The Brady Rankings – In Context

The Brady Campaign has officially declared itself to be a radical gun banning organization. There’s no other way to view them after reviewing their latest state rankings of gun laws released this morning.

The rankings are conducted on a 100-point scale. Their “best” state is California which comes in at 79 points – a C+. The second spot is secured by New Jersey with 73 points – a C-. However, I consider the most telling grade to be Massachusetts. Brady said they only scored a 54 out of 100 – or have an F in the gun control grade book.

Massachusetts is a state with discretionary license to own. If you walk into a police station and offend the police chief by wearing his least favorite color, he has the authority to deny you a license to even own a rifle or handgun in your home. Massachusetts is a state where the gun laws go so far that pepper spray requires its own firearms permit. If a new shooter wants to take empty shell casing home after a successful day at the range, they risk criminal charges for inert cases if they do not have a gun license.

This is what the Brady Campaign considers to be a failing grade?

There is no right to own arms in Massachusetts. That is still not good enough for the Paul Helmke. What is good enough? Confiscation? Would that get them up to maybe a B? What is an A for the Brady Campaign?

CNN Covering L&S Controversy in Pennsylvania

Transcript here, and here’s the relevant expert, with the part I’d like to comment on bolded at the end:

Right now, there’s a major fight going on at the local level over a new law that’s intended to keep guns out of criminal hands. Critics though say it’s just another case of legislating against the legal and responsible gun owners. Ed Lavandera is on the gun trail for us this morning.

It’s a very emotional issue, Ed.

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Oh, absolutely, Kiran. You know, we spent the last two mornings talking about how guns are illegally trafficked across the country and out of the country. I wanted to take a look this time at a possible solution. And so we to Pennsylvania where it is becoming a very controversial issue.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JANA FINDER, CEASEFIRE PA: So you get tired of hearing people complain.

LAVANDERA (voice-over): Jana Finder says not enough is being done to keep illegally trafficked guns off Pennsylvania’s streets. This might be the heart of northeastern gun country.

FINDER: To report their handguns when they’re lost or stolen to the police.

LAVANDERA: But Finder, along with a group called Ceasefire PA has launched a grassroots campaign to get local governments to sign on to what’s become a highly controversial law called “Lost and Stolen Ordinances.” Supporters of gun rights hate it. The ordinances require gun owners to report if their weapons have been lost or stolen usually within 24 hours.

FINDER: There is very strong support for lost concerns because they have told us that this kind of requirement would give them another investigative tool to help crack down and reduce the numbers of illegal handguns in our streets.

LAVANDERA: Finder says these laws target the number one source of guns for criminals, people with clean records who buy guns then supply them to street criminals, the so-called straw purchasers.

(on camera): The battle over straw purchase ordinance is being waged across small towns all over Pennsylvania in city council chambers like this one here in Duquesne.

(voice-over): Duquesne’s city council was one of the latest to get behind it. So far 25 Pennsylvania cities have adopted the ordinance.

MAYOR PHIL KRIVACEK, DUQUESNE, PENNSYLVANIA: I think that doing this gives us a chance of maybe to reduce violence in the city.

LAVANDERA: That maybe in the mayor’s answer is what infuriates Kim Stolfer and his gun rights activist group called “Firearms Owners Against Crime.

KIM STOLFER, FIREARMS OWNERS AGAINST CRIME: To come up with an idea and adopt it based on, well, it might work, is ridiculous. We wouldn’t get into an airplane that might fly. There is an awful lot of laws relating to firearms. The real problem here is that it’s not illegal to lose a firearm. It’s not illegal to have it stolen. But they want to prosecute you for being in that situation.

LAVANDERA: Supporters of the Lost and Stolen Ordinance say it’s a way of keeping a tighter watch on guns that go missing.

Gun control advocates say images like these are playing out too often across Pennsylvania. Six law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty last year alone. This funeral honored Officer Michael Crenshaw who was murdered with an AK-47 in this neighborhood outside of Pittsburgh. Investigators say the suspect was wearing an ankle bracelet, a parolee on drug and gun charges.

So far more than a hundred police departments have come out in support of the Lost and Stolen Ordinances.

CHIEF HOWARD BURTON, PENN HILLS POLICE: Most of these ordinances that are being passed…

LAVANDERA: But not everyone in law enforcement thinks it’s the answer. Penn Hills Police Chief Howard Burton says “lost or stolen” is just another feel good law that wouldn’t have saved Officer Michael Crenshaw.

BURTON: We still have to realize we’re dealing with a criminal element. No matter how many laws that are out there, there’s still going to be broken.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LAVANDERA: So about a year ago is when this movement started gaining steam there in Pennsylvania. And as far as we’ve been able to put together, no one has been prosecuted or convicted of this Lost and Stolen Ordinance, which obviously drives critics crazier. But the supporters of this say it’s still early. Some of those ordinances have been tied up in lawsuits and other police departments they say are still trying to figure out exactly how to implement this, Kiran.

So it’s freely admitted no one has been prosecuted, and the police have no idea how to implement it, even though this is supposedly vital for fighting criminal trafficking of guns in Pennsylvania? None of the lawsuits have stopped the locates from enforcing the ordinance.

