The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
ATF has opened up a public comment period on its shotgun study:
You can comment on the report by e-mail to shotgunstudy@atf.gov or by fax to (202)648-9601. The deadline for comments is May 1, 2011.
We should be sure we’re heard from, but I’d limit responses to productive feedback. Remember that they are not lawmakers. They can’t just repeal laws. But they can sure as hell interpret the sporting purposes clause very broadly, if they wish.
Oleg Volk is trying to raise money for Heller II, or perhaps we should call it Hellerbound: Hellerraiser II. Sorry, Uncle flipped the cheesy switch with his amply appropriate alliteration.
UPDATE: PayPal Link here. Sorry folks, doesn’t look like they have money for a good web developer either :)
UPDATE: According to Oleg and Dick Heller in the comments below, they have secured volunteer services of a web designer.
UPDATE: For those who might feel more comfortable donating to the Civil Rights Defense Fund, just follow the link. They are helping support Mr. Heller’s case as well.
From American taxpayers. Interior seems to have rolled over on this. And none of our civil rights lawyers have gotten paid yet.
The Washington Post is reporting up to 30%. This is, naturally, making our opponents quite upset. Times are tough, and cuts have to be made, and I think it’s fine for taxpayers to demand they get their money’s worth from federal law enforcement dollars. As previously mentioned, I don’t think gun laws qualify.
Michael Bane thinks this might be the start of other shotgun rulings. It’s certainly possible, but the root problem is how to interpret the sporting purposes clause. Congress wrote a bad law, which is bound to lead to poor interpretations of it. ATF’s assertion, at it’s core, is that there would be hardly anything that wouldn’t be importable if IPSC and IDPA were considered to have a sporting purpose, and thus it would render meaningless something Congress clearly intended to have meaning.
There’s two thinks I think we need to advocate here. One is that the sporting purposes clause be eliminated. The second is that destructive devices are increased to any firearm firing fixed ammunition with a bore diameter of greater than one inch. This is hardly radical, since the UK allows shotguns up to two inches, and doesn’t have any overall restriction on bore size. At the very least, we should demand any shotgun be legal outright, not under exception.
The House Judiciary Chairman is saying no on hearings on gun control. I guess the GOP is good for something at least.
Provided to us courtesy of Mayor Bloomberg:
Investigator: “So, you’re not one of those, you know, dealer guys, right?â€
Seller: “No. No tax, no form, you don’t have to do transfers or nothing.â€
Investigator: “Yeah, yeah.â€
Seller: “Just see an Arizona ID and that’s it with me.â€
Investigator: “So no background check?â€
Seller: “No.â€
Investigator: “That’s good, because I probably couldn’t pass one, you know what I mean?â€
The seller sold the gun for $500.
This transaction is already a felony under existing federal law. Why is this a case for new laws? If the guy’s going to sell the gun anyway, is he going to give a crap if the law requires a background check on top of it? More from John Richardson here. They keep saying these transactions are legal, but they aren’t.
Maine is one of the states the antis have been trying to turn to their side for years. It looks like we barely missed getting a magazine ban discharged to the floor by a 5 to 5 vote. I would suggest that if our opponents don’t have the juice in Maine, the prospects for stopping the federal magazine ban are pretty good. Still, I wouldn’t take anything for granted in this environment.
FYI, Maine’s NRA State Liaison is John Hohenwarter, who we interviewed here a few months ago, in regards to Pennsylvania matters. This is a significant victory for us, but you can bet they aren’t going to give up after this setback.