Guns – Page 206 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Obama Issues Executive Orders to Screw Us

Well, Obama promises, and Obama delivers on when it comes to screwing gun owners. We have two new executive orders on guns. First:

Closing a Loophole to Keep Some of the Most Dangerous Guns Out of the Wrong Hands

Current law places special restrictions on many of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and short-barreled shotguns.Â These weapons must be registered, and in order to lawfully possess them, a prospective buyer must undergo a fingerprint-based background check.

However, felons, domestic abusers, and others prohibited from having guns can easily evade the required background check and gain access to machine guns or other particularly dangerous weapons by registering the weapon to a trust or corporation.Â At present, when the weapon is registered to a trust or corporation, no background check is run.Â ATF reports that last year alone, it received more than 39,000 requests for transfers of these restricted firearms to trusts or corporations.

Today, ATF is issuing a new proposed regulation to close this loophole.Â The proposed rule requires individuals associated with trusts or corporations that acquire these types of weapons to undergo background checks, just as these individuals would if the weapons were registered to them individually.Â By closing this loophole, the regulation will ensure that machine guns and other particularly dangerous weapons do not end up in the wrong hands.

The idea that criminals and other prohibited persons are using NFA trusts as a construct to skirt background checks is laughable. This is a middle finger extended in our direction, and not much more than that. How is this going to work? There are some corporations that legitimately own NFA firearms, such as museums. Does everyone in the corporation have to go through the FBI fingerprint check? Does each person in the corporation or trust have to undergo LEO signoff? There’s a lot of devil that will be in the details here. But that’s not all:

Keeping Surplus Military Weapons Off Our Streets

When the United States provides military firearms to its allies, either as direct commercial sales or through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs, those firearms may not be imported back into the United States without U.S. government approval.Â Since 2005, the U.S. Government has authorized requests to reimport more than 250,000 of these firearms.

Today, the Administration is announcing a new policy of denying requests to bring military-grade firearms back into the United States to private entities, with only a few exceptions such as for museums.Â This new policy will help keep military-grade firearms off our streets.

Yeah, surplus military weapons sold after the era of the M1 are going to be machine guns are aren’t re-importable already by statute. What Obama is keeping out here are historical pieces like the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine. This is also just a way to put the screws to us.

Keep it up Mr. President. We’ll keep defeating you, boxing you into a corner, and otherwise destroying your agenda. You can lash out at us in a childish tantrum all you want. In the end we will prevail over you.

UPDATE: Looks like the AP is already helping the Administration spin this as the greatest thing since sliced bread rather than the load of horse shit it really is.

UPDATE: John Lott takes the AP to task.

A Non-Gun Owner Reviews Top Shot

This piece in Slate from a non-gun owner who claims he doesn’t know many gun owners is an extremely positive review of Top Shot. He highlights what’s great about the show, mainly that they focus on true competition judged solely by documented performance rather than some arbitrary opinion or rating from a so-called expert.

But, he really emphasizes the importance of shows like this post-Newtown.

For people like me, who neither own a gun nor know very many people who do, the show helps counteract some of the most extreme, uninformed stereotypes that many liberals and urbanites have about â€œgun guys.â€ The show clearly demonstrates something that often gets lost in the heat of the gun control debate: that gun owners arenâ€™t all crazy survivalists or slavering right-wing fanatics. A lot of them are just reasonable, responsible sportsmen who enjoy shooting guns because shooting guns can be a lot of fun.

You really should go read the whole article, even if you’re not that into the show. It’s a very eye-opening piece on many levels of the gun debate.

It almost makes me regret not having cable since it means we can’t easily tune in.

Guns Offer No Protection

An anti-gun gun group wants everyone to know that guns don’t really protect you from criminal assault. Really. Miguel says that this new incredible tip from the anti-gun groups must be spread far and wide, and he’s going to start helping them out:

I am sending this to every law enforcement department in the nation and to the Defense Department too. Weâ€™ve been doing it wrong all this time!

In a monthâ€™s time, every cop in the nation will be carrying a rubber ducky instead of a sidearm. â€œStop or Iâ€™ll squeak!â€ will be the new call to armsâ€¦wait, not armsâ€¦ oh hell, never mind.

