The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
They find it hard to believe NRA members would support assault rifles being smuggled to Mexico. Except this is all a manufactured issue. And even if it wasn’t, guns are already illegal in Mexico. The violence happens there, not here where they are largely legal (though not assault rifles). It’s their problem, not ours. You’re not going to disarm criminals who traffic in contraband.
Don’t want contraband smuggled into your country? Work with us to secure the border. It’s quite simple, really.
There’s one thing I really don’t understand about many in the gun control movement. Â I’m baffled when I read things that show just how unserious they are about pursuing policies that might address problems they perceive in society. Â I’m not just talking about the organized political folks in DC whose job it is to tie every criminal use of a gun to their top policy item of the day. Â I mean the few out there who still support serious gun control and who aren’t paid to promote a specific policy agenda.
I thought of this because of a foreign newspaper editorial that spends 6 of 11 paragraphs talking about a specific drive-by shooting that resulted in the death of a child. Â So, considering the death of this child has caught their attention so deeply, one might assume they would be interested in suggesting specific solutions that would result in fewer child deaths and drive-bys. But no. In fact, they actually admit that their solutions won’t solve the problems illustrated by the case they highlighted.
It would also help in reducing the number of homicide cases associated with the use of licensed firearms. Of course, this measure will not work against those who seek out illegal firearms, as was the case with the Prasongsil brothers.
Also worth considering in a public debate would be the issue of whether the number of guns of a certain calibre permissible for each individual, should be limited or not.
They don’t even pretend that the last suggestion has anything to do with the case of drive-bys!
I also think back to a conversation my grandmother and I had at dinner while Sebastian and I were out in Hawaii. Here’s the cliffnotes version:
Grandmother: So is Sebastian into your little gun hobby?
Bitter: Yes. He’s a competitive shooter, he’s active in a gun club, and he even bought me a gun for Christmas one year.
Grandmother: [attempts to mask her disappointment in having a libertarian gun nut granddaughter] Oh, well that’s good that you have that in common.
Bitter: [probably enjoys breaking stereotypes a little too much] Yeah, we enjoy it quite a bit. He got me into a new shooting sport for a while, but lately things have been so busy that we haven’t had the time.
Grandmother: Well, you know, it wouldn’t be such a problem if we could just fix a few things – like closing the gun shows.
Bitter: [looks at Sebastian] Um, do they even have gun shows in Hawaii?
Sebastian: [recalling what he did know about Hawaii gun laws] I’m not sure that’s an issue out here.
Bitter: [knowing where this is going] I’m pretty sure you guys don’t have a “gun show loophole” out here in Hawaii. In fact, I’m pretty sure your laws are so strict they have put a big damper on lawful gun ownership.
Grandmother: Well, there was this shooting recently, and the gun came from a gun show.
Bitter: You’re sure about that?
Grandmother: Well, I think he may have robbed someone.
Bitter: So, wait, he bought it lawfully at a gun show or he stole it from someone who may or may not have had anything to do with a gun show?
Grandmother: I think he stole it from someone’s house.
Bitter: Wait, you want to close down gun shows and ban private sales which may not even be legal in this state – I can’t remember off the top of my head – based on a crime that appears to have nothing to do with gun shows?
Grandmother: Well, there may have been a gun show involved. But it’s a problem that needs to be solved anyway.
Bitter: [restraining all efforts to keep from beating her head against the table]
Grandmother: If we could just limit the number of guns out there, that would help.
Bitter: [morbidly curious] Just how would you do that?
Grandmother: Well, if we could make sure they are only sold to good people, like you and Sebastian.
Bitter: We’ve passed the same background checks as other people who buy guns from dealers and get concealed carry licenses.
Grandmother: Then don’t you have enough guns.
Bitter: [chuckles] Uh, no. We still have some room to fill in the safe.
Grandmother: [horrified at the notion we’d like to own more guns]
Her solution to a crime that bothered her isn’t to address the criminal who was out on the streets, how he was able to continue his crime spree and steal a gun, or even how to address the details of the killing (which she didn’t explain, and I knew better than to ask). She just parroted the nearest talking point she could find.
