Category: Gun Rights

Tampa Mayor Trying to Ban Guns at Republican National Convention

Apparently the mayor of Tampa isn’t happy about Florida’s preemption laws that prohibit local municipalities from overriding state gun laws:

Frustrated by a Florida law that blocks all local regulation of guns, Mayor Bob Buckhorn expects to reach out to Gov. Rick Scott for help keeping concealed firearms away from protests during the Republican National Convention.

The 2011 state law pre-empts the ability of cities and counties to pass any laws regulating firearms or ammunition.

So while Tampa plans to ban a wide range of weapons (clubs, switchblades, Mace) and things that could be used as weapons (chains, glass bottles, water pistols) outside the convention, it cannot prohibit guns carried with a concealed weapons permit.

If ever a place existed where you would want a firearm it would be the Republican National Conventions (RNC). The RNC will be one of the very few locations that will have armed mobs both inside and outside of the building (honestly, I’m more fearful of the armed mob inside the RNC). What will be interesting is seeing if the newly passed law that makes it illegal to “knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions” anywhere the Secret Service is guarding people. At this point all the candidates have Secret Service protection, well except Ron Paul:

So the new law may certainly be enforced at the RNC. I’m guessing this year’s RNC will mirror 2008’s RNC, in which most of St. Paul was turned into more of a police state than it normally is (they had barbed wire and everything).

Feinstein National Carry Reciprocity Bill

I doubt anybody is surprised about this but everybody’s favorite hater of individual liberty has blocked the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012, oh and she’s citing the Trayvon Martin case because she likes to take entirely unrelated events and use them as justification for preventing individuals from having rights:

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Tuesday placed a hold on two controversial pieces of legislation that would force states that allow the concealed carrying of guns to recognize each other’s permits.

Feinstein informed party leadership that she would oppose the quick passage of two concealed carry reciprocity bills that critics argue would cause a “race to the bottom” in terms of concealed weapon law in the United States. The senator cited the shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager killed in Florida, as one of the reasons she was applying the legislative brakes.

“Besides putting domestic violence victims in danger, the concealed carry reciprocity bills would also create potentially life threatening situations for law enforcement officers,” Feinstein wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

“In recent weeks, our nation has witnessed tragic gun violence in Sanford, Florida and in Oakland, California, which is only a short drive from my home. Notably, George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, had been issued a concealed carry permit under Florida law, even though he had previously been subject to a court order for domestic abuse of his ex-fiancée. Congress should heed the warnings of law enforcement and not force states to recognize the permits issued to individuals by other states.”

I’m a logical human being which is probably why I’m unable to understand Feinstein’s justification. How would the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act put domestic violence victims in danger or create life threatening situations for law enforcement officers? I’ll also hand her some exploitations of the tragedies bonus points for weaseling the Martin case into her statement.

Nowhere in the bill’s text is there any loosening of restrictions on those involved in domestic violence cases. Obviously this is par for the course when Feinstein is playing but she could at least try to give a sensible justification for hating individual rights. I’m also not sure how the bill would create a life threatening situation for police officers. How many permit holders have murdered police officers? I’m guessing the number hovers somewhere around zero. If somebody has so much disregard for life that they’re willing to murder another human being they certainly aren’t going to give two shits about laws prohibiting them from carrying firearms.

Furthermore Feinstein seems to believe that the lives of police officers are more valuable that you or mine. She doesn’t believe the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act could create life threatening situations for regular individuals, no, only for police officers.

As a voluntaryist I’ve explained my support for the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. It really boils down to the fact that the state can legitimately own property so any restriction they put on our right as self-owners is unjust, immoral, and unacceptable. No state has the right to prohibit me from carrying a gun, only rightful property owners can do that and only while I’m on their property. Carrying a firearm isn’t a violent act yet the state often reactions to people peacefully carrying firearms with violence. Feinstein would prefer the state continue to insert violence into an otherwise non-violence situation. It’s actually rather sickening when you realize how much politician love violence.

