Category: Gun Rights

Disconnected from Reality

I often accuse anti-gunners of making shit up and being overall disconnected with reality. These accusations are pretty easy to backup as well. Let’s take Josh Horowitz of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence who recently stated:

Following Hurricane Katrina, the NRA promoted a conspiracy theory about mass gun confiscations in Katrina and compared New Orleans officials to Mao, Stalin and Hitler.

As pointed out over at Self-Defense, Survival & Preparedness Daily it’s not a conspiracy theory when it has actually happened. After Hurricane Katrina struck the National Guard performed massive gun confiscations leaving many residents completely defenseless against the criminal entity of New Orleans. These guns have yet to be returned which is why the National Rifle Association has outstanding lawsuits to retrieve the property that was stolen by the government.

But the Horowitz has to find a way to drum up hatred of the “evil gun lobby” (you have to hold a lit flashlight under your chin when you say that) in order to get some inkling of funding for his failing enterprise of anti-rights propaganda.

Another One Bites the Dust

Days of Our Trailers reports on the apparent removal of Peter Hamm from the Brady Campaigns list of employees. Are the rats fleeing the sinking ship? Can the Brady Campaign no longer afford to pay senior staff? Are senior staff members no longer able to cope with the complete ignorance of reality required for their job? Who knows but it’s not looking good for them.

Your Tax Dollars at Work Arming Mexican Drug Cartels

Governments are interesting entities. They claim to need power over the citizenry in order to protect the citizenry. This power often includes the ability to prohibit certain activities and establishes punishments for those citizens who disregard the prohibitions. What makes this whole situation interesting is the fact once these very prohibitions are in place the government turns right around and disregards them.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) has been one of many organizations covering what we gun rights activists have labeled the Mexican Gun Canard. The Mexican government has been claiming the source of drug cartel guns has been the United States. Due to this the Mexican government has urged our government to enact stricter gun control laws and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) have jumped right onto this bandwagon in order to obtain more funding. The ATF have also been asking for emergency powers to record people buying “assault weapons” near the Mexican border.

Recently stories have broken that show the ATF is likely responsible for guns flowing from the United States to Mexico. Well the NSSF has a good post that brings up a story about a WikiLeaks document showing our government as a source of guns for the Mexican Drug Cartels.

To sum up the cables the drug cartels have obtained many of their weapons from other Central American countries which were supplied with weapons by the United States. Shocked? Didn’t think so as anybody who knows anything about the National Firearms Act knows machine guns and grenade launchers aren’t exactly things you can go down to your corner drug store and buy. Likewise the export of arms to other countries is strictly regulated meaning selling arms to other countries is one of those things that we can’t do (without proper licensing) but our government most certainly can.

There is a bit of irony in the fact we have to fight against the same weapons that our government gave out so many years ago. What isn’t ironic through is the fact our government officials are claiming we need to regulate private citizens further to prevent the flow of weapons into Mexico. I guess passing the blame onto somebody else is a common tactic used by 8 year-olds which is roughly the mental maturity level of our government.

Wisconsin Judge Rules Concealed Carry Ban Unconstitutional

Wisconsin still remains one of only two states in the Union that bars its citizens from some method of legally carrying a concealed handgun. I learned through Says Uncle that a Milwaukee Country judge ruled the ban unconstitutional yesterday:

In the ongoing evolution of Wisconsin gun law, a Milwaukee County judge has ruled the state’s ban on concealed weapons unconstitutional as applied to a man who had an unloaded, encased gun under his car seat three days after he had been robbed at gunpoint in the same area of the city.

In an eight-page decision and order, Circuit Judge J.D. Watts agreed that for Jeremy Pinnow to exercise his right to bear arms for security and self-defense, he had few other choices.

What’s interesting is the fact a cased and unloaded gun was considered a form of concealed carrying. In my book that qualifies as transportation of a firearm in a legal manner (had he been driving a pickup this would have been kosher under federal laws as there is no place to store the firearm separate from the driver).