I am interested in solving problems. If there’s a crime that bothers me, I want to address the roots of the problem so we don’t have to deal with that problem again, or at least minimize the number of instances in which we have to deal with it. It’s such a waste of energy and, potentially, political capital to focus on non-solutions to specific problems. I can’t comprehend the people who go on believing that ignoring the fundamental problems is the best way to truly reduce violence. How many rap sheets have we posted the show the problem in Philly isn’t about guns, it’s about why these scum of the earth are even walking the streets when they have 10, 15, and 20 page criminal records? At least the professional gun controllers are simply pushing a political agenda. It’s the non-professional ones that really baffle me.
Shelly Rae opines on offering the little lady a nice .38 revolver. I’ve noticed, perhaps too anecdotally, that this advise is far more likely to come from older men than it is younger men.
Recognizing his vulnerability in swing states, Obama began to run an alternate campaign to calm the worries of gun owners, said Ray Schoenke, a former Washington Redskins lineman who founded a moderate gun rights group, the American Hunters and Shooters Association, as part of the Obama effort.
The Obama campaign paid for Schoenke’s travel to 40 events in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Colorado to address pro-gun voters.
So Schoenke was basically on the payroll of Obama’s campaign. That’s spelled “shill” with two ls Ray, just in case you weren’t aware. No wonder this guy had no credibility.
So the WaPo has finally done their bit on the NRA, and reveals this bit of information:
In the past few days, the plan [to require multiple long gun purchases to be reported] has quietly gained traction at Justice. But sources told The Post they fear that if the plan becomes public, the NRA will marshal its forces to kill it.
I also love this:
The fate of the Mexican gunrunning rule is only the most recent example of how the gun lobby has consistently outmaneuvered and hemmed in ATF
The mexican gunrunning rule? Instead of the “we get to hire additional bureaucrats to process all this extra paperwork, and thus grow our empires” rule? I will say this, and say it proudly: I’m not willing to give an inch to deal with Mexico’s problem. Guns are largely illegal in Mexico, and largely legal here, and they are the ones with the violence problem, and not us. In addition, and we’ve said this until we’re blue in the face, the cartels are not getting machine guns, grenades and rocket launchers from legal sources in the US. Also, let’s take a look at this:
Don Davis, 77, has run Don’s Guns and Galleries in Indianapolis for 37 years and says he is one of the highest-volume dealers in the region. A big supporter of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, Davis resigned from the NRA many years ago. “They used to be an organization for the hunter and the fishermen,” he said recently. “Then they got into politics. They’re so political, that’s what they do with their money. Today if you say anything about a gun, they use their money to run against you.”
That’s this Don’s Guns. I seem to also recall that this guy is a major source of crime guns. Hey Brady folks and Bryan Miller: why don’t you go protest Don? I promise, I won’t lift a finger to help him, and I think everyone else will probably agree.
The WaPo article then goes on to speak of NRA as a powerful, evil force, blocking these very nice people at ATF who just want to fix this whole nasty gun violence thing. I mean, how can you argue with unbiased reporting like this:
Obama never said anything about banning handguns or closing gun shops. His campaign platform promised to pursue long-standing proposals to address urban violence: reinstating the assault weapons ban, outlawing “cop killer” bullets and closing the “gun-show loophole” that permits firearm sales without background checks.
Except he did. He has supported both in his past, and that fact is well documented. And how do you square that any of those other measures will do anything to address urban violence? The CDC studied the assault weapons ban and found it did nothing. I also doubt that the WaPo reporters involved in this piece have any idea what a “cop killer” bullet is. But it exists. Trust them. They are gun experts, right?
It’s days like this that make me happy fewer and fewer people are paying attention to print media.
Currently our state’s preemption statute says this:
No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.
This has been interpreted by some to mean local municipalities have some power to regulate guns, despite the Courts saying otherwise. I would propose Pennsylvania adopt a variation on Washington State’s language, which is unambiguous:
The General Assembly hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the Commonwealth, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Codes and ordinances enacted by counties, cities, townships, other municipalities or political subdivisions are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.