An Important Thing to Remember About the Virginia Tech Massacre

This year marks the fifth anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre. While many people have been using this anniversary to push a gun control agenda the truth is the amount of people killed by the shooter could have been reduced greatly if only students and faculty were allowed to carry on campus:

Speaking for myself, I would give anything if someone on campus; a professor, one of the trained military or guardsman taking classes or another student could have saved my daughter by shooting Cho before he killed our loved ones. Because professors, staff and students are precluded from protecting themselves on campus, Cho, a student at Virginia Tech himself, was able to simply walk on campus and go on a killing rampage with no worry that anyone would stop him.

What enabled the killer to walk around the campus and murder random individuals wasn’t a lack of gun control laws, it was to presences of them. Serial killers like Cho select gun-free zones for a reason, they can be reasonably sure that they won’t encounter any resistance and therefore hold all of the power. For many of these killers their real desire is power over others and killing unarmed individuals gives a person a feeling of power.

When the state prohibits you from carrying a firearm they are stripping you of your ability to defend yourself. No free society should ever find it acceptable to use the threat of violence (if you carry a gun you will be kidnapped and tossed into a cage) to prevent others from defending themselves. It’s ridiculous. The very fact that nonviolent individuals wanting nothing more than the ability to defend themselves are subjected to the threat of violence by the state should be appalling to everybody.

Although the Virginia Tech massacre couldn’t have been prevented entirely the number killed could have been greatly reduced. Instead society allowed the gun control advocates to get their way and it has cost lives. We should all remember the aftermath of Virginia Tech and vow to fight for individuals’ right to self-defense.

The NRA Just Threw Gun Rights Out the Window

It appears that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has decided to surrender on the topic of gun rights this election cycle:

The NRA leadership is throwing its wholehearted support behind Republican Mitt Romney, who once incurred its ire by supporting stiff gun restrictions as governor of Massachusetts. Despite that history, it sees Romney as a vastly better gamble than President Obama, although Obama has done almost nothing to restrict gun use.

“We believe Mitt Romney would do a better job than President Obama,” said Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA, which claims nearly 4 million members. “We believe that any of the candidates on the Republican side would be better on the 2nd Amendment” — the right to bear arms.

Thanks for nothing guys. I’m sorry but endorsing Romney is not the answer, it’s not even a valid option when it comes to supporting gun rights. I talked about this before but the NRA’s approach of supporting the “lesser” of two evils is pointless. We are all aware of Romney’s track record when it comes to gun rights, it’s abysmal. The very fact that he signed a permanent “assault” weapon ban in Massachusetts should have disqualified him from receiving any support from the NRA. I’d rather see the NRA come up and publicly state a vote of no confidence then concentrate their policial money on the legislature. Better yet move on to a new strategy like emulating the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) tactic of suing state entities that violate the rights of gun owners.

You know what else pisses me off? Not only are the leaders of the NRA supporting Romney but, as I predicted, members of the NRA are now backing the dumb bastard as well. He suckered a huge audience with one speech. One measly speech caused a massive number of NRA members, the supposed guardians of gun rights in this country, to forget Romney’s track record and get behind him. What… the… fuck?

I knew this would be the outcome but it still hurts to see it officiated. Romney isn’t going to be any better than Obama when it comes to gun rights (or anything else for that matter). He’s talking a big game now as he’s trying to gather support from suckers voters but we’ll be tossed under the bus the second he’s in office. Personally I’m not a fan of supporting a man when I know he’s going to run a knife in my back the second it’s turned.

There is No Right, There is No Left

It seems any topic imaginable gets split between the political right (Republicans) and left (Democrats). Laws against abortions are generally considered right, laws allowing for abortions are generally considered left. Laws allowing gays to marry are usually considered left, laws prohibiting gays from marrying are usually considered right. Guns are no different, laws supporting gun ownership are usually seen as right while guns opposing gun ownership are usually seen as left. There is a problem with such thinking though: there is no right and there is no left, just one giant authoritarian party:

Of course, the biggest piece of anti-freedom, anti-gun legislation was the 1968 Gun Control Act, which stopped the unrestricted, ungoverned interstate sale of firearms and gave us the immortal BATFE Form 4473. “HEY, HEY, LBJ, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?” Yeah, old Lyndon put that one through and it sailed through a Democratic House and Senate and was signed by a President I’ve despised all my life.

