an open and free manner?
Category: Guns
On Witch Hunts
In regards to the whole Brendan Eich’s purging from the Mozilla Foundation, Tam notes that we’ve engaged in a good bit of that type of thing in our community. In fact, a very sharp analogy to the Brendan Eich situation is one that had its genesis with this very blog. But I do think it’s a bit different. If Eich had been the CEO of a gay dating site, and had spoken in favor of Prop 8 in the media, and then his donations to anti-gay candidates was uncovered, I would, of course, fully expect the gay community to eat him alive. They’d actually be fools if they let that slide.
What happened to Eich would be more the equivalent to us discovering that say, Roku’s CEO had once donated a few thousand bucks to a pro-gun control PAC*. That would generally not register very high on our giveashitometer as a community. What we tend to get really outraged over are members of the community betraying us; we don’t like turncoats. For people who just disagree with us, we’re more likely to argue to the point our opponents are ready sharpen a pencil to gouge out their ears, or defenestrate their Internet router, than we are to try to ruin their personal lives. I wouldn’t say we’re totally incapable of the same kind of mob mentality, but I’d say on the whole, most of us don’t have time for that kind of crap.
* Just using that as a hypothetical example. I don’t even know who their CEO is, let alone his voting or donating habits.
Latest on EP Armory 80% Lower Receiver
ATF has ruled that it is a firearm, despite the inclusion of a biscuit in the fire control well, which the rest of the receiver is injection molded around. You can find the determination letter here.
Unlike “castings” or “blanks” which are formed as a single piece so that a fire-control cavity has not been made, EP Arms uses the biscuit specifically to create that fire-control cavity during the injection molding process. As described in your letter, it appears that the sole purpose of the “biscuit” is to differential the fire-control area from the rest of the receiver and thus facilitate the process of making the receiver into a functional firearm. ATF has long held that “indexing” of the fire-control area is sufficient to require classification as a firearm receiver. Based upon the EP Arms manufacturing process, it is clear that the “biscuit” serves to index the entire fire-control cavity from the rest of the firearm so that it may be easily identified and removed to create a functional firearm.
Keep in mind that courts are generally highly deferential to agency determinations, so I wouldn’t give this much of a chance in court. But it’s noteworthy that ATF has “long held” that indexing constitutes creating a receiver. Where in the Federal Register can that be found? Can’t find anything in the code of federal regulations either. It’s probably found in other determination letters. This isn’t rule of law, it’s rule by bureaucratic whim.
“I just don’t see how people can grab a shotgun and rack it and stand on their front porch…”
Those words came from a New Jersey Police Chief who was appalled that, as his officers acted in a way that made a family believe their house was being broken into during a search of the surrounding property, a man grabbed his shotgun and went to check things out to make sure he and his parents weren’t in danger. Even though he never shot anyone, and he appears to have handled the situation reasonably when he believed the safety of his family was in danger, the police arrested him and wanted to put him away for 10 years.
Fortunately, a New Jersey jury acquitted him of the charges.
When someone linked this on Facebook, another person noted that this man was following the first few steps of our Vice President’s advice. He said you should grab your shotgun, load it, and go up to the door. The difference is that this man knew better to actually identify a threat rather than just shooting randomly, as the Vice President encourages people to do.
New York’s Softening Anti-Gun Views
Because I know that the NYC Mayor would hate to be considered a hypocrite who only serves his political allies when it comes to leniency, I’m quite confident that he will tell the NYPD to go easy the next time a tourist accidentally breaks one of the extreme gun laws. It would only be the right thing to do since he’s currently accusing India of having an “ulterior motive” as they enforce their strict gun/ammunition laws on a NYPD officer who was caught in illegal possession over there because he “forgot.”
And, I’m sure that Rep. Peter King who says that India’s desire to enforce their gun control laws is only a case that is “politically motivated” in order to extract retribution now understands the flaws in his gun control bill that would have given police the same incentives by banning anyone who is lawfully carrying from being pretty much on the same block as a government official.
