Category: Gun Rights

SAF Going After Bloomberg

Have I mentioned today how much I love the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)? No? Well I just want to state that I love SAF. At the moment they are the organization that’s willing to go around and start shit which has lead to an expansion of the right to keep and bear arms. It looks like their next taget is going to be Bloomberg as SAF is going after New York City’s handgun permit fees:

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg that alleges New York City’s $340 fee for a permit to keep a handgun in the home is “excessive and … impermissibly burdens the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and five individual New York City residents. Also named as a defendant in the lawsuit is New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

“Under state law,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “the maximum fee for issuing a New York State handgun license is $10, but the law exempts citizens living in New York City. That exemption allows the city to charge an exorbitant fee for the license, which discourages city residents from exercising their civil rights while violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

This is looking to be a great lawsuit. Requiring a fee to own a firearm regardless is sickening but when the fee is set high enough to ensure poor people can’t exercise their right the fee becomes dangerous those individuals. Of course King Bloomberg likely doesn’t want the serfs in his city to have a means of defending themselves. It’s nice to see SAF doesn’t share that sentiment.

Also it looks like it’s time to send SAF some more money. I do enjoy paying an organization for good work.

Texas Campus Carry

I find Texas to be an interesting state when it comes to gun laws. On one hand the people of that state are pretty pro-gun but on the other hand they have some strange restrictions in their carry laws. Of these restrictions I find the prohibition against carrying on college campuses to be truly idiotic. Thankfully the Texas legislature seems to be well on their way to fixing it and the National Rifle Association (NRA) is asking Texans to call their state senators and urge them to pass the bill.

Obviously people in opposition to this bill will call these same senators and make claims on “blood in the streets” and claim firearms are too dangerous to have near “irresponsible college students.” Yes the anti-gunners main arguments have been the fact that colleges are a place for debate and any debate involving a person with a firearm will absolutely turn into a shooting war. As a libertarian who has many debates with socialists while I’m carrying a gun I would like to point out how fallacious this argument is.

The other point anti-gunners try to make is college campuses are sources of heavy binge drinking and having firearms near such an environment means shooting wars will develop. What the anti-gunners don’t realize is once somebody has a carry permit a firearm doesn’t magically manifest itself on the permit holder’s hip. Those of us who carry can take the gun off when we decide to do something that doesn’t mix well with weaponry. I know this because I have removed my firearm when I’ve gone to parties and gotten shit faced drunk.

I’m also going to point out the fact that Minnesota allows the carrying of firearms on college campuses (colleges can make restrictions against students and faculty carrying on their campus but no law exists preventing it thus anybody not involved with a college can carry on the campus without any worry or expulsion or being fired). Do you know how many shootings we’ve had on college campuses due to allowing people to legally carry firearms there? Zero. For you anti-gunners who don’t know how to count that means we’ve never had an incident.

This is usually when are anti-gunner will claim that it’s only a matter of time. Truth be told it’s only a matter of time before most scenarios eventually unfold. What I can tell you though is prohibition of having firearms on college campuses hasn’t prevented shootings on said campuses. All these prohibitions have done is effectively disarmed both the student body and faculty meaning any asshole with malicious intent can have his pick of defenseless victims. Although I realize no matter what I say or what evidence I prevent to those who are against removing prohibitions against people arming themselves the anti-gunner’s won’t change their rhetoric. Anti-gunners are irrationally scared of firearms and like all irrational fears this fear has lead them to hold irrational beliefs.

Oklahoma Fighting Back Against Bloomberg

New York King Mayor Bloomberg has been funding so-called “string” operations where he attempts to demonstrate how easy it is for criminals to purchase guns. Bloomberg’s agents find private sellers, claim they can’t pass a background check, and then try to purchase the firearm. The problem of course is the seller has committed a felony act but selling to somebody he or she can be reasonably sure is a felon. Thus the acts being performed are already illegal yet Bloomberg wants yet more laws on the books to make this more illegal.

Well Oklahoma appears to be sick of Bloomberg’s shit and are looking to pass legislation (it only awaits the governor’s signature) making such operations illegal. The bill is SB 856, the Fraudulent Firearms Purchase Prevention Act. It already passed both the House and Senate unanimously so it’s likely to get the required governor’s signature.

I think this paragraph sums up the problem with Bloomberg’s actions:

SB 856 would protect lawful firearm retailers from illegal gun sting operations such as those by Bloomberg who has sent hired agents into other states to attempt illegal firearm purchases in an effort to blame federally licensed firearm retailers for gun crime in New York City and around the country.