This is where everybody likes to stand up and say, “See! The Democrats hate our gun rights!” What these same people seldom stand up and say is that Republicans hate our gun rights as well. Let’s not forget what the man who is an symbol of all that is supposedly conservative, good, and holy to the Republican Party did to fuck gun owners over:

Ronnie Reagan is the one who really stuck it to Gun Owners. He signed the legislation that capped the NFA pool at what it is today and stopped the New registration of machine guns. What few on our side of this issue want to talk about is the fact that more than a few prominent machine gun collectors lobbied FOR this law. Dolf Goldsmith being the most prominent one I could find in the testimony in the Congressional Record. Why? Because it made him Rich! It was Greed, pure and simple and Good Ole Ronnie signed it into law.

The cap on licensable machine guns, brought to us courtesy of the Huges Amendment, was not only signed by the “most amazingest conservative president EVAR!” but was also supported by those who owned machine guns. It’s not surprising to see machine gun owners supporting such a bill for the same reason many companies that face additional expenses from regulations public support said regulations: it eliminates competition and therefore makes the good or service you provide more valuable.

When the state gets an idea in their head to regulation some inane process related to a business the large businesses will usually jump in and exclaim their undying support. They do this because they realize their smaller competitors won’t be able to afford complying with the regulation and will therefore go bankrupt.

The very same mentality went through the heads of machine gun owners when the Huges Amendment was introduced. Think about it for a minute, you own a machine gun that is valued at, say, $500.00. The value of your machine gun doesn’t go up because new ones are constantly being produced. Suddenly a politician comes out and says he wants to halt the production of new machine guns, which would mean new ones won’t get produced to compete with the one you own. It’s in your best interest to support the legislation because it will cause the value of your machine gun to increase over time as the pool of available machine guns slowly dries up and no new ones are being produced to refill the pool.

Another example of this are tax cabs, the number of which many cities put a limit on. This is one of the classic examples of state enforce monopolies given by Murray Rothbard and he talks about it extensively in his microeconomics lecture on monopolies. Needless to say, like machine gun owners supporting the Huges Amendment, taxi cab drivers support the cap on the number of taxis that can operate within a city. Let’s move on to more of this left/right paradigm destruction:

After Reagan, Bush the Senior outlawed the importation of ‘assault weapons’ and then Clinton stuck us for 10 years with the ban on over 10 round magazines. Fortunately, that last piece of anti-freedom crap had a sunset provision and died a natural, but none too soon, death and some sanity has been restored. We still wouldn’t have many different ‘assualt rifles’ if the 922(e) provision for American manufactured parts hadn’t been introduced. Otherwise, you would have AR’s, M-1A’s and, Oh Yeah, a whole bunch more AR’s and damn few other options.

Most gun owners remember how Clinton screwed us but few remember how Bush Sr. screwed us (or the fact Geore W. Bush said he would sign a renewal to the “assault” weapon ban if it crossed his desk). So what’s the conclusion? Can’t we just blindly vote for Republicans to defend our gun rights? Nope:

So, if you evaluate Presidents and political parties by what they’ve done and NOT by their soundbites, my feeling is the Republican Presidents have screwed gun owners more than the Democrats have. Only 2 Democratic Presidents have signed anti-gun, anti-freedom national legislation; Johnson and Clinton, while on the Republican side, we have Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush Senior.

There is no right and there is no left, there are no Republican and there are no Democrats. When it comes to issues there are only politicians who will screw you over at the drop of a hat if it means they gain money, power, or a better chance to be reelected so they can get more of the two latter things. Saying Romney will protect our gun rights more than Obama is an argument not backed with any factual information. Romney’s record on guns is horrible. Both Obama and Romney state support for “assault” weapon bans but only one, Romney, has actually signed a ban.

Between the two Romney will be the candidate promising gun owners protection but the rhetoric is irrelevant, whether or not he will deliver is the only important question. Judging by his voting record he won’t support us. Some people are claiming he’ll support us because he needs us to get elected , which is false. Romney doesn’t need to pander to us because he knows our options are either him or Obama and most gun owners hate Obama to such a degree that they’ll vote for anybody else.

