The Hill reports on his testimony before a Senate Homeland Security Committee, where he notes that the Second Amendment should be no barrier to arbitrarily denying Americans their right to purchase a firearm.
Category: Guns
AHSA Goes TU
The pirate ship, flying the false flag of gun rights, known as the American Hunters and Shooters Association, is apparently no more. Even if they might technically exist, they are gone from the Internets, which is just about as good as dead these days. We bid them farewell. Sorry guys, we’re just weren’t stupid enough to fall for it.
Freedom Has Consequences
Sebastian! Â Please! Â Good God in heaven, man, how can you keep a straight face and say that allowing the Attorney General of the United States to deny a gun to someone that the FBI considers too much of a terrorist risk to get on an airplane should have unfettered gun purchasing rights?
Do you know that this will marginalize your side with the American people so severely that you will lose credibility for years to come? Â Are you insane? Â Or are you just really so blind that there is nothing, nothing, that you could ever, ever support to keep anyone, anyone, from buying any weapon they wish?
God. This one is so simple. Â I cannot believe that you and your commenters can be opposed to this and call yourselves American patriots. Â It’s put up or shut up time, gunners.
There are many aspects of our free and open society that make life easier for terrorists. I think most Americans would agree that preserving our essential liberties is an important consideration when we’re deciding how to deal with terrorism. Whether the Brady Campaign likes it or not, the Right to Bear Arms is one of those liberties, among many others.
I don’t think anyone here really wants it to be easy for terrorists to get guns. I don’t really want it to be easy for them to roam around the country either. It would be really nice if we could identify all the terrorists who are in the United States right now and eject them from the country. But none of these goals can be achieved without destroying essential liberties. This is a consequence of having freedom. In fact, it’s reasonable to argue that terrorism is a consequence of the open society our freedoms and liberty create.
Which brings us to the “no fly” list. It should be noted that the list doesn’t actually stop anyone from flying. That would bring about constitutional issues because the right to travel is a fundamental right under our system.The “no fly” list only applied to travel in and out of the United States. I should note that even this as not been constitutionally tested as far as I know, so it’s still an open question as to whether this is constitutional, at least as applied to American Citizens. My opinion would be that it does not. The right to travel should, within the confines of citizenship, include the right to travel in and out of the country.
I have little doubt the Brady folks don’t like the idea of gun ownership being a right, but it is, and if we win McDonald, it will likely be deemed fundamental. I don’t frame the “terror loophole” issue in terms of guns or terrorists. It’s a question of whether it’s proper to deny American citizens their constitutional rights without due process of law. To that, I think the answer is no. That’s grounds I’m very comfortable disagreeing with the Brady folks on. Despite what the Luntz poll may or may not have said, I believe most Americans, if asked the question framed in terms of denying Americans Citizens their Second Amendment rights because of their presence on a secret government list of suspected terrorists, you wouldn’t get such overwhelming approval.
Berkeley Doesn’t Stand Up to the Man Very Well
I just couldn’t help but chuckle and picture hippies declaring how they’ll fight “the man” on this one. Except, that’s not at all what happened.
In response to a pre-litigation demand letter sent by lawyers for the NRA and CRPA Foundation, on Tuesday, May 4, 2010, the Berkeley City Council voted unanimously to repeal that city’s ban on the possession of certain semiautomatic rifles, which had remained “on the books” as Municipal Code Section 13.47 despite being obviously preempted by state law.
The repeal is the culmination of discussions between attorneys for the NRA and CRPA and the Berkeley City Attorney’s office. The City of Berkeley initially resisted all requests by the NRA and CRPA to repeal this ordinance. But the City Attorney’s report to the City Council makes clear that the motivation to finally repeal the ordinance was the threat of litigation from NRA/CRPA.
One person objected to the repealing of the ordinance during public comment, but the City Attorney quickly corrected him that, as explained by the NRA/CRPA letter, this is a settled legal matter for which the City of Berkeley has no recourse.
It’s a good thing in the end. It saves precious litigation money that can be used to fight more meaningful fights. I just find it very funny to see how quickly those radicals in Berkeley back down.
Crazed European Protesters
I will never understand why Europeans accept the level of violence from their protesters that they do – they just sit back and take it.
I’ve been watching coverage of Greek protests against spending cuts, and at what point do the citizens lie down and let the anarchy take over? It started with throwing rocks and burning cars. They also destroyed shop fronts & set businesses on fire. Now, the protesters are throwing molotov cocktails directly at police officers in order to set them on fire. Yesterday, they threw one into a bank to kill three people and injure more.
I’d like to think that here, we would tell our police officers to get rid of them with any means available. I can’t fathom that if a radical group started marching through a city, killing bystanders, and trying to set police officers on fire, we would just ask them to push back politely. At what point does your society decide that it no longer wants to defend itself from arbitrary mob attack?
Should Wayne LaPierre be Sent to Gitmo?
According to the Washington Post, NRA should now be considered a terrorist organization for supporting civil liberties.
Is the NRA a terrorist organization?
By George W. Bush’s standard — you’re either with us or against us in the fight against terrorism — NRA chief Wayne LaPierre should be just a few frequent-flier miles short of a free ticket to Gitmo right about now.
The New “Terror Weapon”
The Kel-Tec Sub 2000, because anemic pistol caliber carbines are obviously now the new sprayers of death and destruction, and weapon of choice for terrorists. See, it’s scary because it’s a rifle, but it’s really a pistol. This rifle folds up for compact storage, but it’s unusable in its folded state. New York Times worries that it’s all too easy for them to carry out a Mumbai style attack with one of these.
