Guns – Page 233 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Things I Didn’t Know

For something work related, I was looking up the color codes of the activation temperature for automatic sprinklers, and found this tidbit I didn’t know:

In 1812, British inventorÂ Sir William CongreveÂ patented a manual sprinkler system using perforated pipes along the ceiling. When someone noticed a fire, a valve outside the building could be opened to send water through the pipes.^[3]

A large furniture factory had repeatedly burned down, andÂ Hiram Stevens MaximÂ was consulted on how to prevent a recurrence. As a result, Maxim invented the first automatic fire sprinkler. It would douse the areas that were on fire, and it would report the fire to the fire station. Maxim was unable to sell the idea elsewhere, but when the patent expired the idea was used.^[4]^[5]

Of course, Hiram Stevens Maxim is well known for another invention, which many of us are familiar with. A whole generation of unlucky Europeans, some Americans, Canadians and Australians, became unfortunately familiar with Maxim’s other invention as well, when they went over the top and were cut to pieces.

The Hackable Gun

I don’t fundamentally have a problem with the market offering solutions like this one, to allow users to track and disable their gun if it’s stolen, like you would a smart phone. My only concern over the development is that it will soon become mandated, because on my own, I would never buy one.

For one, it’s useless. A firearm is a mechanical device. Any disabling technology could easily be circumvented. The article brings up an example of OnStar, but most cars these days have electronic ignition, and a car can essentially be made into a brick just by the car’s computer refusing to operate the ignition (and there are ways around that, still). Firearms use mechanical ignition. Electronic ignition has been tired, but it was very unreliable. Any “safety” which causes the gun to be disabled electronically could easily be re-enabled by anyone with enough mechanical aptitude to change a car tire. The only way you could successfully disable a gun is by destroying the mechanical parts. If this “smart gun” activated some thermite and seized up the lockwork, maybe it could work. Of course, I’m not sure how safe that would be under ordinary circumstances, and it wouldn’t be too long before Cletus burns the house down because he misplaced his gun and thought it might be stolen. That’s not even considering whether you could hack the device. Even if you could make a gun that had reliable electronic ignition, there would be ways around it. Guns are much simpler than cars. I tend to view that “smart gun” technology, even if it were made to be reliable enough, would only really be useful for reducing the already low number of accidents. We’d be better developing smart plastic buckets and smart bath tubs if it’s really lives that are the main concern here. Smart guns wouldn’t do anything to hinder criminals.

There’s a lot of hand wringing by the folks who dislike gun ownership over the fact that guns are dangerous, and can’t really serve their intended purpose without being dangerous. There are no safe guns, there are only safe users.

More Court Challenges

The Connecticut gun control package is going to be challenged in Court.Â It’s not just Connecticut, but Maryland too. I don’t honestly have much faith in the Courts to do the correct thing in these cases, but circumstances would seem to have forced the issue front and center. I’ve mentioned before, I feel much more comfortable with SAF’s strategy of carefully pressing issues one-by-one, but it’s not clear whether a carry case is going to reach the Supreme Court, given they’ve turned down cert from two appeals in two circuits now, and now Illinois is changing its law.

The Final Offer

A lot of folks are upset that a deal has been reached over the CCW issue in Illinois. It would seem neither side likes the deal. But the leadership of the Illinois Legislature has essentially signaled this is as far as they’ll go, and if we walk away, they’ll shove a may-issue bill with gun bans down our throats. Note the GSL source:

There is no June 9th cliff.

We donâ€™t have enough votes willing to go over the cliff.Â Not even close.

We do have the latest bill submitted by Brandon Phelps.

Put your drink down and take a deep breath.

Go ahead and start your deep breathing relaxation exercises.Â Seriously.

In fact, you might want to pour yourself about three fingers of your favorite adult beverage and get a good start on it before reading further.

Iâ€™ll wait.

Read the whole thing. A lot of people didn’t understand why there was even negotiation over a shall-issue bill, believing constitutional carry was in the cards if Illinois defied the court. That was always a pipe dream. If they had passed a may-issue bill, a lot of the issues would have had to be re-litigated, and Madigan would have been in a more comfortable position. I also think the deal sets us up for long-term success. Also from GSL:

It also has across the board pre-emption on all local firearm regulations and restrictions.

Chicagoâ€™s gun registration regime?Â Gone.

Chicagoâ€™s ban on mags, lasers, etc.?Â Buh bye.

Cook Countyâ€™s black gun ban?Â History.

Local â€œsafe storageâ€ ordinances?Â Into the dustbin of history.

It also means we only need a simple majority to tweak it in coming years, not a 3/5ths majority.

Yes, weâ€™re actually REPEALING so-called assault weapons bans and gun registration programs in post-Sandy Hook America.Â Â Heck, weâ€™re doing it in one of the bluest states in the nation.

Getting rid of the supermajority requirement will be a big deal, because that’s been the primary obstacle to getting shall-issue in Illinois. My only concern would be, as I understand it, whether a supermajority is required is really at the discretion of the leadership. What’s to prevent them from imposing it anyway? I can’t find anything in the rather lengthy bill stipulating that for future amendments.

