Joe and a few other blogs have reported that the NIH is getting into the gun research business. I don’t think studying the gun issue should really be part of NIH’s mission, just like it ought not to be part of CDC’s mission. CDC did a lot of anti-gun research in the 90s under Clinton, and it looks like NIH might be getting uppity on the issue under Obama. My worry is this is bureaucrats with an agenda who will spend their research dollars trying to verify their fore-drawn conclusions. In statistics, that’s often easy to do.
Category: Guns
Freedom Group Going Public?
So says the Wall Street Journal, and it includes a quote from my co-blogger.
Early Barrett M82s
Virginians for Public Safety
It’s a small world in gun control advocacy. So small, the groups even write each other’s press releases. Or is Virginians for Public Safety an astroturfing operation on the part of Coalition to Stop Gun Violence? Maybe. Bob Ricker, formerly of AHSA, used to head up VPS. Amazing what a small incestuous world the gun control issue is.
On True Believers
Seth Godin says that the Internet is full of true believers. This is true for tech products, but it’s also true for special interest groups as well:
The truth of the market is that the market you sell to isn’t filled with true believers. It’s filled with human beings who make compromises, who tell stories, who have competing objectives. And as a result, the truth of the market is that the products and services that win (if win means you can make a good living and make positive change) are rarely the products and services that are beloved without reservation by the true believers.
A lesson we could learn here in the Second Amendment community.
What Passes for Legal Reasoning
Laci the Dog, I’m pretty sure, should be called Laci the Troll, because I find it difficult to believe that a lawyer could be so obtuse on matters of law. As Mike W mentioned, her blog is relatively devoid of intellectual argument. This here is the latest justifying bans on semi-autos because they can be readily restored to fully automatic fire. She should stick to whatever law she practices, because firearms law is not her forte. The closest Supreme Court case we have on this topic is Staples v. US:
We concur in the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion on this point: “It is unthinkable to us that Congress intended to subject such law abiding, well intentioned citizens to a possible ten year term of imprisonment if . . . what they genuinely and reasonably believed was a conventional semiautomatic [weapon] turns out to have worn down into or been secretly modified to be a fully automatic weapon.”
The fundamental issue in Staples is whether or not Congress intended to eliminate the mens rea requirement that’s required in most crimes. The Court ruled that the government had to prove guilty intent when it came to possessing a semiautomatic firearm that was capable of firing automatically. In none of the Courts reasoning in Staples did they indicate that possession of any semi-automatic firearm was in violation of National Firearms Act. In fact, the majority rejected the argument that possession of a semi-automatic could meet the mens rea requirement. In fact, the Court in Staples makes the assumption that Congress did not intend to make semi-automatic firearms legally risky, let alone illegal.
So no, Laci, semi-autos aren’t covered by this law, no matter how much you wish it were so.
HSUS’s Radical Agenda
HSUS is once again trying to play the general public in exchange for donations with commercials featuring abused animals and shelters even though they give only a pittance to the local shelters.  Most of the money raised actually goes to support their legislative agenda. And if you are a hunter or gun owner, you should be concerned.
In their Obama-themed “Change Agenda for Animals,†HSUS spells out their goals for the first term of the current administration. The changes reflect an all-out assault on agriculture, meat production, hunting, and even gun rights. The 100-item list doesn’t even include the summary outline of new agency divisions, liaisons, and yes, even a new czar.
In the opening notes, HSUS calls for a new White House specialist, a so-called czar, for animal rights issues. The specialist would work with liaisons on animal rights in at least 20 agencies and departments, including:
- Department of Agriculture
- Department of Interior
- Department of Commerce
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Department of Health & Human Services
- Department of State
- Department of Transportation
- Department of Housing & Urban Development
- Department of Defense
- Federal Trade Commission
- Department of Education
- Department of Justice
- US Agency for International Development
- US Trade Representative
- National Institutes of Health
- Food & Drug Administration
- Centers for Disease Control
- Department of Treasury
- US Postal Service
- Consumer Product Safety Commission
All of this is in addition to a new proposed division of the Department of Justice to prosecute all of these new animal rights crimes, including the taking & sharing of hunting photos, provided the Supreme Court doesn’t step in to stop that particular infringement on the First Amendment.
I guess this agenda fits right in with the administration’s attempt to consolidate decision-making in the White House. Â The specifics, which I’ll break down tomorrow, are pretty horrifying.
Hunting Groups Climb On Board with Cap and Trade
A favorite pastime of hunters and groups that represent hunting is to slit their own wrists. We don’t need Wayne Pacelle when hunters are completely willing to off themselves. Study after study has shown that the primary impediment to people going hunting is the lack of places to hunt. With increasing sprawl, hunters and anglers find themselves having to go farther than farther out to find land to hunt and fish on. And what is the primary thing that lets hunters and anglers get to far away and remote places to hunt? Energy. Namely gasoline and diesel. So how is gasoline and diesel being a lot more expensive going to help hunters? That’s why I’m displeased more than a few hunting groups have signed on to the National Wildlife Federations mission to get crap and trade passed the Senate. For of you who are curious, the complete list of groups signing on can be found here (large PDF, warning):
- American Fisheries Society
- American Fly Fishing Trade Association
- American Sportfishing Association
- Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
- Berkley Conservation Institute
- Campfire Club
- Dallas Safari Club
- Ducks Unlimited
- Houston Safari Club
- Izaak Walton League of America
- Mule Deer Foundation
- National Trappers Association
- National Wildlife Federation
- Pheasants Forever
- Quality Deer Management Association
- The Wildlife Society
- Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
- Trout Unlimited
- Wildlife Forever
- Wildlife Management Institute
Only a few of these groups are actually hunting and fishing groups, but if you belong to any of them, I’d quit, and call them up and make sure you know why. They do not look after the interests of hunters. I can tell you in at least one of the cases, the Mule Deer Foundation, they are actively supporting HSUS’s attempts to restrict hunting. They are bad news for hunters.
Congratulations to Cemetery
He took first place in Frontier Cartridge Duelist at the New Jersey State match for the Single Action Shooting Society. For those not into Cowboy Action, Frontier Cartridge Duelist is a single action pistol, being shot one handed, with a black powder load. Looks something like this:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUGIQKCtv2Y[/youtube]
At first, I thought the gun the dude was shooting was a semi-auto, because the shots were so damned fast. I could barely see him working the lever.
More Concealed Carry News from Wisconsin
The media has picked up on the story generated by the Milwaukee DA and Police Chief saying they might be willing to accept concealed carry reform in exchange for some more restrictions on gun sales. While it’s true that this hardly indicates they’ve been converted, they are at least signaling a willingness to deal. That doesn’t mean gun owners have to accept a deal, but when you have your opponent over the ropes in politics, this is typically the kind of signal sent that would be the equivalent of crying “Uncle!”
I think it’s a good example of targeted open carry activism having a positive effect.