The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Hat tip to reader Carl from Chicago for pointing out this hilarious poor choice of words on the part of the Joyce Foundation:
I’m sure what they meant to say was research into ways to ensure that guns are only owned by the law abiding, but it can be read another way, which humorously is closer to Joyce’s actual position on private ownership of firearms.
They point out that the media only really follows body counts, and look at this example:
In Oklahoma City the previous week, an armed citizen singlehandedly stopped an attack that surely would have resulted in a multiple-victim public shooting. The media gave the event scant attention. The scene went down when a Marine, who was on leave and came home for the holidays, started firing in an apartment parking lot. Before anyone was harmed, another man aimed his permitted concealed handgun at the attacker and ordered him to put down his weapon. The shooter dropped his gun and ran into his father’s apartment, barricading himself in. Three-and-a-half hours later, the man surrendered to the police.
Such scant attention, it escaped even my attention, and I have this stuff Google alerted out the wazoo. No bodies, so it’s not a big news story. I have to say, it took a lot of guts to tell the guy to drop his weapon rather than just open fire.
We talked a while ago about proposals afoot in Trenton that would essentially make the one-gun-a-month law in New Jersey meaningless. That proposal has cleared a major hurdle. That it would boil down to one more form you had to fill out, one more hassle. We’re supposed to believe that illegal gun traffickers are going down to their local police, filling out the paperwork for a permit. Submitting fingerprints, going through a multi-point FBI background check, getting their friends and neighbors interviewed, all to sell guns on the streets on Trenton and Newark. We’re also supposed to believe, now, that this one extra form for multiple purchases is going to be what breaks this cycle of gun trafficking.
“This is a common sense compromise that does nothing to impair the goal of protecting public safety by keeping criminals from obtaining multiple weapons at once,” Burzichelli said. “These changes would correct some unintended consequences while also protecting law-abiding citizens and legitimate businesses.”
Johnson said, “These changes would allow us to continue targeting straw purchases and other illegal handgun trafficking, but would provide reasonable exemptions that make sense. In the end, these changes are simply clarifications that don’t interfere with protecting public safety and combating handgun trafficking.”
Don’t get me wrong, it’s better to make the changes than not, but the fact that they can say, with a straight face, that all the hoops New Jersey makes gun owners jump through doesn’t work well to combat gun trafficking, but this one extra form is certain to do the trick.
If it’s not obvious at this point that the emperor has no clothes, I don’t know what will convince people.
Don Kates, civil rights attorney and Second Amendment litigator, has a useful addition to the tired of debate about stopping power. Mainly that it’s a tired old debate.
The Finns have traditionally had a strong shooting culture, often centered around using Russians for target practice, but that’s not going to last much longer because their shooting organizations are weak:
Shooting hobbyists and hunters campaign on behalf of responsible gun use. They want to secure the right to use guns as a hobby, while conceding the need for control.
“Sello involved an illegal weapon. Tougher gun legislation would not have been a solutionâ€, says Markku Lainevirta,, head of a project on the development of the shooting hobby launched by the Shooting Hobby Forum.
“It is a step in the right direction that tougher restrictions are coming for the granting of a person’s first handgun licence.â€
The Shooting Hobby Forum includes shooting hobbyists, hunters, and military reservists.
How is increasing the restriction on licensing going to help your sport? Will it help bring in more people? Will it help convince the general public that gun ownership in and of itself is not a social ill? I mean, by conceding that we need to increase restrictions, you concede that guns in the hands of individuals contributes to Jokela and Kauhojoki. You’re accepting blame for something in which you are blameless.
This will backfire. Next time this happens, they will come knocking on your door again, and again, and again, until they ask for something you don’t want to give up. By that time, you will have willingly reduced the number of people in your sport to such a degree that you will be politically powerless to resist their demands.
They say loophole, I say freedom. Story is that a Milwaukee gun dealership was sold to other owners, and got to “keep” their FFL (in reality, the new owners were issued a new FFL). What is the Brady solution to this so called loophole? Do we punish the premises? No gun shop can open on that property, because pretty clearly it’s a bad property, right? Do we punish the name?  No one can ever again operate a gun shop called “Badger Guns” again? Because clearly the name is evil. The article goes on to describe how liquor regulations work, and suggests that maybe FFLs should be treated more like liquor distributors, but liquor distribution is a different kind of business, and regardless, it’s misleading to suggest that the type of arrangement Badger has should be in any way illegal. Here’s the actual criteria for licensing, without any editorial filtering from the media. ATF regulations state that upon receipt of a properly executed Form 7, the application shall be approved provided:
(1) The applicant is 21 years of age or over;
(2) The applicant (including, in the case of a corporation, partnership, or association, any individual possessing, directly or indirectly, the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of the corporation, partnership, or association) is not prohibited under the provisions of the Act from shipping or transporting in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition, or from receiving any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce;
(3) The applicant has not willfully violated any of the provisions of the Act or this part;
(4) The applicant has not willfully failed to disclose any material information required, or has not made any false statement as to any material fact, in connection with his application; and
Three generally means you haven’t had an FFL revoked before. How much malfeasance does this standard really allow for? How is this a “loophole?” Â What could you possible do that would fix this, without adopting an absurd standard? One would imagine the Brady Campaign cares little, as long as it means more gun shops closing down.
Looks like Tim Bearden is planning a pretty broad expansion:
The legislation he is working on, a variation of House Bill 615 that was presented before committee in the waning hours of the 2009 legislative session, would expand the possible places owners could legally carry their guns, changing the current law to allow owners to carry guns in all places except for courthouses and prisons and jails, effectively ensuring that no unauthorized person would be allowed to carry a gun where inmates are housed or transferred.
That would pretty much fix all the problems with concealed carry in Georgia. The only step after that really would be to adopt Alaska carry.
It appears that Cerberus/Freedom Group is buying up Barnes Bullets according to a well-sourced rumor from Shooting Illustrated.
UPDATE: Confirmed.
Sebastian received the new peep sight for the Izzy during the holidays, and he took the time to put it on this weekend. Â Talk about just in time for today’s match. Â And with that, here is his new toy for knocking over all those pesky metallic pigs, chickens, turkeys, and rams:
Dr. Helen offers a review of a book that might be of interest to gun owners:
It begins with a section entitled, “Before Violence Occurs” that shares a good first rule of self defense: “Don’t get hit.” The authors talk about how to avoid situations or locations where violence is more likely to occur. These places include traveling through the wrong neighborhoods, hanging out with the wrong people, or frequenting the wrong night spots, and/or acting inappropriately in these places. The authors–two experienced martial artists–point out that there is almost always a build-up to violence, one that many people are not aware of. They teach you to have situational awareness without being paranoid or mentally exhausting yourself. They discuss simple tips like when it’s time to leave a party before violence escalates. It’s good advice, especially for young men who often have to learn how to deal with aggression, even if they don’t want to.
Read the whole thing.