My feeling is that it’s a shall-issue bill, with preemption. It’s the final offer from the leadership. I’d take the deal and then work to improve the bill through legislation, and I’d re-litigate over the steep fees and argue that many of the places you’re prohibited from carrying are not “sensitive places” per the Heller decision. I’m also guessing this will mean that the Moore/Shepherd case will not be appealed to the Supreme Court, which begs the question, will the Court take a carry case? Maybe not.

Illinois Republicans Going Soft on Guns?

Looks that way. Too many Republicans think there is a middle ground on this issue. There isn’t. It’s either you throw your lot in with us, or you throw it in with the gun control people. The gun control people will never vote for you, no matter how much gun control you vote for, and I have better things to do than vote or volunteer for Republicans who support mag bans. The only middle ground is not signaling you’re a whackjob on the issue. At this point, supporting concealed carry and opposing magazine bans does not make one a whack job. Those are mainstream positions.

Right to Keep and Bear Drones?

A discussion in U.S. News and World Report. It’s an interesting question. If an arm is protected by the Second Amendment, how much does it matter how you bear it? But it also raises a question of how useful a drone is for self-defense. If the drone is bearing the arm, how is whatever you’re targeting a threat to you? But if your government decided to start stuffing people into cattle cars, I can imagine and armed drone would be damned useful.

I would be quite surprised to see the courts adopt a Second Amendment rationale for drones, but to be honest, I’m not sure how much it matters. If you can play with drones, and play with guns, putting guns on drones if the shit hits the fan isn’t much of a stretch. I’m not sure arming drones with firearms is even really the best use of them, even in a dire situation, like a government stuffing citizens into cattle cars.

Zimmerman Case Apparently Disintegrating

[UPDATE: Article is a year old. I’m pretty sure I got this one from Google, which sometimes resurfaces old material. I usually catch it, but sometimes if it was a year ago, similar date, I miss that the year is off. This is one of those cases.]Â Via Human Events:

As Dershowitz points out, the evidence released in this case means Floridaâ€™s â€œStand Your Groundâ€ law isnâ€™t even a factor in Zimmermanâ€™s defense.Â Much political hay has been made out of this law, but if Zimmerman was on the ground getting beaten to a pulp, withdrawal from the encounter was physically impossible for him.Â â€œA defendant, under Florida law, loses his â€˜stand your groundâ€™ defense if he provoked the encounter,â€ observes Dershowitz, â€œbut he retainsÂ traditional self-defenseÂ if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.â€

That’s what we’ve been saying all along. The whole “stand your ground” nonsense was ginned up by political opportunists.

Enough for a News Dump?

Thanks to an embroiled Obama Administration, gun news has just about dried up. But there’s still some talk on guns.

Are ‘smart guns’ a smart way to approach gun control? There’s a poll.

Lawyers.com says to expect more 2nd Amendment fights, and outlines some circuit splits.

Forbes does a really good article on how O’Malley’s gun control is anti-business. Anti-gun groups are running ads to praise O’Malley.

Josh Horwitz, Executive Director of Coalition to Stop Gun Ownership, is starting to sound as unhinged as Joan Peterson. Probably because CSGV is increasingly irrelevant. Bloomberg is gun control’s future.

A gun safe monitoring system. Hey, I think I could use this.

The hazards of cheap ARs.

Have you written thank you letters to your Senators? Well, we Pennsylvanians get out of that task, but I like the idea of thanking Beretta. I think I might thank them by buying one of their products.

A lot of folks in Illinois wants to know who is footing the bill for this lobbying effort.

Statistics, they are what’s for dinner when it comes to background checks. Clayton also has a paper out, which I’ve had in my tabs for weeks now, but I haven’t gotten around to reviewing.

I recently added Glenn Reynold’s paper too, but I’ll link that as well, since I shouldn’t kid myself these days about how much time I have to read things that take careful reading.

Mom’s Demand Action for Gun Sense Bans is going to attempt to pressure a number of companies to treat gun owners like second class citizens. I’ll put Starbucks, Walmart, Cabela’s, Wyndam, and National Car Rental on notice now that I boycott companies that treat me like a pariah.

Cabela’s we probably don’t have to worry about, because they are doing quite well in the Great Obama Gun Panic. Lots of positive articles coming out of Forbes these days.

NY SAFE is looking to be a real cluster as there seems to be no guidance for how to implement it.

Bill Maher is apparently a world class hypocrite. A lot of these celebrities and talking heads are.

Apparently the left doesn’t like the idea that there shouldn’t be any such thing as second class civil rights.

Well, that’s it until next time. As I said, the news cycle is scandal, scandal, and more scandal. And Tornados. But I had more stuff than I thought I did.

Well, The Great Obama Gun Panic is Over for Me

The last of my contribution to the panic buying has come in:

PanicBuy

That’s about all the panic I could muster. Brownell’sÂ finally shipped the last of my backorder from January and it arrived yesterday. I actually did not own a PMAG before the Great Panic, though I have many green follower magazines, most of them Brownell’s manufacturers, but I also have a few from other sources. Still have a ten round steel magazine from the ten years of darkness.

Coming at us Again in Illinois

A magazine ban is on the move. They are also, once again, trying to weasel out of the court order by passing some form of permitting system that will allow cronies of the Chicago political machine to carry, but probably not anyone else. The bill is SB1002.