When it comes to gun rights there is no lesser evil. I will not support either candidate and I encourage my readers to abstain from supporting either candidate as well. If two candidates who oppose my right of self-defense want to duke it out in a popularity contest they can, I don’t recognize the authority of the state anyways so whichever dictator gets into office is entirely irrelevant to me. Those of you who plan to donate your time and money to Romney know that you’re only helping sow your own destruction. Have fun with that, I’ll be sitting this out. While I may be powerless to stop any destruction of gun rights in this country I certainly will not help the bastards planning that destruction.

Another Failure of Gun Control

Last night I reported about the murder of Jody Lynmarvin Patzner Jr., the 22 year-old gunned down on his bicycle. The police have arrested a suspect in Patzner’s murder and if the suspect is indeed the murdered this story will certainly be yet another demonstration of how futile gun control is:

The man suspected of gunning down Jody Lynmarvin Patzner Jr. in a robbery attempt on a Minneapolis street Monday night was the subject of a mental health commitment hearing three years ago after he was found carrying a pistol without a permit, according to court records.

In Minnesota you first offense for carrying a firearm without a permit is a gross misdemeanor while a second offense is a felony. Furthermore anybody who has been found mentally incompetent to stand trail is a prohibited person [PDF, Page 11]. The suspect in Patzner’s murder wasn’t charged for carrying a weapon without a permit because he was ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial:

His past includes proceedings in 2009 and 2010 in which court officials and county social workers determined he was mentally ill but not so dangerous that he should be locked up, according to records.

“The defendant is not at risk of imminent harm to self or others,” Judge Richard Hopper determined in a June 10, 2009, court order that found the man incompetent to stand trial on the weapons possession charge.

Therefore it was illegal for the suspected murder to own or carry the murder weapon. Once again gun control has failed as a person who is ineligible to own a firearm in the state of Minnesota managed to obtain a firearm in the state of Minnesota.

Whether or not the suspect is the murderer has no bearing on the fact he was able to get a gun even though the law forbid him from doing so. According to advocates gun control laws are the cure to the problem of bad people getting weapons. Every time there is a murder with a firearm the gun control advocates crawl out of their deep holes and demand a new piece of legislation be introduced, a piece of legislation they claim would have prevented the murder in the first place. Reality is not kind of gun control advocates though, as the laws they introduce to be the cure all are proven entirely ineffective. I don’t think they realize the fact that people willing to commit murder have no problem violating laws against possession of weapons.

The Empty Words of Mitt Romney Coming to an NRA Convention Near You

It’s a presidential election year and the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) convention is upon us. That can only mean one thing: a presidential candidate will try to win the support of gun owners by speaking at the NRA convention. Lo and behold Mitt Romney is going to be lying at the convention this year:

Mitt Romney will address the National Rifle Association‘s annual meeting later this week, a speech that comes at a crucial time for the candidate who is working to appeal to the conservative base of his party as he inches closer to clinching the Republican nomination.

Romney, who tells voters on the campaign trail that he believes “we have all the laws we need” in regard to gun control, revealed for the first time just over a month ago that he owns two shotguns. When asked about his stance on gun control during a town hall meeting in Columbus, Ohio, in February, Romney said, “I believe in the second amendment, I’ll protect the second amendment. I have guns myself.”

In response to Romney’s quote that “we have all the laws we need” I must say we don’t have all the laws we need, we have too many laws. A presidential nominee isn’t going to win me over… no matter what he says, but really isn’t going to win me over by taking the safe ground on gun rights. Saying we have enough laws or we should be enforcing the laws we already have are two of the biggest copouts in the fight for gun rights. There is no reason the provisions outlined in the National Firearms Act (NFA) should be enforced and the Hughes Amendment should be discarded faster than an unwanted pregnancy on prom night. I would go so far as to say we shouldn’t enforce any laws on firearm ownership as firearms are inanimate objects and the actual issue is bad people using firearms, which requires dealing with the bad people.