Polling Shows Americans Favor Gun Rights
You would never have seen numbers like this in the mid-1990s. Most people seem to favor restrictions on felons and the mentally ill, but beyond that there’s sharp division. Even on this particular topic:
Just over half of Americans (53%) see a national registry of firearm owners as reasonable, while roughly half say the same of outlawing fully automatic firearms (49%). Fewer Americans favor limiting either clip sizes (41%) or the number of firearms an individual can own (34%).
So we’re not even at a bare majority on outlawing fully automatics these days? I remember when we were pushing 2/3rds of American supporting semi-auto bans (granted, likely out of confusion, but still) in the 1990s. The poll also still show that there’s a significant gap between Republicans and Democrats on this issue, though it’s worth noting you still have about 20% of Dems who aren’t too fond of more gun control.
If these numbers are real, you could very well see a major sea change in this issue once we’re rid of Obama.
Monday News Links
It’s Monday, and once again it’s time to free the tabs. I’m in the middle of working on a new blogging system with Bitter, so we can more easily share interesting stories, so she can share more of the editorial burden. There’s always a handful of stories I keep in the tabs that might illustrate some concept, or that merit more than just a link, and many that are just link worthy, because I don’t have much else to add. So on with not adding much:
Can we design around the SAFE act? Of course we can, but the result is the world’s ugliest rifle. Unfortunately for the antis, they are just as capable as what they banned. Dave Hardy also looks at the development of the pistol grip. Uncle: “They’re complying with the stupid law to show how stupid it is.”
While thousands of New Yorkers rallied outside against gun control, dozens of anti-gunners were inside calling for yet even more gun control in New York. But there’s no slippery slope or anything. That’s paranoid right-wing delusion.
Looks like someone let an NRA candidate questionnaire leak in Oregon.
If you can believe it, the California Democrats say the solution to Leland Yee running guns is to pass more bans. It’s hard to believe they can be this literally stupid. But if course that has to be the answer, because if people like Yee can still get illegal firearms, that calls into question the whole regime doesn’t it? Instapundit has more.
New study on concealed carry shows it deters murder. Meanwhile, in Chicago, crime continues to plummet, and we’ve had the first concealed carry holder defend himself. As Professor Reynolds is fond of saying: the science is settled!
The Tavor is selling well. It’s on my want list and I don’t really dig bullpups all that much.
“The only brave thing you did was leaving the house with that sweater.”
Scott Brown has a gun problem. Yeah, abandoning us sure helped him win re-election in Massachusetts, didn’t it? Sure as hell isn’t helping him now.
Lots of civil disobedience going on in New York too.
Civil Rights Victory in Kansas! This should probably dispel the myth that NRA doesn’t support open carry.
Mexicans exercising their fundamental human rights to self-defense and the tools to affect it.
Shannon Watts stigmatizes veterans with PTSD.
Proliferation of automatic weapons in Australia. Most of them home made. But they told me the idea that under very strict gun control, people would only make their own illegal guns, was right wing lunacy?
To be clear to fools and useful idiots like Bill Maher, it’s freedom I’m in love with, not the guns. If you believe in keeping something from me because it’s dangerous, you don’t really believe in freedom. You believe, in fact, that I’m an infant.
John Lott: Bloomberg’s fabricated numbers.
Josh Prince: “Does a PA Bar Applicant Have to Disclose that He/She Filed For or Obtained a License to Carry Firearms?”
As I noted last week, you can tell we’re getting back on track with moving forward because there’s more hysterical articles appearing in the media talking about blood in the streets if we get our way.
Off topic:
The Overprotected Kid. This is rather long, but worth reading. The play they are establishing in Wales is much like the play I grew up with, only way cooler. Much better than play dates and soccer practice.
Apple and Google’s wage-fixing scheme. I’m a long way off from suggesting tech workers need a union, but it would be nice to compete on a level playing field.
