Guns – Page 825 – Shall Not Be Questioned

AK-47 SKS Swap on Craigslist Causing a Stir

Curt has an interesting story from Philadelphia about someone proposing an AK-47 SKS swap on Craigslist.Â I agree with Curt this is likely someone seeking attention, and quite possibly an anti-gunner looking to raise an issue in the media.Â Whoever is proposing it, pretty clearly knows little or nothing of guns, and nearly nothing about their value.Â That makes me skeptical it’s a gun enthusiast, and a gang member wouldn’t be using craigslist.

But I have to wonder about the mentality of city officials here, especially given that the paper incorrectly suggests that the transaction requires use of an FFL (true for handguns in Pennsylvania, but not for long guns).Â One has to wonder if people can legally buy and transfer guns, even if an FFL is required, what’s the outrage about trading a gun for rims?Â Or does such a transaction make allusions to certain demographics that people don’t want buying guns?

Bump on the Road

The Second Circuit seems to have ignored some important dicta in regards to the Second Amendment and ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to the states, citing Cruikshank.Â In Heller, The Court said:

With respect to Cruikshankâ€˜s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

I would seem to be that would require some more serious analysis on the part of the circuit court.Â Looks like it was a nunchaku possession case that is less than an ideal case to take forward, but not much is going to stop defense lawyers from hopping in the Hellermobile for a little joyride with their clients.Â Hopefully we can have better luck in other federal circuits before someone wraps it around a telephone pole.

NRA Board Composition

The NRA Board of Directors is comprised of 76 members.Â Why so many?Â Largely because it tends to promote stability.Â This is both good, and bad, but in my opinion mostly good.Â The upside to a large board is that no single board member or faction within NRA’s membership wields a tremendous amount of influence.Â In order to make macroscopic changes at NRA, it really does require a broad and sustaining consensus among the membership.Â The downside to a large board is what I just mentioned.Â Rapid, macroscopic changes are very difficult to affect.

Board elections happen every year.Â Board members are elected to a three year term, and at no time is more than 1/3rd of the board up for election in any one year.Â Board members don’t run against one another directly.Â The top 25 vote getters are the ones who get a seat on the board.Â If you are a life member, or have been a continuous NRA member for five years, when you get your ballot in the mail, you can vote for up to 25 people.Â I typically don’t use all 25 of my votes, as I try to only vote for the candidates I have good information about.

But 25 seats over three years is only 75, and there are 76 board members.Â Well, the 76th board seat is elected only to a period of one year, and the 76th board member is voted on at Annual Meeting (in Phoenix this year).Â If you go to Annual Meeting, you will notice people campaigning for 76th board member.Â It’s common for someone who almost made it in the mail-in ballot election to try for this seat, and then run again the following year for a three year board seat.

Gillibrand Softening on Gun Issue

Kirsten Gillibrand’s ascendancy to the Senate has been a good lesson on how gun control thrives.Â This New York Times piece indicates she’s softening her support of gun rights a bit.

Understand that these articles have a purpose, a political purpose.Â They are intended to cajole Gillibrand out of her previous gun rights positions by limiting her range of action.Â If the New York Times comes out and says Gillibrand is softening her position on guns, with a new state-wide view, well, then she better do it.Â The paper of record now has her on record.

And this, my friends, is how gun control thrives.Â A media willing to guilt politicians out of positions they find unsavory, and a population who doesn’t have enough experience with the issue to know differently.Â Will Kirsten Gillibrand hold strong?Â I hope she does.Â But I would be reluctant to count her as a reliable vote in our favor should something come up.Â Â A lot of that will depend on what gun owners are willing to do for her if she angers the New York Times.

UPDATE: Bitter suggests in the comments that the NYT is trying to characterize her as sofening, but doesn’t believe she’s given any indication that she’s changing her position.Â I should be clear that I think this is the case, but I still think it’s difficult to say whether she’d be a reliable vote at this point.Â I’m honestly just not sure how much gun owners in New York State have to offer her if she votes on a bill in a way that will piss off the New York City political elite.Â Right now she’s under a lot of pressure to cave on this issue, and remember, she has to win a Democratic primary in one of the bluest states in the country.Â What incentive are gun owners going to offer her to stay a favorable vote?

Safety Glasses are Important

The Firearms Blog has some videos of guns blowing up.Â Â My friend Jason had his eyes saved by glasses when his Calico M950 blew up on him, which if I recall was caused by a problem with the delayed blowback roller lock mechanism.