This is a load of crap if I’ve ever seen one.

Opposite Day

Joining in SayUncle’s theme, but on a different topic. In addition to the Richmond paper saying that maybe repealing one-gun-a-month is the right thing to do, we have a North Jersey paper printing an op-ed from a retired police officer refuting the notion that guns in the home are dangerous and useless.

Mixed Media Reaction to Virginia Rationing Repeal

The Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk seems to be having a cow at the idea that the Virginia legislature might repeal their one-gun-a-month law:

Taken together, the gun show loophole and repeal of one handgun a month could easily be called something else: The Strawman’s Bill of Rights.

Except that straw purchasing will be just as illegal after this bill is repealed as it was before it was repealed. How many people have been prosecuted under the one-gun-a-month law anyway? And for all their talk about the “iron pipeline,” I don’t hear East Coast mayors complaining any less loud about Virginia being a source of crime guns. The law is useless and infringes on a constitutional right. Get rid of it.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch seems to be OK with the idea:

One-gun-a-month served a practical function. But it also compromised important principles by infringing on the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution. Like Del. Joe Morrissey, who asked whether the law truly inconviences anyone, advocates of the measure stress that one gun a month should be enough for anyone; no one “needs” to buy more than that. Perhaps. On the other hand, rights are not supposed to be constrained by what some people think other people need. It could be argued that newspapers do not need to publish more than once a week, that nobody needs to buy more than two books a month, that the faithful do not need to attend church more than twice a year, or that no woman should need more than one abortion in her lifetime. Those are not decisions government should make.

Wait a minute, this is from a MSM news source? Do I need to go read that again? I’m going to guess their editorial board won’t be on the Brady Christmas Card list after that one.

We’re In Potentially Great Danger in PA on Gun Rights

Over at our other blog, we take a look at the some potential problems we could be facing with gun rights in Pennsylvania. We have a lot of NRA A and A+ rated retirements from some pretty powerful positions within the Pennsylvania Legislature, in addition to some contentious and important federal races. We have to defend a lot more highly graded seats than the other side does, and there are plenty of people running for those seats that are poorly rated, or associated with Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

I think the frustrating thing is, Pennsylvania Gun Owners don’t seem, by in large, to be taking these looming threats seriously at all. Over the weekend, we tried to get a dinner meeting together with several of the Pennsylvania NRA Election Volunteer Coordinators from Eastern PA, and only the EVC for the 6th and 7th district showed up. And these are the people who are supposedly plugged in? We’re in a lot of trouble if this is the best we can expect of our “leaders” in this issue. I sense this frustration reflected in an e-mail alert from Kim Stolfer a few days ago, in which he said:

On top of all of this is the issue of the average gun owner turning a blind eye to these and so many other issues. I’m sure all of us know some gun owners who have a myriad of reasons as to why they don’t need to be involved. All one has to do is to go to a gun show or the average gun club and take a look around. I encourage you to grab these guys by the scruff of their philosophical neck and do your best to wake them up! We need everyone in this struggle for our freedoms and our heritage.

I’ve often said people make the mistake of believing Pennsylvania is a pro-gun state. It’s not quite as safely pro-gun as many believe. Sure, when gun owners in this state are stirred to anger, they can be quite an electoral force. The problem with Pennsylvania Gun Owners is they often don’t get involved until we have our backs against a wall. By that time, we’ve already elected anti-gun politicians who convince themselves that our bark is worse than our bite. That’s not the time to get involved. That time is now. Otherwise the basis for the next wave of gun control in Pennsylvania, much like we saw in the early and mid 1990s, is going to be laid. Last time we were lucky to get out without an Assault Weapons Ban, though just barely. Next time we might not be so lucky.

Retention

Not usually important for civilians who carry guns, unless you open carry. This article over at LawOfficer.com is an insightful treatment of the topic.

When someone puts their hands on your gun during a contact, [a fight to the death] is exactly what you must be prepared for. I testified to the fact that a suspect who touches your gun during a street contact has already demonstrated his intent. Weapon retention and ground fighting tactics do not include a measure of politeness. You must consider any disarming attempt a life-or-death situation. If you honestly feel your weapon retention and/or ground fighting training adequately prepares you for such an encounter, great. But if you have any doubts about your skills or abilities to maintain control of your duty weapon during an attempted disarming, resolve them before you next hit the street.

Not everything is applicable to civilian carrying, but at the least good holster selection and at least some basic retention training are a must if a civilian chooses to carry openly.

Update on Microstamping in California

The public comment period is apparently closed on the matter, but implementation of the microstamping law requires certification that the technology is available. Apparently the California DOJ are proceeding with that process:

The lack of available microstamping technology has not deterred the Department of Justice from proceeding with promulgating regulations for the law’s implementation. In other words, these proposed regulations are completely unnecessary at this time. It is on this basis, among others, that the NRA is objecting to the DOJ commencing with the rulemaking process on this matter. The NRA Letter to the DOJ is available to read in its entirety here.

Proceeding despite the fact that the technology isn’t available. This is about fighting crime right? Not a backdoor gun ban?