An Indian NRA?

Looks like there’s a growing Right to Keep and Bear Arms movement in India. The second most populous country on the planet:

A 38-year-old software engineer, Singh founded the web forum, Indiansforguns.com, which brought these Sunday afternoon firearm fans together. But in late 2009, his hobby took on a new urgency when the home ministry proposed several amendments to India’s 1959 Arms Act that would make it much more difficult to get a gun license and harder to buy ammunition. Already an old hand in disseminating editorials and raising petitions, Singh soon joined forces with another group — the National Association for Gun Rights India (NAGRI) — that’s modeled on America’s National Rifle Association and led by Haryana’s Naveen Jindal, a member of parliament who studied in Texas.

This has to have IANSA crapping their pants. I think it’s funny it’s a software engineer behind it. Computer people seem to have a particular disdain for nanny state policies in my experience, though that’s not as true today as I think it was a decade ago.

Not Sure How This Will Work

Apparently there’s a program to equip cab drivers with body armor:

The Federation also is asking retired NYPD officers to donate their old vests.

I think their old guns would do more good, if that were legal in New York City. But Bloomberg has done a pretty good job of making sure only criminals and cops have guns in that city. Either way, one would think the obvious place an armed robber is going to stick his gun is at the cab driver’s head. It’s also worth noting that old body armor may not be effective. Kevlar vests degrade with time, and have expiration dates.

Someone also needs to tell the AP that there’s no such thing as a “bulletproof” vest.

Policy or Law?

This article talks about how Oklahoma won’t be affected by the new Amtrak rule on guns, because there’s no Amtrak service that checks luggage that services the state. But the line only goes to Texas. Since Texas and Oklahoma have reciprocity, what’s to stop someone from carrying on Amtrak? In other words, is the ban just Amtrak policy, or is it federal law that you can’t carry on Amtrak? Not something I’ve ever had cause to look up because I a) don’t travel on Amtrak, and b) any Amtrak lines I would consider taking go through Maryland or New Jersey and New York.

Problems Prosecuting Gun Crimes

The Philadelphia Inquirer yesterday ran a fairly lengthy and detailed piece that illustrates the problems with prosecuting gun crimes in the city. It speaks of the head of Philadelphia’s Gun Court, Judge Paula Patrick. I don’t honestly have enough information on these cases to say whether or not Judge Patrick is insufferably soft on criminals, or is just a stickler for civil liberties and for the police following the law.

It does seem odd though that Pennsylvania would have a rule on “forced abandonment.” Basically, under federal search and seizure law, if a suspect runs from police and tosses a gun, the gun is admissible. Apparently in Pennsylvania, it’s not. It’s one thing if police unlawfully search someone. I can see the civil liberties implications of that. But if you willfully toss something? Is that even a search at this point? It’s hard to see how it could be incident to an unlawful seizure since someone running isn’t exactly seized.

We pay a price for civil liberties. What angers me is that the same people, and I agree with them, that believe in strong Fourth Amendment protections, don’t feel the need to protect the Second Amendment.

Hunting Accident in PA

Normally this wouldn’t be newsworthy, but apparently this one involves the former Montgomery County District Attorney, who was apparently illegally hunting with his prohibited-person nephew when his nephew accidentally shot a man. His nephew now stands charged. Any bets on whether the Montco DA ever prosecuted someone for illegally hunting? Remember, the rules are for the little people.

ABC Hatchet Job on Restaurant Carry

Apparently this includes the revelation that shooting from a holster is more difficult than carefully aiming your shots. This is also an argument for not allowing police to carry guns. But I forgot police have magical gun powers to anti-gunners that the rest of us can’t possibly have.

Zero Tolerance

Joe Huffman catches a revelation from a Brady Board member that leads to a logical conclusion:

Zero is not possible as long as people and guns exist.

And even if we could turn every gun into a potted plant, and magically make every human being forget firearms technology, it’s worth noting that life was pretty short and brutal before the advent of this technology. If there’s one thing human beings are particularly good at it’s terrorizing and brutalizing each other.

No Statutory Authority

The ATF may want to regulate long guns by requiring multiple purchases to be reported, but I think it’s almost certain they have no authority to do so. Handguns require this form, but that is because 18 USC Section 923(g) gives ATF that power explicitly:

(3)(A) Each licensee shall prepare a report of multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of, at one time or during any five consecutive business days, two or more pistols, or revolvers, or any combination of pistols and revolvers totalling two or more, to an unlicensed person. The report shall be prepared on a form specified by the Attorney General and forwarded to the office specified thereon and to the department of State police or State law enforcement agency of the State or local law enforcement agency of the local jurisdiction in which the sale or other disposition took place, not later than the close of business on the day that the multiple sale or other disposition occurs.