Maryland Training Requirements Released

It would appear that Maryland gun owners may no longer casually introduce friends to shooting and firearms safety. From the Maryland State Police:

Unless otherwise exempted, a person may not purchase, rent, or receive a handgun unless they possess a valid Handgun Qualification License (H.Q.L.) issued by the Maryland Department of State Police. Unless otherwise exempted, prior to submitting an application for an H.Q.L. or Handgun Wear/Carry Permit, applicants must complete a firearmâ€™s safety training course by an approved and registered Qualified Handgun Instructor.

The Firearmâ€™s Safety Training Course, for the Handgun Qualification License, shall consist of a minimum of four (4) hours of instruction and affirms the applicantâ€™s safe operation of the firearm which requires firing at least one round of ammunition.

I’m not sure what all the exemptions are, but one would assume that at least one is this formal class since firing a round would require “receiv[ing]” a gun. Otherwise, it would be impossible to meet the training requirements.

Though NRA-certified instructors are eligible to become Qualified Handgun Instructors, they are now required to develop a brand new course curriculum rather than strictly use NRA’s curriculum. NRA’s training division highlights at least one concern on this front since the new curriculum requirements involve teaching legal issues in firearms ownership. This comes from an email sent to certified instructors:

…there is a requirement that instruction must be given on Maryland state law pertaining to firearms and self-defense. Rendering legal advice or interpretation is a task for attorneys, and instructors who are not licensed to practice law may wish to seek legal advice regarding the limits of what they can do in this regard.

So now instructors, in addition to registering with the state for new qualifications and developing a brand new curriculum, must now also consult with an attorney to help them write up their new class contents. That will drive up their costs, and that will likely be passed on to students. Now Maryland has successfully made basic safety training more expensive and harder to teach.

One of the interesting aspects of their requirement to develop a new curriculum is that NRA requires that you not call something an NRA class if you’re not following the NRA curriculum. (That was part of the instructor class when I took it years ago.) That effectively means that people just coming into the shooting sports will no longer associate the NRA brand with teaching firearms safety courses.

If you really want to look at an ultra-creepy perspective, this training database means that Maryland will not only have information on gun owners in the state, but they will also be keeping a list of everyone who even learns how to fire a gun.

Intermediate Scrutiny Bleg

Dave Kopel is looking for papers, treatises or law review articles on Intermediate Scrutiny, which I can only surmise is for something related to the Second Amendment, since that seems to be the preferred method of review by the federal courts, and the most common method for essentially denying the Second Amendment really means anything, I think this is an important topic. If you have any advice for Dave, leave a common over at the first link. I don’t really know of anything helpful, so all I really had to offer was snark.

Defining Women Down to their Girly Parts

Sebastian sent me this press release from Moms Demand Action that says they plan to make their new efforts follow a back to school theme. They will promote a website that tries to convince anti-gun people not to allow their children onto the campuses of colleges that have to allow the presence of firearms. They are promoting CVS and Costco as stores that should be applauded for banning licensed concealed carry holders from their stores, and asking their members to buy their school supplies there.

But I think what I find truly offensive about their press release is the fact that they claim women really only have a moral authority to talk about guns if they have used their reproductive organs to procreate.

I might be one of those crazy feminists who believes that defining women only by their decisions on whether or not to reproduce or telling women that the only body part they should be depending on to make political decisions is a bad thing and a step backwards to times when a woman was judged largely on her status in the home and as a bearer of a man’s babies. But, you know, war on women–or something…

Oh, and their new corporate target is Staples since it has no company wide policy banning all guns. (There are apparently stores that do it, and they have a state policy in Arizona banning them, but they are allowed in some stores in some states. But nothing short of a nationwide gun ban is good enough for Moms Demand Action.)

A Nearly Fatal Failure in the Victim Selection Process

Don’t bring a taser to a gunfight. I’d also direct your attention to the 911 call at the bottom, as a good example of reacting well under stress. In a 911 call, you should tell them you need a police officer and ambulance, because someone has been shot. They will ask you if you’re the shooter. Just tell them to get help on the scene quickly. This guy did that. Your next call needs to be to your attorney.

Looks like the kid is going to be OK. Hopefully this turns into a valuable lesson for him.

Middle Grounds and Gun Control

Is there a middle ground on gun control?Â I often get annoyed with people who write about “middle ground”, because they often have a poor understanding of what that means. Where we stand right now is the much sought after “middle ground” on gun control, and we arrived here through struggle. But the article linked isn’t one of those simple minded articles on the topic, and makes a good argument that the other side overreached, while our side played the issue fairly pragmatically. I think that’s a correct assessment. But I’m also not sure they could have played it any other way.