Bloomberg is trying to blame the violent crime problem of New York on everybody besides the criminals of New York. Although New York has draconian gun laws Bloomberg is claiming all the illegal guns (which due to New York laws is most guns) come from other states and therefore those states need to pass stronger gun control laws even though they don’t have any problem with crime. I guess we’re supposed to believe that Minnesota has a low violent crime rate because all of our guns are flowing to New York to fuel their violence. Somehow I doubt that’s the problem.

Brady Campaign Whining About Illinois Possibly Lifting Their Carry Ban

Carry laws are in place in every state except Wisconsin and Illinois. To this day no evidence can be brought forth demonstrating these laws have lead to an increase in violent crime but much evidence exists demonstrating these laws correlate with a lowering in violent crime. Yet the Brady Campaign continues to warn about the “blood in the streets” that’s inevitable when carry laws are passed. Why are these people still clinging to their failed belief that guns are the problem? Because not doing so will cause them to lose their Joyce Foundation funding and then they would have to go find real jobs.

Now that Illinois is looking to life their pointless prohibition against allowing serfs citizens to carry handguns the Brady Campaign is throwing a tantrum:

Proponents of the legislation say concealed carry arms responsible, trained citizens and make people safer. But McCarthy says it would only put more guns in the street.

“It’s my personal feeling that the proliferation of handguns is not the way to go,” he told MyFox Chicago. “And I know the gang members will still get their guns and criminals will still get their guns. But remember in Illinois you can own a gun in your home, you just can’t carry it in your purse and in person.”

So McCarthy doesn’t even have an argument. He openly states that criminals will still carry guns and thus admits to the fact that this law only prohibits the law-abiding peasants. I also noticed he put forth no alternative solution that would allow a citizen to protect himself from a violent attacker. Perhaps he believes somebody being violently attacked should just call the police and hope they decide to come by before he’s murdered.

The bottom line is carry permits have been nothing but beneficial. There hasn’t been a single valid argument made against passing liberalized (in the classical sense of the word) carry laws. So far no “blood in the streets” instance have occurred and frankly the laws have been on the books in some states for decades. You would think the anti-gunners would wake up and realize nothing they’ve said has come true and thus their argument has no weight. Then again for most anti-gunners their argument is emotional and logic can go take a flying fuck and a rolling doughnut.

Utah Looking to Gimp Their Carry Permits

Utah arguably has the best carry permit in the United States. Although the requirements of getting it are annoying (fingerprints) the state does have reciprocity agreements with the most states. It appears as though some of those states are getting pissy that Utah doesn’t require a non-resident to get a permit from their state before getting a Utah permit and have pushed Utah’s legislators to change the law. Sadly this change appears to be going through:

The Senate passed unanimously a bill Monday that would require non-Utahns to obtain a concealed weapon permit from their home state before being issued a Utah permit.

The bill, SB36 authored by Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, aims at working with 33 other states that have reciprocity agreements with Utah — allowing states to maintain more control over their concealed weapons permit records.

Why is it Utah’s problem that other states want more control over their peasants citizens and why is Utah bending to the will of other states? As pointed out by Senate President Michael Waddoups this change will cost Utah $1.3 million but nobody else cares because those funds are dedicated so they can’t be woefully pissed away on stupid projects.

So if you’re a holder of a non-resident a Utah permit but lack a permit from your home state it’s likely (going by the complete lack of resistance in Utah’s Senate) going to get you banned from holding a Utah permit for 10 years. Just remember to thank your state’s “representatives” for pushing Utah into this after you’ve thanked Utah for being the bitch of other states.

Outbidding Police in Their Own Buy Back

Sometimes you find people doing their best to do good. Take the story posted up by No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money where a private organizations, Texans for Accountable Government (TAG), offer $110.00 cash to buy guns to complete with the Austin Police Department who were only offering $100.00 grocery cards in exchange for firearms. The best part though is that TAG will be giving these firearms to those in need (and can lawfully purchase them).

