Guns – Page 542 – Shall Not Be Questioned

More Stupid

My Google Alerts are on fire with a steady stream of stupidity from the media:

So why didn’t Arizona’s gun-toting populace and the push for more and deadlier guns protect anyone during Saturday’s rampage?

â€œPart of the problem is that police officers get extensive training,â€ begins Algonquin Police Chief Russell Laine. Before they are handed their guns, police officers undergo thorough background checks and psychological evaluations, unlike gun buyers in Arizona, Laine points out. Then cops get lots and lots of gun training.

Maybe the problem was there wasn’t anyone there with a gun? You know, just like the police can’t be everywhere at once. I don’t think anyone has suggested that an armed population is some kind of guarantee. But it makes the odds that someone will be around with a tool handy to deal with the situation more likely than zero.

It’s Heller‘s Fault!

So says Josh Horwitz, for the Coalition to Stop Gun Ownership:

This embrace of political violence has been part of far right wing ideology for decades, but was tamped down after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. It began to reemerge in 2008 with the Supreme Court’s landmark Second Amendment decision in D.C. v. Heller. In that 5-4 ruling, Justice Scalia overturned 200+ years of jurisprudence and parroted the National Rifle Association’s radical view of the Second Amendment, writing, “If… the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia… if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee — it does not assure the existence of a ‘citizens’ militia’ as a safeguard against tyranny.”

This radical idea — which completely ignores our Founders’ tough response to armed insurrectionists during Shays’ Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion — flowered even further after the election of our first African American president in November 2008.

It was Heller, obviously, that motivated we violent, racist gun owners. It amazes me how little they realize how deeply insulting this stuff is to a large segment of American society. And they wonder why they have no relevance in the debate. But as they say, never interrupt your enemy when they are in the process of making a mistake. Ooops, did I say enemy? I guess even I can’t help the eliminationist rhetoric can I?

National Review Speaking the Truth

They are definitely getting better about covering Second Amendment issues:

That is not hair-splitting, inasmuch as high-capacity magazines for Glocks were and are commonplace â€” almost as commonplace as Glocks themselves â€” and remained so even while their manufacture and importation were banned. Most Glock 9mm magazines are usable in any Glock 9mm pistol, regardless of model. Glock makes at least four different 9mm pistols at the moment â€” 9mm being one of the most common calibers â€” and a high-capacity magazine sold for almost any of those could have been used in the Glock 19. Third-party manufacturers make them as well, and have made them for years and years, meaning that AWB or no AWB, finding one is not very difficult. The only difference the AWB is likely to have made is that the shooter would have had a used magazine instead of a new one (assuming he did in fact have a new one), and he probably would have paid five bucks more for it.

Most of the magazines I own I bought during the ban. Most of the magazines I own hold more than ten rounds. With the exception of Glock factory mags, which did get more expensive during the ban, prices were unaffected. Magazines are and were always plentiful. Glock aftermarket magazines were still cheap during the ban. There’s good evidence the shooter used an aftermarket magazine.

3310.12

That’s the ATF designation for the multiple sale form for long guns that ATF is going to unlawfully insist dealers use. It won’t include having to send a copy to local law enforcement. After all, this is only meant to feather the nests of federal bureaucrats, not county sheriffs.

Concealed Carry Among Lawmakers

Like you and me, only better.

So Much Media BS. So Little Time.

The media garbage about the Tucson tragedy is piling up. The New York Times, apparently never having heard of Heller, claims that Glocks are a problem, despite the fact that if any gun would be the poster child for Heller’s “common use” test, it would be the Glock. They talk about what would have happened if he had been carrying a “regular pistol,” because in the New York Times’ vast ignorance of this topic, they have no idea a Glock is a “regular pistol.”

The News room of the Sacramento Bee, another den of ignorance on this issue, says it’s Arizona’s weak gun laws to blame. I’d be surprised if there was a state that would have rejected this guy. The man simply did not have a prior criminal or mental health history prior to this incident. For absolutely sure, in Pennsylvania he would have been able to get a gun. Even in restrictive states like top Brady Ranked California, I’m pretty sure he would have walked out with his Glock. What proposed law would have stopped this that still respected the fact that buying a gun is a fundamental right?

In the mean time, Boston Media are patting themselves on the back that this could never happen in Massachusetts. That’s funny, could have fooled me. I would bet money that, except for the jurisdictions in Massachusetts that routinely deny pistol licenses for arbitrary and capricious reasons (a practice not likely to be upheld under Second Amendment challenges) he would have gotten a gun. Not a Glock, because those are banned in Massachusetts, but there are plenty of substitutes which are equivalent to the Glock in performance characteristics that are not illegal.

