Guns – Page 533 – Shall Not Be Questioned

False Hope

There’s been a lot of talk lately about the Hughes Amendment, which prohibited new machine guns to be transferred to civilians in 1986, that argues it was never properly passed. Now there’s video. The problem you run into with this line of thinking is that the Supreme Court follows the Enrolled Bill Doctrine.

So whether or not procedures and rules were followed really doesn’t matter. Hughes was in the enrolled bill, and thus the courts recognize it as law. This is as much a waste of time and energy as tax protesters arguing the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified.

Our Friends the Republicans

Apparently they are talking with the Administration about gun control. I am so glad we kicked those anti-gun Democrats out of Congress, let me tell you.

Remember, politicians have an overwhelming urge to appear to be doing something, and even though gun control is what you do instead of something, it’s easy for them to do. The question then becomes, what are we going to need to do to make this issue go away? One, call your Congressperson and tell them you want no more gun laws. Make that crystal clear. The more Congress hears from gun owners, the more you’re helping NRA’s federal lobbyists either stop this outright, or mold it into something that’s harmless, like with the NICS Improvement Act last time through. If we’re silent, we’re going to get something rammed down our throats that we’re not going to like.

Shift in Gun Debate

Daniel Webster, co-director of the Joyce funded “Center for Gun Policy and Research” at Johns Hopkins, admits that current strategies for defecating on our Second Amendment rights aren’t working, and aren’t spurring the right kind of debate. He believe we need to look for new, and innovative ways to defecate on Second Amendment rights, such as raising the age at which you can buy a gun, or denying Second Amendment rights based on some measure of precognition (precrime?). As to the age, raise it to what? It’s already 21. 25? 35? Is this a right or a privilege?

The Sting

Like jilted lovers, the Brady Campaign is pretty clearly reeling from Obama not mentioning gun control, with only some vague promises from Administration officials that gun control is coming in a later speech, no doubt to a much smaller and more politically focused argument. Just keep looking at the pictures of Bill Clinton you keep on your desks, and dreaming of better days. That’s my advice. Remember the good times.

In the mean time, it has to hurt even more that Chuck Schumer, of all people, is defending the President for leaving gun control out, saying “One of the reasons there’s less impetus for gun control is the success we had in the ’90s.” Which I think he’s exactly right about. They’ve moved the issue forward to the point where the vast majority of Americans are comfortable with where the law is, and to the extent they might think certain other measures are a good idea, they aren’t really motivated to do much to drive those measures forward. Perhaps the Brady Act was all they were ever meant to achieve.

Sad Panda Icon courtesy of Sharp as a Marble

Like Vultures

Looks like MAIG has been busy trying to recruit from the victims of Tucson. This is a classic tactic of gun control groups, because without victims, where would they be?

If your mayor is on this WaPo ad, e-mail him or print him out a copy, and ask why he’s appearing in a major national newspaper supporting new gun control.Â I’d bet money that Bloomberg never got their approval to use their names. Let’s turn the pressure back up on this weasel group. There are a LOT of Pennsylvania mayors on this list, and no politician liked being used this way.

Millions Spent, And Nothing Gained

If I had access to the kind of money that Bloomberg has flushed down the toilet on his MAIG project, I could probably cure, or find a fairly good treatment for a few diseases that kill a lot more people than guns do. I’m not kidding on that count either, for those of you who know what industry I work in.

But yet he keeps trying, and even the New York Times notes it doesn’t amount to much. They note these fights are long, and they are. Expensive too. It’s a waste what both side spend on this issue. I think what really pisses me off, when you look at the numbers, if they were really interested in saving lives, there are many other ways this money could be better spent. Adam Smith said there was “a lot of ruin in a nation,” and that’s certainly true in this issue.

Whatever you may say about Bill Gates, he’s at least trying to find a way to help the developing world deal with the scourge of malaria. What’s Bloomberg doing? Spending millions trying to remove the freedoms of Americans. Whether that’s the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, or put salt on their food. When it comes to spending money where it counts, Bill Gates has the right idea. Bloomberg is a self-serving demogauge, and a disgusting creature. I’ll cheer the day his term is up and he departs the national stage.

Gun Control Speech Coming?

The real question here is whether they intend to follow through, and in what context? And how soon? After Obama is hopefully not re-elected? Allahpundit notes:

Lots of lip service to the Second Amendment and Americaâ€™s fine hunting tradition, plenty of upfront concessions about not wanting to ban handguns, etc. He canâ€™t afford to be aggressive on this issue, after all: Even knowing that nothing will pass the House and end up on his desk, he has to be careful about alienating the sort of rural Democrats he needs to win states like Pennsylvania.

And it’s not just Pennsylvania on that count either. Though I take exception to this, quoted by Allahpundit:

He just doesnâ€™t have a big problem among the kinds of voters who support gun control: minorities, urbanites and white liberals. What he does have is a serious problem with gun control opponents, who are disproportionately white, male non-college educated and rural. They are, in other words, exactly the people with whom Barack Obama struggles, even compared to other Democrats. Thatâ€™s why Hillary Clinton beat him by ten points in the Pennsylvania and Ohio primaries and almost 40 points in the West Virginia primary.

Hillary beat him on guns? Really? What do you people smoke? And for the record, I’m suburban and college educated. I work in a knowledge industry doing what many working class Democratic families around here would not consider “real work.” It’s not like I’m a rarity in my field either. Allapundit closes with:

Maybe he was just telling Tingles what he wanted to hear?

I think this is the case. He might talk about it in later speeches. He certainly tiptoed around the issue in the memorial service a few weeks ago. I just don’t think Obama wants to ride this tiger before the 2012 elections.

SOTU Before it Happens

National Journal has a leak of the State of the Union address tonight. There is no talk of gun control in it whatsoever. Not even a platitude. It’s actually not a bad speech. This is probably as close as I’m going to get to wanting to give Barry O a high-five. As for the Brady Campaign and MAIG? Yeah, it’s that time again:

Drink up guys! You deserve it. Don’t fret over getting stiffed by the President too much. After all, if he had gotten behind new gun control, it would have fired up our base and made a fool of a number of Senate candidates who are up in 2012.

Crack Research From New York Times

I think I’m supposed to be horrified by this, but it actually makes me proud to be an NRA member. And if the Times wonders why we’ve prevented “research” into this, they answered their own question right here. It’s quite easy to make statistics say things they really don’t, and to draw inappropriate conclusions based on them.

I only use statistics for arguments sake. I could care less what the true causation is, because my rights aren’t subject to the outcome of any scientific paper, or statistical regression. If NRA is preventing my tax dollars from going to politically charged “research” ultimately aimed at undermining my constitutional rights, they are doing exactly what I want them to do.

Would we tolerate studies that show certain kinds of speech are dangerous, and contribute to crime, who’s conclusions implicate limitations on First Amendment rights? No. We shouldn’t tolerate it for the Second Amendment either.

More on the 28 Gauge Raging Judge

Mark Keefe of American Rifleman suggest that the 28 Gauge Raging Judge is not the target of the upcoming ATF announcement. I’m betting you can’t find a Saiga for sale anywhere currently.

UPDATE: I should mention I still don’t get how this isn’t a Title II firearm, given that it looks to have an overall length less than 26 inches, and the 28 gauge has a bore diameter of 0.550 inches. If it has a rifled barrel that large, it’s a destructive device. If it has a smooth barrel, even one that tapers down to under 0.5 inches, then it would still be an AOW. It would need a rifled bore that’s less than 0.5 inches. Can you get 28 gauge down that small?