Blue Trail Range In the New York Times

This article is fairly balanced for the Times reporting on a firearms issue, but I notice they fail to mention that DiNatale is a developer looking to develop property around the range.Â My own ballistic analysis of Blue Trail a while ago revaled that DiNatale’s property was in the ballistic shadow of the mountain.Â The only way bullets are hitting his house from that range is by rounds firing up into the air at a steep angle, which I find unlikely.

Wolf Control

John Lott asks why Ashley Judd wants wolves to starve to death.Â Too many of us have lost touch with our evolutionary role as an apex predator.Â In regards to the Bathroom Baboon, TD of the Unforgiving Minute passed this interesting bit to me in regards to predatory behavior of Baboons in Africa, and one outfitter’s war against a tribe that attacked a woman and killed her baby.

3 Plinkers Charged in New Jersey

I am not going to defend these three gentlemen’s judgment, because if you look at the satellite photo, you will notice they were not exactly shooting in a deserted area.Â In Pennsylvania, this would justifiably get you a few misdemeanor charges, from violating a municipal discharge ordinance, disorderly conduct, and maybe if the prosecutor has a real beef with the circumstances, reckless endangerment.

But they are being charged with weapons offenses in New Jersey, particularly unlawful possession of a handgun.Â This can be as simple as the kid taking his father’s pistol out to the woods in New Jersey.Â It can even be as simple as the owner handing it off to a friend to shoot.Â These are felonies, and they will be treated no different than gang members, rapists, or murderers by New Jersey’s criminal justice system, and from this point forward, their young lives will be completely ruined.Â With felony records, they will be ineligible for many jobs, will be unable to serve in the military, and have almost no chance of getting their records cleared.Â Most definitely they will never legally own a firearm.

I do think shooting a firearm off in a populated area like Cinnaminson shows a severe lack of judgement, and it is rightful for society to criminalize such errors of judgement, but the punishment does not fit the crime here.Â This is, at best, a misdemeanor.Â This is “reasonable” gun control the Philadelphia media says we should adopt on this side of the river.Â No thanks.

Discharge of Firearm Ordinance Being Challenged

Many Pennsylvania municipalities regulate the discharge of firearms.Â The language of our state’s preemption law would seem to allow this, but it’s never been abundantly clear.Â Now someone is challenging the City of Lancaster’s ordinance regarding discharge of firearms:

Swinton said his cousin was being attacked and beaten by a group of assailants and that he fired a warning shot to disperse them. He had a concealed-carry permit for the gun.

Police charged Swinton with reckless endangerment and illegal discharge of a firearm. The latter is a crime under an ordinance that City Council strengthened in 2007 at the urging of Mayor Rick Gray. Each shot â€” even a blank â€” is a separate offense and can result in a $500 fine and 90 days in jail. Swinton is the first person to be charged under the amended ordinance.

State law gives a person the right to fire a gun if he or she believes another person is in imminent threat of serious harm, Crystle said. The city ordinance, in contrast, says shooting is justified only in defense of one’s home, business or “human life.” The city can’t deny a right to Swinton that he has under state law, Crystle said.

My feeling is there has to be a self-defense exception to these ordinances, otherwise it would appear to fly in the face of state law and the state constitution.Â If the ordinances aren’t written in that manner, than I have no problems with the court creating an exception.

This does, however, speak to relative legal hazard created when warning shots are used.Â I’m not a fan of them.

Tough Battle on Restaurant Carry in Virginia

It’s hard to win on gun rights when the media just flat out refuses to characterize your issue properly.Â Virginia is considering a bill, which is eminently reasonable, that will allow concealed carry license holder to carry in restaurants licensed to serve alcohol provided they do not consume any.Â Here’s how the Roanoke Times characterizes it:

The Senate last week passed a bill, with the help of Roanoke’s Sens. John Edwards and Ralph Smith, that would allow those with permits to carry concealed guns into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

They must tell a designated employee they’re packing, and they must abstain from drinking or risk a misdemeanor. But who would be the wiser?

We don’t think guns and booze belong in the same building and support those establishments that ban any and all weapons from their premises. But at least with open carry, there is transparency about who is and who is not toting a weapon to happy hour.

How much more transparent can you get than having to go up and tell someone at the restaurant you’re packing heat?Â This is about as transparent as you can get.Â It’s ridiculously transparent, in fact, given that I would never have to do such a thing in most other states.Â The Roanoke Times doesn’t even consider the alternative is people leaving loaded firearms in cars where they could be stolen.Â But their coverage is at least better than the New York Times, which says:

The Senateâ€™s retreat from gun controls was compounded by its repeal of another worthy Kaine priority â€” a ban on people swaggering into bars with concealed weapons and make-my-day fantasies.

Yeah, because that’s exactly the bill that’s being proposed.Â And they wonder why they are going down the crapper.