ATF Power Grab Delayed by White House

John Richardson has the details, including this tidbit:

At the heart of this “delay” is stiff opposition from gun rights groups and their allies – including Democrats – in Congress. The Montana delegation has been particularly vociferous on the issue.

That’s because Tester and Baucus were out there in front telling people Obama wasn’t anti-gun. They have the most to lose if Obama makes them into liars. Tester is up in 2012, and Baucus in 2016. Tester, particularly, has a lot of credibility that can be flushed down the toilet if Obama decides to pick a fight with us, especially since both he and Baucus voted yes on Obama’s court picks, which we opposed.

I agree with John’s conclusion that it’s time to turn the heat up. The White House may be looking for a face saving way to say no to ATF. I would focus on the fact that they lack Congressional authority to act in this area, and are statutorily prohibited from doing what they are proposing.

Larry Pratt Lives Up To His Name

The ACLU in South Dakota is doing the right thing by filing suit to get a UK citizen, but permanent resident of the United States, his right to keep and bear arms back. Larry Pratt things that’s a bad thing, apparently:

Even gun rights advocates are divided on the issue.

“If you’re a law abiding citizen and you’re allowed to buy a gun you should be allowed to carry it to defend yourself,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulananda told FoxNews.com. “Just because you’re not a us citizen doesn’t mean that you’re somehow to immune to crime outside your home.”

But Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt says the state has every right to restrict conceal and carry permits to citizens.

“If the guy wants to enjoy the full benefit of residing in the United States become a citizen. Heâ€™s been here for 30 years whatâ€™s he waiting for?,” Pratt told FoxNews.com.

Pratt says the only reason the ACLU brought the suit is to pave the way for illegal aliens to have conceal carry permits.

“They want to make it so illegal aliens have the same rights as everybody else…every little bit chipping away,” he said.

If you believe that rights come from God, nature, Shiva, or whatever source of natural rights you want to recognize, and are merely infringed or recognized by governmental entities, on what constitutional basis can we restrict the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to legal immigrants into this country? Hell, on what legal basis can we restrict the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to illegal immigrants, for that matter? Perhaps a distinction can be made, but I’d like it to be based on a little more sound reasoning than it gives Larry Pratt the heebie-jeebies.

Does Larry Pratt believe the right to keep and bear arms is one that fits in with, “we are endowed by our creator, with certain unattainable rights,” or doesn’t he? Is he so horribly blinded by his socially conservative prejudices that he can’t see the forest for the trees?

Personally, I think that anyone ought to be able to walk into a store, plunk cash on the table, and walk out with a gun, and carry it with lawful intent. I accept that will probably never be reality, and agree we have to work practicably within the constraints that reality imposes on us, but South Dakota’s law is not necessarily among those realities we have to live with. ACLU has a good case. Larry Pratt doesn’t like it. NRA does. Tell me who’s really a believer in the Second Amendment here?

UPDATE: I should make clear I think there can be a basis for denying illegal immigrants rights, like the right to keep and bear arms, based on the fact that they are in the country unlawfully, but there is very questionable legal basis for restricting the right for people who are lawfully in the United States, even if they are not citizens of the United States. If you think it’s a fundamental right, that has consequences.

Great Resource

Dave Hardy is working to bring the history of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 into the digital age by getting it all online. I know I’ve been frustrated at the difficulty of finding good information, and this will be a great help. This was our major legislative victory of the 1980s, and it’s a shame it’s been stained with the stench of the Hughes Amendment, because it really did represent a pretty significant restructuring of the Gun Control Act.

Illustrating the Difference

This columnist from the Palm Beach Post is disappointed that Florida is enforcing preemption about guns in Palm Beach County parks being legal:

Do you really think we’d be better off if all of us law-abiding citizens went about our business in public with guns at our sides?

Think of all the anger-management-challenged drivers you’ve encountered on I-95. Think of all the vile, racist comments that blossom in the commentary section under online local news stories.

Think of all the self-deputized patriots who’ve confused a virulent strain of bigotry with heroism.

Now put them at the picnic table next to you in the park. And give them guns.

No thanks. After years of living in South Florida, I’ve come to believe that the allegedly law-abiding citizens among us are as apt to be ticking time bombs as the guys looking to steal your wallet to feed a drug habit.

The statistics just don’t bear that out, but it shows the fundamental problem. I trust that ordinary people, under most circumstances, can generally be counted on not to be raging murderers. What contempt you must have of your fellow citizens to think this way? The logical conclusion to this, if you think about it, is that republicanism and democracy are a folly. We’d be better off with an enlightened few running things for the good of us all.

The system the founders set up is based on the idea that a population can have sufficient civic virtue to be capable of self-government. If you think about it, that’s really one of the fundamental intellectual foundations of our form of government. Does Frank Cerabino really agree with that? To reject that is to reject America.