Passed 41 to 30. This law actually stipulates biometric technology, which I don’t think will ever be reliable enough. As might be expected, law enforcement is exempt.
Category: Guns
I Could Use This
The ultimate clip loader for the Ruger Mk II and Mk III and the Buckmark. The only problem I’d have is that my club has a five round limit on magazines. A highly obnoxious rule, especially if you’re an M1 shooter, but it’s mostly a shotgun and silhouette club, and it’s 10 minutes from my house.
A New Brady Blog Feature
Looks like they are trying to post more in hopes of attracting more traffic. I was wondering why I suddenly had three new posts in Bloglines, which is unusual for them. Either way, they point out that the guy who got into a gunfight in Seattle, and has a CHL from the State of Washington, never should have had one. Well, the fact that get got into a scuffle with someone and shot him ought to be an indication he wasn’t the type of person who ought to be armed. Regardless, the fact that he was addicted to a controlled substance means he wasn’t eligible to own a firearm, let alone carry one. CeaseFire Washington had this to say:
Kristen Comer, executive director of Washington Ceasefire, a gun-control advocacy group, said the situation underscores problems with Washington state’s concealed-weapon law.
“The background checks done in Washington state are very primitive,” she said. “We didn’t have background checks before 1994.”
Right now there are two background checks, Comer said.
The state check is the equivalent of law enforcement asking each other if “John Doe is on your list,” Comer said. “And the federal system and the state system don’t talk to each other much, as far as mental health goes.”
The problem is, there is no more thorough background check that would have likely turned up these records, since it’s not clear they exist. Was there ever a previous adjudication or commitment? Were the authorities ever involved in his addiction treatment? No doubt this will be used as an example of why we need ever deeper probing of carry license applicants, but it’s not clear it would have made a difference in this case.
Trouble in Illinois
Looks like they are pushing the “Lost and Stolen” crap there too. Sounds like they managed to get a 3/5th supermajority requirement in that goes into effect on June 1st, which will raise the barrier for passing more gun laws in that state, so if this can be stopped now, it might have a hard time passing at a later date.
UPDATE: Kurt updates:
I didn’t make that very clear. It’s not that we managed to get a 3/5ths requirement–it’s just that the deadline for the end of the spring session is May 31st. The budget is such a mess that they’ll almost certainly have to call special sessions during the summer, so they’ll keep meeting, but anything passed during a special session must pass by super-majority.
Damn shame. Imagine how much better off we’d be if it took a bare majority to repeal a law but a supermajority to pass one?
The Bullet Counters
Wyatt points out a rather good article in Townhall about police shootings. This stuff applies to anyone who has to use a firearm in self-defense. Police aren’t the only ones that get subject to 20/20 hindsight by people who don’t know much about these matters, so go have a read.
Microstamping in New York
Tom King, President of New York State Rifle and Pistol Assocation, has a post up debunking Microstamping, which is in real danger of passing in New York State. They’ve been able to hold off new gun control in New York thanks to a Republican controlled senate, but after 2008, there’s a real danger of the state sinking into the gun control abyss if the Democrats regain control. We briefly interviewed Tom at the Annual Meeting after Governor Patterson announced his “screw gun owners” legislative agenda:
An Open Invitation
Doug Pennington is an employee of the Brady Campaign, and I’m pretty sure the guy who does the Brady Campaign blog on Paul’s behalf. As Thirdpower points out, he’s been commenting at The Huffington Post. Here’s what he says in one of his comments:
One thing: I’ve read comments off and on over the months on the blog, and one reason I (and I suspect others) choose not to get between the warring sides here is that nobody listens to anybody. Commenters here seem to be good at the schoolyard taunts and calling each other “liars,” etc, though. A few do seem to have arguments at the ready and numbers to go along with them – on both sides. (If I can make it through the drek, I can actually learn things.) Almost nobody, though, shows a sense that they may not actually have all the answers. Get in the middle of a bunch of know-it-alls convinced of their correctness? Disagree and be called a liar? Spend hours going tit-for-tat in a pointless spiral? Uh, no thanks….
Welcome to the Internet, Doug. I agree that once you get beyond the first couple of iterations of comment-reply-comment, it goes downhill pretty quickly. So I’ll extend an open invitation to Doug to have a public discussion with him on this blog regarding any gun control related topic he may want to talk about. The discussion could happen over a series of e-mails, with the end result being published here. No Kelli, no Macca, No Thirdpower, no Kaveman. Just Doug and myself.
Think they’ll take me up on it?
New Anti-Gun Blog
Thanks to Paul Helmke for pointing out a new, or at least new to me, anti-gun blog. Since the good reverend is clinging to God, but not guns, one wonders whether she’s still one of Obama’s “bitter” ones. But regardless, it appears that the blog allows comments. I haven’t tried to place one yet, but I’m going to guess “heavily moderated.” Just a hunch. Can’t have too much reasoned discourse now, can we? But proceed respectually and factually, as I know our commenters are wont to do. Engage the good reverend, and let the reasoned discourse flow.
More on Arizona Justification Bill
Actual text of the bill is here. Basically it allows you to verbally announce you’re armed to an attacker, allows a transition from concealed to open carry when under threat of physical force (not necessarily deadly physical force). It also would appear to allow you to draw into the ready position under threat of physical force. Based on a quick review of Arizona’s criminal statutes, it doesn’t appear to be unlawful to draw a gun on someone as long as you’re justified in using deadly force, even if you don’t have to shoot. Arizona’s self-defense statute would appear to remove self-defense as a justification if you are responsible for escalating the confrontation. So a question I would have is, if you draw one someone threatening physical force (not deadly physical force), and they don’t back down, then what? They are threatening physical force, you’re threatening deadly physical force. If you end up shooting him, do you lose justification?
Mass Shooting Stopped by Gun Carrying Citizen
First I’ve heard of this is from Dustin’s blog. If he had succeeded in carrying out his mass shooting, any doubt this would have made national headlines? Also of note that in most states, bars are gun free zones. In Nevada, they are not. Yet somehow, someone managed to think clearly and take action, at a place where we’re told that people won’t act responsibly.
And it doesn’t register as a blip on the national news.