Either way I’m hoping this ruling sticks through the appeal process that is likely to happen (this is in Milwaukee Country after all). If this ruling sticks it could offer the ammunition pro-gun organizations need to get carry legislation moving through the Wisconsin political black hole.

Switzerland Votes to Keep Guns at Home

The anti-gunners in Switzerland have been pushing to bar those performing militia service from keeping their issued rifle at home. Somehow these anti-gun prats were able to get a referendum on the ballot which failed:

Neutral Switzerland is among the best-armed nations in the world, with more guns per capita than almost any other country except the U.S., Finland and Yemen.

At least 2.3 million weapons lie stashed in basements, cupboards and lofts in this country of less than 8 million people, according to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey.

On Sunday, Swiss voters made sure it stays that way, rejecting a proposal to tighten the peaceful Alpine nation’s relaxed firearms laws.

Unlike here Switzerland has mostly a homogeneous and wealthy population meaning their violent crime is quite a bit lower than ours. Due to this the anti-gunners there can’t make the claim that guns cause crime so they have to resort to a different tactic, claiming guns cause suicidal tenancies and trying to establish a connection between these guns and domestic abused:

Martine Brunschwig-Graf, a national lawmaker with the left-of-centre Social Democratic Party, blamed the defeat of the measure on women’s reluctance to vote on an issue she says affects them most.

Women are the main victims of domestic violence, and are also the ones left behind when their fathers, husbands or boyfriends commit suicide with an army weapon, she said.

About a quarter of Switzerland’s 1,300 suicides each year involve a gun, and those calling for tighter rules claim military weapons, such as the army-issued SG 550 assault rifle, are used in between 100 and 200 suicides a year.

Also apparently it’s the fault of Swiss women for not showing up and voting on this measure that caused it to fail. Of course only men perform mandatory service in the Swiss militia so it makes sense that a higher portion of men would show up to vote on this particular subject.

I’m glad to see the Swiss people are still willing to fight for their right to keep and bear arms. I love being able to point to at least one well armed European country. I like the fact that there exists a homogeneous and mostly wealthy population that’s well armed, it demonstrates that gun ownership rates do not have a correlation with violent crime.

Of course when I bring up Switzerland in an argument with an anti-gunner they always claim the country is a corner case just like Finland. I guess that’s what you have to resort to when your argument has no legs to stand upon.

ATF is Open for Comments on Long Gun Sales Reporting

The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been trying to get the authority to force gun stores in states on the Mexico border to record information on people who buy two or more semi-automatic rifles withing five days. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that this is pure bullshit but I do have to tell the ATF. Luckily they’re open for comments on the subject but only until February 14th. Send your comments on the subject to:

Barbara A. Terrell
Firearms Industry Programs Branch
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, N.E.
Washington, DC 20226.

Barbara.Terrell@atf.gov
Fax: (202) 648–9640

Let them know how much you appreciate them overstepping their authority and trying to blame somebody else for their likely actions of smuggling guns across the Mexico border.

Good Problems to Have

This whole “constitutional carry” movement seems to be picking up speed. Wyoming has a bill moving through their legislature, a Tennessee representative just introduced such legislation in his state, and now New Hampshire has not just one but two competing constitutional carry bills:

Competing bills have been filed to eliminate New Hampshire’s license requirement for carrying concealed weapons, dividing the pro gun community. Some are lining up behind state Rep. J.R. Hoell, a Dunbarton Republican, and others behind state Rep. Jennifer Coffey, a Republican from Andover.

Man I would love to have that problem here in Minnesota.

As a side note let me just raise a big middle finger to Seacoast Online whom is the source in the NRA-ILA article I linked to. Usually I try to link to both the source I obtained my information from as well as the original source of the information. I didn’t do that here because Seacoast Online are asses. When the page was loading I saw the article for a split second (long enough to read the first sentence) before it disappeared. Why did it disappear? So the page could display a message telling me to enable JavaScript.