The gun control proponents thought Sandy Hook was a bigger game changer than it really was. Within days of it happening it was pretty apparent from their cocky rhetoric many of them believed that happy days were once again upon them, and they would soon sweep us into the dustbin of history. What they weren’t expecting was such a strong mobilization by our grassroots. They got greedy in their demands, and we can be very very thankful for the overreach of our opponents. The prospect of far ranging bans on long guns, considerably more far broader than was achieved in 1994, were a big part of what helped mobilize the troops, andÂ allowed us to stop everything outright.

Even the Toomey-Manchin compromise, which was at best a half-loaf for the other side, wasn’t destained to become the new middle ground on the issue. When people are paying attention, it’s easier to reach them with useful information about what the bills actually do. If the other side were only interested in more background checks, and were willing to give and take in order to get them, they’d be hard to defeat. But background checks are no more than flowery rhetoric to effectively carry a laundry list of other, more draconian regulation. But do the gun control folks have a choice, really?

Ultimately, it all boils down to bodies and dollars. Gun control activists and donors aren’t going to keep campaigning or writing checks to get more background checks. Their activists and donors don’t want to hear that gun bans are off the table. They don’t want to hear that registration is politically unpopular. The last thing they’d want to do is concede their most effective rhetorical tool for what to them is nothing. If background checks can’t be used to carry other restrictions, what good are they?

9th Circuit Says No on Firearms Freedom Act

The suit to defend the Montana Firearms Freedom Act has gone down to defeat in the 9th Circuit. Given the precedent in Gonzales v. Raich, this idea was never really going to fly. It’ll be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to take the case, but I don’t give that much of a chance. There were several other states that passed laws like this as well. Post Sandy Hook, there was also a movement to do outright nullification, with our state’s introduced legislation being HR357. I’ve also become aware of local efforts at the county level to do the same.

I think it’s important for people to be aware of what these laws do. The Freedom Acts, like Montana’s, really don’t have much more than symbolic value. They aren’t going to stop, and in fact can’t stop the federal government from the execution of federal law and regulations. You won’t be able to manufacture a machine gun, or any gun, in Montana and them wave a state law in their face and suggest they can’t arrest you and prosecute you. You’ll quickly find that is not the case.

The nullification laws, at the state level, could in theory do some good under dire circumstances. This is because states are actual sovereigns, and can pass real laws and control real monies. If the federal government were to pass draconian new gun control, it would be tremendously beneficial for the states to have laws that prevent state authorities from enforcing the federal law. If a state wanted to take nullification farther and actively interfere with federal enforcement, that could also be useful (though dangerous — civil wars can start that way.) I’m far less convinced that local action on this kind of nullification is anything more than empty symbolism, because county and local government typically don’t have the lawmaking power necessary to do anything substantive.

These are just things to consider when judging whether to get behind laws like this with serious resources. I tend to think nullification is more useful than Firearms Freedom Acts, but nullification is something to save for when we actually lose, or loss appears likely. I would suggest that resources are best applied to not losing in the first place.

It’s good to be vigilant, but …

A few readers have sent me links to this proposal by a few Democratic Congress Critters that proposes to impose a severe tax on handguns and ammunition. There is legislation introduced all the time in Congress to do all kinds of unspeakable thinks to all kinds of rights, including your Second Amendment rights. The vast majority of them are going nowhere.

When a bill gets introduced to Congress, which any Congressman can do, it first gets referred to committee, which is where the vast majority of bills sit ignored until they die when that session of Congress comes to an end. There are a few things to watch. One thing to watch for is the cosponsor count. HR.3018 is currently sitting at a whopping one co-sponsor. Another thing to watch is whether it gets scheduled for any kind of hearing. Generally speaking, the committee won’t waste its time with a bill that only has one co-sponsor. Only 11% of bills ever made it through the committee process, and only 3% of introduced legislation actually gets enacted.

I’d also add that, while this doesn’t mean as much as it should, it’s generally accepted in current court doctrine on treatment of fundamental rights, that you can’t tax the exercise of those rights. Even the Pittsman-Robertson excise tax is questionably constitutional, let alone this. While I don’t really expect the courts to ever save us, this would be stronger ground to fight on in court than the many other things our opponents can do to us.

All this combined means HR.3018 is something to watch, but it’s probably nothing to panic about.