If Congress had intended ATF to have the power to require this form for long guns, they well knew how to do so, but chose to limit the requirement to pistols and revolvers. The fact that shotguns and rifles are not included in this statutory requirement is indicative that ATF does not have the power to require this for long guns at all. This is a power grab by the agency, pure and simple.

Obama’s Move

From the Washington Post:

To stem the flow of guns to Mexico, federal firearms regulators are proposing an emergency requirement that certain gun dealers along the southwestern border report bulk sales of so-called assault weapons beginning as soon as January.

I am sincerely hoping this seals the fate of Jimmy Carter, the Second Coming, in the 2012 election. As I’ve said, I’m willing to do nothing for Mexico.

UPDATE: Also notice Obama is taking his cues from Bloomberg’s Blueprint for screwing gun owners. This reinforces Michael Bloomberg being the biggest threat to gun rights out there today. The Brady organization is a joke at this point. Bloomberg is still someone to watch out for.

What Future for Gun Control?

I keep looking at our opponents, and I see the same ideas turned around and around again on the turntable like a skipping old 78. Calling for “common sense,” calling for “sensible legislation,” to an audience, like that of some washed up rock star that continues to tour, that increasingly just isn’t there, or isn’t listening.

Our opponents are beyond arguing for action, and they don’t even realize it. The philosophical basis for their movement was largely based on the possibility of achieving prohibition, and with prohibition off the table, rather than rebuild their movement around different philosophical assumptions, they keep pushing the same old in the hopes that a some point, maybe someday, the fans will come back and the seats will be filled. Even MAIG, which is certainly ripe with novel tactics, and new ideas, is still no more than a second rate cover band.

The reason they have not rethought their movement is that any new assumptions will be deeply dissatisfying to those who support the gun control agenda. I think being hemmed in by Brady’s post Heller contradictions is driving poor Joan Peterson nuts, because it represents the best they can do, not what she’d ideally like to advocate. I can’t believe she’s an atypical supporter either, because I’ve run into a lot of Joan Peterson’s out there. But how many will keep with the issue in the face of the ever evolving reality working against their viewpoint?

Prohibition, or a near prohibition, was a necessary goal for their movement, and it’s necessary because of the nature of gun control. Gun control only affects criminals at the margins. In a regulatory regime where law abiding people are relatively free to purchase firearms, criminals are going to fairly easily obtain them. I think that’s a fundamental truth against which the gun control proponents have no valid argument. A background check, a form, or rationing is only going to stop an idiot or someone who’s really not determined. Given that there are undetermined idiots out there who want to commit crimes, I have no doubt background checks have stopped some potential crimes, but because this happens at the margin, it doesn’t show up in overall violent crime statistics, and doesn’t really do a whole lot to make society safer.

The only way you can expand the margins is to make guns harder to get for law abiding people, and as we’ve pointed out repeatedly, even total prohibition isn’t going to stop smart, determined criminals. It’s certainly not going to stop gangs and drug dealers who are responsible for most of the violent crime in this country, and who already traffic in contraband. But one could argue with credibility that prohibition would make it harder for certain classes of potential criminals, who don’t have black market connections, to get guns. One could counter that it would also make it much harder for ordinary people to get guns and defend themselves from the criminals, and there will be many, who will still get them anyway. But my point is that when prohibition is the philosophical root, there’s a lot more room to speculate, posture, and debate. It may be an unachievable, Utopian idea, but it’s an idea that’s deeply satisfying to those who blame the gun for societies ills.

I would posit that without prohibition, the gun control movement is nothing. The ironic thing is, from my readings, a lot of the the old school members of the movement to ban handguns understood this. Everything to them was an incremental step designed to break the back of the gun culture in this country so they could get to their eventual goal. The post Heller movement has, on their face, accepted the implications of a real Second Amendment right, but in their souls I don’t believe they have. So they are stuck arguing pointless measures that have no prayer of doing a damned thing to stop people who want to commit crimes from getting guns. Their predecessors understood this stuff to be pointless, if it wasn’t getting them farther to the goal. The remaining gun control supporters cling bitterly to the remnant scraps of what once was. How long before the gig is up, and even the die hards realize it?