There’s a reason he didn’t do that kind of attack. He was going for something spectacular. If he had gone for a mass shooting in Times Square, well, it’s been done before, and “shot by police” isn’t exactly the headline your typical jihadist wants. The key difference between Mumbai and here is that our police officers, even the ones in New York City, can generally hit what they shoot at, and aren’t uncomfortable employing their pistols or employing rifles in a Mumbai kind of situation. Even in New York City, where its citizens are forbidden from protecting themselves, I’d give a Times Square shooter about two or three shots before the NYPD drops him.
Bloomberg’s solution is to use the terror watch list to prevent things like this from happening. Which seems to have worked oh so well for keeping this guy out of the country in the first place. These are the people Bloomberg demands we put our lives in the hands of. Personal protection isn’t an option in his world.
UPDATE: To be fair to the New York Times, I thought their article was at least researched. Years ago the ignorance they would have displayed in regards to the guns form and function would have been astounding. They are still playing their old games, but at least now they are getting basic facts right.
Record Sniper Shot by the Numbers
Recently a British sniper made a record shot with a .50Â .338LM [I should read] Caliber rifle. Joe Huffman gives it to us by the numbers. This is one thing that consistently amazes me about our opponents demonization of this caliber long range calibers. It’s like suggestion that because we make scalpels freely available, that means surely that unscrupulous individuals will be able to do their own quadruple bypass surgery, and wouldn’t that be just awful? They ignore the tremendous amount of skill, and not inconsiderable amount of luck, that goes into employing rifles at these kinds of distances.
Here We Go Again
Will someone please explain to me why NRA, after allowing carry at their meetings in the past at venues that allow it, such as the Kentucky Expo Center, and the Phoenix Convention Center, that they would deliberately not make an effort to let attendees carry in Charlotte? Keeping in mind that with the Phoenix Annual Meeting, they went to great lengths to get the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control to suspend the liquor license of the convention center for the duration of the Annual Meeting (except for the banquet, which traditionally serves beer and wine) so that attendees could carry at Annual Meeting.
Now, in terms of site selection, I am going to agree with everyone that Charlotte, from what I’ve seen so far, is less than ideal, and not just on the issue of carry. I’m going to be an opponent of NRA going back there unless they fix their carry laws, among other things. But NRA has hosted its Annual Meeting in a lot of places, for reasons that I’ve mentioned before. Some of those venues are more friendly to carry than others.
NRA’s official statement about this issue goes as follows:
The claim that NRA does not want members to carry is flat out wrong. Both Phoenix and Louisville allowed concealed and open carry in the convention center. In fact, NRA fought to make sure attendees could carry at those locations.
In Charlotte, just like in every city that we have held our annual meeting, NRA is bound by legal and contractual obligations. We were unable to remove the prohibition due to state, city and convention center regulations.
Some people have mentioned an exception under the law for “A person participating in the event, if a person is carrying a gun, rifle, or pistol with the permission of the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event.” This exception has two prongs. First, the person must be a participant. Second, the person must have permission.
While some may suggest that NRA could be the one giving permission, the reality is that NRA would not be the one who would determine whether or not someone is a participant. A prosecutor, judge, and jury would be ultimately making that determination.
Even if NRA declared all attendees participants, a prosecutor could argue that he/she was an attendee, spectator, guest of a member or a ticket holder, so that could not be relied on for a legal defense. And, in the end, it is the person with the gun who would be prosecuted. This is indeed a gray area, but without a clear exception there is a serious risk of arrest and prosecution, and NRA does not want our members risking prosecution.
The fact is if NRA only went to places that allowed CCW in convention centers, we would be limited to 2 or 3 choices. Because of the size of NRA’s conventions, we already are limited with our choices of cities that can accommodate us. We also strive to have regional balance to allow members from all over the country to attend. People should also be mindful that NRA has worked to change laws all over the country. With incremental wins, those who may not be able to carry in a certain location today may be able to do so down the road. After all, Arizona’s gun laws have come long way since we were there last year.
I am hoping this puts this issue to bed. I have no problem with reasonable, informed criticism of NRA, or the site selection committee. There’s a lot of valid points to be made for why Charlotte is less than an ideal site. But in the big picture, I think it’s a waste of time and energy to fret over this particular issue in this particular context. We’d be far better served working to change the laws and the political climate, much like happened in Arizona after the Annual Meeting was held there last year.
Family Traditions & Heirlooms
Even though my family wasn’t anti-gun, there aren’t any traditions of shooting or hunting, and I won’t get any guns passed down to me that are part of some multi-generational tradition. But that’s okay. My first gun was a gift from a special friend and still means a lot to me.
In welcoming a new contributor to Bitchin’ in the Kitchen, this bit in her first post really stuck out for me:
When Samuel was age 14, he saved up enough to buy a $500 rifle with his own money. This was no small feat. He saved for many months – birthday gifts, Christmas gifts, worked at his grandfather’s farm, as well as around our house, to earn the money to pay for his gun. It’s an item of great sentimental value, and one he will keep until he decides to pass it on to his grandchildren. With that gun will go many stories of deer taken and deer missed, hunts shared with his father, cousins, uncles, and grandfathers, lessons learned, such as, working hard for something that lasted his lifetime.
Samuel is Virginia Gal’s son, and oh my goodness, there are some adorable pics that she included with the post. Check it out, and maybe I can get Granny – my mom & Virginia Gal’s friend – to talk her into sharing some good game recipes.