The rise and fall of professional bowling. Both my grandmother and mother were avid bowlers, and I used to watch professional bowling with my grandmother on ABC’s Wide World of Sports. I used to be an avid bowler myself, but a combination of time and a lack of places to bowl cheaply put a damper on it.
Pennsylvania’s Candidates Speak Out on Gun Control
Based on their 100% scores from Ceasefire PA, it appears that Allyson Schwartz and Katie McGinty haven’t met a gun control proposal they didn’t like. The “lowest” scoring Democrat on the ballot Tom Wolf who agreed with the gun control group almost 80% of the time. This marks a stark change from 2010 when the “lowest” scoring Democrat was against about half of the group’s policies.
I downloaded the report and will do a more thorough post on the exact issues the gubernatorial candidates want to see become the law of the land in Pennsylvania shortly. One of the delays in getting up a post about the top of the ticket statewide races has been watching the fallout after petitions went in. There have already been changes to the primary ballot with people dropping out, so I wanted to see what the playing field really looked like. Based on the quick look of the summary, pro-gun Democrats in the central part of the state need to start raising their voices – loudly – and start voting their gun rights if they don’t want to line up to turn them in, a serious policy proposal from a suburban Democrat in this state. This isn’t a “Philly” issue anymore. The anti-gun extremism is clearly spreading in Pennsylvania.
Malloy to NRA: Support Obamacare!
Governor Malloy of Connecticut is such a tool:
“There are those who will say this is not a gun problem, it’s a mental health problem, and today I want to challenge that,” he said. “If it’s a mental-health problem, NRA, why aren’t you advocating for the ACA? Why aren’t you criticizing governors who will not allow Medicaid to be delivered to their citizens, with its mental-health component? NRA, if you’re serious about making America safer, you would join Connecticut, as we have had one of the most successful rollouts of the ACA, bringing mental-health treatment to tens of thousands of people who might not otherwise have it.”
NRA’s single issue only intersects mental health when it comes to prohibition for gun ownership. There are other groups out there that advocate for mental health generally, and that is not, nor should it be the National Rifle Association. Also, and Malloy knows this, the issue is adjudication which is almost always a state, rather than a federal matter, and this problem is not really one that can be solved at the federal level.
I’d love to be able to serve Malloy’s political career up on a platter at the next election, but I’m concerned that Connecticut has become one of those states where Democrats could hold rallies at the Capitol where they’d strangle live puppies and still would get re-elected.
ATF 51P, Definition of Adjudicated, Deadline Tonight
I meant to get this out last week, but things were entirely too busy, so I’ll have to get it out now, with less analysis than I’d like, so people have a chance to make it in before the midnight deadline. ATF is proposing to alter the definition of what counts for the purposes of being adjudicated “mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution.” This has special concern for Pennsylvania gun owners, given ATF has begun counting 302 commitments for the purposes of such adjudication. The 302 commitment has absolutely no due process requirements at all. All it takes is basically a cop and the attending physician at the loony bin and you’ve got yourself a 302 prohibition both at the state and federal level.
I’d encourage folks to read Attorney Josh Prince’s submission regarding ATF 51P:
While the comment period closes on Monday, April 7, 2014, at midnight, we are requesting that our readers review our Comment, which can be downloadedhere, and submit Comments in support, especially in relation to 1) excluding those individuals, who where committed under the age of 18 from the purview of Section 922(g)(4); 2). excluding those individuals, who, post-commitment, served the state or federal government in a capacity where they were provided a firearm; 3). excluding those individuals, who, post-commitment, obtained Federal Explosives Relief; and 4). excluding any commitment that lack all of the due process guarantees. You can find our arguments relating to these issues and others in Section V (pg 34) of our Comment.
I’d also remind folks that this isn’t about whether or not mental health prohibitions should apply at all, that’s an argument that has to be made to Congress and not ATF, but we want ATF to interpret Section 922(g)(4) in a manner that’s respectful of due process and doesn’t strip the rights of Americans who present no danger to themselves or others.