I use NoScript to only allow sites I trust to run JavaScript. This saves a ton of headaches online including those stupid advertisements that appears over articles in some web pages (not separate pop-up windows but inside the windows the page is displayed in) among other malicious activity. Some pages need JavaScript because they are poorly made, I get that. But when a page can display the article without JavaScript and chooses to hide it after the page completely loads that’s just inexcusable. Serious dick move there guys.

More Red Star Stupidity

Yet another Letter to the Editor dealing with guns finds its way into the Red Star. This one was written by a Mark Weber of Minneapolis and thankfully it’s short:

Those who agree with the Feb. 4 letter writer who touted a safety record of 65 million gun owners not killing anyone must take great comfort in the fact that a very high percentage of people driving under the influence of alcohol make it to their destination without causing a traffic fatality.

I absolutely love this complete failure at attempting to use logic. He tries to compare owning a firearm with driving under the influence. This argument doesn’t make any sense for the simple reason that owning a firearm is perfectly legal for most people while driving under the influence is never legal. Comparing completely unrelated things doesn’t make for a good argument.

I’ll give it a try myself and you tell me if it makes sense. Those who touted a safety record of 65 million gun owners not killing anybody must take great comfort int he fact that unicorns are eaten by trolls. If I were to enter a debate with you and use that argument you’d probably just (rightfully) declare yourself the victor and walk away.

Driving under the influence would be akin to a felon purchasing a firearm which will remain illegal even if Minnesota repeals it’s ridiculous permit to purchase law. You know why? Because the federal background check will still be performed and thus known felons will be denied the ability to purchase said firearm. I can’t wrap my head around the whole idea that somebody would actually listen to some of these people and nod their head in agreement.

The Evolution of Attempting to Repeal Minnesota’s Permit to Purchase Law

I’ve been following the progress of the bill to repeal Minnesota’s redundant and ridiculous permit to purchase law. What I think is interesting is how this bill has evolved. The bill first started off as HF 161 which would have extended the validity of permits to purchase to five years [PDF].

This would have made sense in that you’d only have to renew the purchase permit as often as a carry permit. In Minnesota a permit to carry also works as a permit to purchase so those of use with carry permits never have to obtain separate permits to purchase. Likewise permits to carry are good for five years before you have to retest. Nobody could ever give me a good reason why a permit to purchase was only good for a year while a permit to carry was good for five years, they should have both been good for five years.

Well apparently HF 161 was amended with the following [PDF] which just eliminates the stupid permit to purchase all together. I’m not sure how this bill went from simply extending the validity period of a permit to purchase to eliminating it completely but I’m glad it did.

A few law enforcement organizations are opposed to repealing this requirement and cite claims of the state background checks being more thorough. I believe this has more to do with the fact that they like having the authority to tell who can and can not exercise their right to bear certain arms (you don’t need a permit to purchase for shotguns or “sporting purpose rifles” just handguns and “assault-weapons”).

If the state background checks actually caught anybody that would have been missed by a federal background check I can guarantee you that the law enforcement organizations would be touting out each and every instance to prove their point. The fact that they haven’t brought out a single instance leads me to believe it’s never happened or has happened so rarely that bringing up the numbers would be embarrassing considering the cost of doing these additional background checks.

White House Delays Requirement of Reporting Near-Border Gun Purchases

It seems the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) didn’t get what they wanted from the White House. Word came down that the executive branch of our federal government has delayed the reporting requirement:

White House budget officials dealt federal firearms investigators a setback Friday when they rejected an emergency request for a rule meant to help catch gunrunners to Mexico.

There are two things that are interesting about this situation. First it seems this ruling would establish a restriction of your right to privacy depending on where you decided to live. That is to say people near the border of Mexico have less of a right to privacy than somebody living in Washington. Double standards are so much fun. The second thing of interest is the fact the ruling is asking for the impossible:

The decision delays for at least two months a proposed requirement that gun dealers along the Mexican border report anyone who buys two or more assault weapons in five days. White House officials said the delay will give the public more time – until Feb. 14 – to comment on the proposal.

How can you report on something that doesn’t exist? The term “assault weapon” isn’t an actual classification of any firearm type I’ve heard of.