Likewise, the mere fact one owns a gun doesn’t mean one is a proponent of gun rights. Sarah Brady, gun control advocate supreme, purchased a rifle for her son. Saying “I have guns myself” is an entirely empty statement as far as I’m concerned. I know a number of people who hunt, owner rifles for their sport, but are supportive of banning any weapon system they don’t own. We need to remember that this is the same Mitt Romney who supporter Massachusetts’s extremely restrictive gun control laws.

It is unfortunate that Romney will likely walk away with a great deal of support from the NRA convention. A large number of gun owners appear to have very short members, especially when a political candidate has an (R) after his name. After his speech I’m expecting a great deal of posts on various social networking sites from convention attendees proclaiming their support for Romney. Some may justify their support by claiming Romney isn’t great but he’s better than Obama while others will outright claim Romney is a strong proponent of gun rights. I do not have a short memory, in fact I rarely forget a transgression. Under no circumstance will I support Romney in any way, shape, or form. He’s scum, in fact he’s worse than scum, he’s a politician.

Don’t fall for the scam artist’s tricks. If you truly believe the Republican Party is our best chance of expanding gun rights then send a message to them, let them know you will not support them unless they have a strong proponent of gun rights. This means refusing to support Romney, even if you believe he’s “better” than Obama. When you settle for the “lesser” or two evils you just encourage both parties to run candidates who are evil.

Cook County’s “Assault Weapon” Ban to be Challenged

It appears that the Illinois Supreme Court will be hearing the challenge to Cook County’s “assault weapon” ban:

Gun rights advocates scored a victory Thursday when the Illinois Supreme Court decided to allow a challenge to Cook County’s assault weapons ban to proceed.

The court ruled that lower courts were wrong to throw out the challenge. The Supreme Court said it wants the trial court to hear evidence on whether assault weapons get the same Second Amendment protections as handguns.

[…]

The ban was challenged by three Cook County residents who said they had perfectly valid reasons to own the prohibited weapons, from hunting to target shooting to personal protection. They argued that the law was too vague and too broad, with little connection to the goal of increasing public safety.

This could be good news to the denizens of Cook County but it’s even month on how the Illinois Supreme Court will rule. Illinois has a hardon for gun control and are the last remaining state that offers no means for a citizen to legally carry a firearm. Furthermore, even though the Supreme Court shot down Chicago’s handgun ban city officials have been doing everything in their power to prevent residents from purchasing handguns (and any other type of firearm).

The Canadian Long Gun Registry is Dead

Good news for my northern neighbors, the Canadian long gun registry has finally been put down:

The Conservative government vowed during the 2011 election to eliminate the long-gun registry. On Wednesday night, the bill to officially end the registry had its final vote in the Senate — leaving only a signature from the Governor General needed to officially kill the registry.

That signature signing Bill C-19 into law should come Thursday morning.

By a vote of 50-27, senators approved the bill, marking the last political hurdle needed to kill the registry.

It’s good to see Canada finally killing off the $2.7 billion registry that didn’t manage to solve a single crime. Of course the battle isn’t entirely over as Quebec has made it known that they want to maintain their own registry:

The Quebec government has asked repeatedly that records on Quebec residents be transferred so the province can create its own registry, but the federal government has steadfastly rejected the request.

Hopefully the federal government continues to maintain tight control over the long gun registry data. If Quebec wants to implement its own registry make it cost them dearly for their stupidity.

More Impossible Impossibly Happening

Somehow even though, according to Paul Helmke, gun ownership is apparently down the number of National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) checks is way the Hell up:

The March 2012 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 1,189,152 is an increase of 20.0 percent over the NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 990,840 in March 2011.

For comparison, the unadjusted March 2012 NICS figure of 1,715,125 reflects a 19.3 percent increase from the unadjusted NICS figure of 1,437,709 in March 2011.

This marks the 22nd straight month that NSSF-adjusted NICS figures have increased when compared to the same period the previous year.

22 months of increases over previous years. Somehow the anti-gunners are trying to claim that gun ownership is down, yet it’s pretty obvious the number of sales is through the roof. I’m not even sure how the anti-gunners came to their zany conclusion but I’m pretty sure it involved a mixture of depressants and stimulants at the same time.