And we also have Rep. Metcalfe’s proposed bill which adds some teeth to the preemption language:
Remedies for unlawful regulation.–Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon finding that a county, municipality or township in any manner regulated the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components in violation of subsection (a) or 53 Pa.C.S. § 2962(g) (relating to limitation on municipal powers), a court shall direct the county, municipality or township to pay actual damages and reasonable attorney fees and costs to a party who successfully challenges the regulation.
I think we need both Rep. Metcalfe’s bill and a rewrite of the preemption language to make it crystal clear to local governments that they may not touch the area of firearms. Sadly, I don’t think attorneys fees will be any deterrent to Philadelphia, who will be happy to waste city taxpayer dollars on challenges, and then run poor mouthing to Harrisburg for more of our taxpayer dollars. I would like to see appropriations from Harrisburg to Philadelphia be contingent on them not passing unlawful ordinances.
The NRA has in the past sued over the city’s ability to pass its own gun legislation. Clarke joked about that likelihood, telling Gillison, “Look forward to being with you in court again.â€
At this point they know it’s illegal, they are just doing it to be pricks. Hopefully we can get real teeth to preemption so we can penalize the city for doing crap like this. I’d settle for an unambiguous preemption statute, with state funding cut for cities who have gun laws on the books. I don’t even care if they aren’t enforced, time to remove them. This crap has to stop, and stop now.
Quite a counter protest was had in Maryland against Heeding God’s Call, Bryan Miller’s conjured up “faith group” that supports gun control. I thought the Armored Personnel Carrier was a nice touch. I know I’m normally perception sensitive, but sometimes you have to have some fun. As the photos show, as much as you might want folks to show up who don’t fit the stereotypes, a few will, and you can bet they are who the media is going to photograph.
Article on the destruction of guns in Luzerne County. This is one nasty side effect of all the immigration from New Jersey and New York to Northeastern Pennsylvania. I’m disappointed to see this:
Financed by a $10,000 Project Safe Neighborhoods grant secured by state Rep. Todd Eachus, D-Butler Township, for use the 116th Legislative District, the District Attorney’s Office offered gift certificates for the Laurel Mall in denominations of $50 per long gun and $75 per handgun.
Eachus is A-rated. How many of those guns destroyed have historical value? Collectors should get first dibs before the guns are destroyed. You could make a program like this self-funding, essentially hooking up people who don’t want the guns anymore with people who do want them. Destroy the junk? Fine. But this is a waste, both of taxpayer dollars and potential historical collector pieces. Is this something an NRA A-rated politician ought to be enabling? I don’t think so.
So the Washington Post notes that when a dealer gets his FFL revoked, and someone else takes over the company, they can apply for a new FFL. A common thing that seems to happen is a business is owned by some old guy, who in his age can’t seem to keep the bookkeeping straight, so ATF revokes the license. Son takes over the family business, and applies for a new license to keep the dealership, often family businesses, operating. As Richard Gardiner notes, anyone involved on the old license can’t be on the new one:
To be licensed, applicants at a minimum need to be 21, cannot have been prohibited from owning a gun – as with felons and people with certain disabilities – and must have a fixed address. Companies can apply for licenses, but their principals must meet the restrictions for individuals. Initial fees are $200. Licenses last three years. The agency might spend years in court revoking a license from a troubled dealer but by law must approve licenses to eligible applicants within 60 days.
Richard Gardiner, a former counsel for the National Rifle Association who has defended many dealers in ATF revocations, said family members, friends or associates who were not directly involved in the old license are legally entitled to their own licenses. “It’s not a loophole,” he said.
Truth is, license revocation is a poor enforcement mechanism to begin with, which is why the NRA backed reform bill will hopefully pass in the next Congress, which limits the use of revocation for enforcement, and creates a civil penalty structure to replace it. No doubt our opponents, with their penchant for blaming inanimate objects, will argue that the business should be closed, and a gun shops shall never re-open at the same site or under the same name for time immemorial. This is also a poor solution.