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGovcSN07SU]

Criminal Use of Suppressors

Say Uncle linked to a very good study on the use of suppressors in crimes [PDF]. The study concludes that most crime involving suppressors are only crimes because the people in possession the suppressors failed to pay the government extortion tax to get a stamp saying it’s all good to own them. The use of suppressors in actual crimes is very rare. The other thing concluded by the study is the fact that banning suppressors is pointless:

A more telling criticism of laws against silencers is the ease with which they are avoided. Since one can ef- fectively muffle a firearm by doing nothing more than wrapping it in a towel it is unlikely that laws banning professionally manufactured (or home-made) silencers are likely to have any real effect on crime. In one case, for example, the murderer used a towel as “a make-shift silencer” and yet because it was only a towel this was not an additional crime (People v. Garcia, 2006 WL 3307392, *7 (Cal. Ct. App.)).

This is very near and dear to my heart because Minnesota has a complete prohibition against owning suppressors. Suppressors are only courteous to your neighbors as it reduces the amount of noise produced by firearms and therefore also reduces the number of noise complaints. I know one of the bigger headaches for firing ranges is when somebody new moves in and shortly afterwards complains about the noise from the fucking gun range that’s been there for over 80 years. Instead of realizing how stupid they were to miss a long established range these people try to get the range shut down and ruin it for everybody. Legalized suppressors would be beneficial for both the dip shit and the range members.

Happy 100th Birthday 1911

Today is the big day. It’s been one century since the United States military adopted the M1911. The 1911 was quite the revolution in pistol designs for its day. Very few tools can last 100 years with little need for redesign but the 1911 pistol is one of those few.

Although I could give a long list of things that are great about the 1911 you’ve likely heard them all before on other gun sites. Suffice it to say the pistol is still pure awesome 100 years after it’s adoption by the military. I wouldn’t be surprised if the 1911 is still around in another 100 years.

So here is to 100 years of excellence and the hope of 100 more.

That Evil NRA

As Snowflakes in Hell brings up one thing the anti-gunners like to parrot is how the National Rifle Association (NRA) hates police officers. They claim the fact that the NRA works to maintain gun rights for use measly little peasants as proof. Well the NRA must really hate police officers since they’re buying them body armor:

The Taylor County Sheriff’s Office is getting new body armor thanks to a grant from the National Rifle Association.

The funds were awarded earlier this year in an effort to provide body armor that may not otherwise be available because of budget constraints.

Wait that doesn’t fit the anti-gunner schtick.

The Death of Due Process

Our legal system is one where a person must be found guilty of a crime by a jury before punishment can be exacted. Well that was the idea at least, the reality is a bit different through. For example thanks to various legislation passed shortly after 9/11 you can be arrested and detained indefinably so long as the state labels you a terrorist. Apparently some “representatives” decided this was a good idea and put some provisions in the The Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 that would strip the second amendment rights of anybody arrest of a drug crime, regardless of whether or not they were actually convicted:

.

Sponsored by New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and introduced earlier this month, the expanded background checks bill includes a “clarification of the definition of drug abusers and drug addicts who are prohibited from possessing firearms.” Under Schumer’s bill, the definition of a “drug abuser” would include anyone with “an arrest for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past 5 years.”

But the “arrest” language of Schumer’s bill and a clarification from the ATF indicate that a greater number of innocent Americans would be barred from owning a gun if the Senate bill becomes law.

“Under the definition of ‘unlawful user’ … an inference of current use could be drawn if the one arrest resulted in a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year,” the ATF told the The Daily Caller.

To clear up any confusion, Schumer’s bill would expand that “inference” to say: if you’ve ever been arrested for any kind of drug use or possession in the past five year, you can be denied the lawful possession of a firearm.

Obviously Schumer is an asshole but I’ve already said that several times on this blog. People who’ve read this blog long enough know I’m against continued punishment after your initial sentence has been carried out. What I mean to say is I’m against the stripping of somebody’s rights after they’ve served their prison sentence. Punishments should fit crimes and being stripped of the best means of self-defense does not fit using marijuana.

Drug use in of itself isn’t violent and permanently taking somebody’s right to keep and bear arms is flimsy even for violent crimes. There is absolutely no justification for taking somebody’s right of self-defense if they’ve committed a non-violent crime. But what lacks any justification whatsoever is taking somebody’s second amendment right because they were arrested for a crime but not convicted. You’re not supposed to be able to punish somebody for a crime they haven’t been proven beyond a reasonable doubt of committing.

This amendment would be completely open for police abuse. What happens if a sheriff in a shall-issue state doesn’t want to issue permits because he doesn’t believe citizens are as good as he is? Well you simply arrest them for a drug charge and release them. There you go that person is now no longer able to get a permit and the sheriff gets to continue his monopoly on the use of violence in all situations.