Chronicling the depravities of the State.
Via to the NRA-ILA I learned that the California Senate voted down the open carry ban. Of course the vote missed the majority needed by one and this is only a temporary victory:
Monday’s 20-16 vote fell one short of the majority needed, but the Senate will reconsider the measure Tuesday.
I very liberal friend sent me this article. It’s titled Why Liberals Should Love the Second Amendment and goes through five basic reasons why self-proscribed liberals should fight for the second amendment.
Basically it boils down to the fact that liberals like to think of themselves as the ones who fight for civil rights and the right to keep and bear arms should be treated equally to every other right. It also presents to good counter arguments to the standard anti-gun rhetoric often spewed. I think it’s a really good read for liberals for obvious reasons and a good read for conservatives because it gives good argument points. It also shows that gun rights is not a single partisan issue.
I mentioned that the Minnesota Legislators had a rather misleading gun related question on their questionnaire at the State Fair this year. I went to the State Fair yesterday and just thought I’d have you some time. The questionnaire is located in the back of the Education Building (if you take a right when entering the fair through the Snelling Avenue entrance it’s something like the second or third building). It’s pretty easy to spot since it’s on the center of the back wall with a big sign that says Minnesota Representatives or something along those lines.
Anyways have fun at the fair and remember to take a few minutes to find that questionnaire and fill it out.
It seems the Center for Biological Diversity didn’t get what they wanted. The EPA denied their petition based on legal issues that were brought up by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF):
Steve Owens, EPA assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said, “EPA today denied a petition submitted by several outside groups for the agency to implement a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition. EPA reached this decision because the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – nor is the agency seeking such authority.”
Good work everybody who wrote the EPA.
According to The Firearm Blog Chiappo has begun shipping the 2″ version of their Rhino revolver. The Rhino peaked my interested because it’s one of the rare revolvers that fires from the bottom cylinder.
The idea is pretty simple, the lower the bore axis on a handgun the less muzzle flip you have to deal with. Glocks are noted quite often as having a very low bore axis while XD pistols are known for having a higher bore axis. Frankly I own both and can’t tell the difference but still I have to say the Rhino Revolver is on my hopefully-get-somebody-maybe list just because I would like a revolver that shoots from the bottom cylinder.
I don’t know much about Chiappo (in fact I never heard of them until this revolver came up some months back) so I don’t know if they have a reputation for making shit or not. I do know that the Rhino appears to have no real rear sight to speak of which kind of turns me off. But the gun in unique enough where I’m certainly interested.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has public comments open on a petition submitted by some jackasses Center for Biological Diversity. The petition is to ban all lead ammunition from the United States under the Toxic Substance Control Act, which had a specific exemption for ammunition contained within it.
A lot of people are jumping onto the fact that the EPA is the bad guy here. They very well could be but from what I’ve gathered they are required to hold public comments on any petitions they receive. I could be in error on this but that’s what I’ve determined from what little research I’ve put into this so far.
The good thing is comments are being taken and you can submit your input here. We have until October 31st to submit comments so let’s inform the EPA why this petition is a bad idea wrapped in a worse idea.
You have to give the anti-gunners credit for one thing, they’re relentless. Now that the right to bear arms has been incorporated they are going after ammunition. If they can’t get the ammunition they’ll probably go after springs because somebody could poke their eye out with one. Oh and they happened to be used in firearms.
This just came across the wire (yes I have a telegraph which is the true source of all my news). It’s a notice of this years Minnesota House of Representatives questionnaire [PDF] for suckers attending the State Fair. The first question is, ”When someone wants to purchase a firearm at a gun show, should a background check on the buyer be required prior to the sale?”
A certain “representative” here in Minnesota by the name of Michael Paymar has been trying to pass a law that would bar private sales of firearms in the state. Even though the bill has not once made it out of committee he keeps trying and trying again. The question as stated on the questionnaire is misleading and incorrectly written. It should state, “Do you believe people should be barred from selling their private property without government permission?”
Anyways if anybody is going to the State Fair make sure you get a copy of this and let the legislators know we don’t want a ban of the sale of private property in this fine state.
Since the state of Minnesota has preemption over firearms laws the Moorhead is unable to ban the real thing. So what’s are a bunch of whiny anti-gunners to do? Try to ban replicas of course!
By whiny anti-gunners I mean the Moorhead police:
Police chief Dave Ebinger told the city council it’s hard to tell whether the gun is a real firearm or not and that officers are forced to treat the replicas as though they are real.
Sorry that doesn’t add up in this state. So long as a person has a valid carry permit they can openly carry a firearm. Therefore the question for police isn’t whether or that firearm being carried by John Doe is real, but whether or not Mr. Doe has a valid carry permit (which sadly matters in this state). Ultimately none of it matters unless the gun or replica in question is being used to threaten or harm another person. When things get to that point it matters now if the gun is fake or real if the person being threatened believes it to be real (as they then have justification to defend themselves).
Another anti-gunner who seems to lack the basic ability to comprehend logic. This article is mostly a hit piece on how guns are used to kill people and although not outright said a plea to ban them. Of course he points out a few shootings that somehow would be avoided if guns were illegal. Of course other laws were already broken in these shootings so I fail to understand how making more laws would have prevented them. Let’s take a look shall we?
13 are killed and 30 wounded at Ft. Hood, Texas, when an Army psychiatrist goes on a rampage.
Carrying a firearm on a military base is illegal. Homicide is illegal.
Three police officers in Pittsburgh are gunned down by a man who was upset about losing his job and convinced that the Obama administration was about to ban guns.
Discharging firearms within city limits is illegal. Homicide is illegal.
13 are killed at an immigrant community center in Binghamton when a Vietnamese immigrant goes on a shooting spree.
Discharging firearms within city limits is illegal. Homicide is illegal.
A former student opens fire at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, killing five students and wounding 18 more.
Carrying a firearm in the state of Illinois is illegal. Discharging firearms within city limits is illegal. Homicide is illegal.
A rifleman in Omaha starts shooting at a mall, killing eight and then killing himself.
Discharging a firearm within city limits is illegal. Homicide is illegal.
A student at Virginia Tech shoots 32 people dead before taking his own life.
Carrying a firearm on Virginia Tech campus is illegal. Homicide is illegal.
So if we append another law, “owning firearms is illegal” to these lists all of these criminals acts wouldn’t have happened? That’s your argument? No wonder we’re winning! Oh and as a parting piece:
The odd, ironic thing is that I have never once heard of a crazed “liberal” forcefully taking the guns away from anyone. Never even once. Instead, irresponsible, dangerous people who should not have guns do have guns and they keep right on using them to kill other people.
Yeah a forceful gun confiscation in the United States has never happened… oh wait. Sorry I seem to have deflated your argument, super sorry about that.
It’s a lot like sex education from the Pope.
Snowflakes in Hell dissects the ramblings of a madman. As usual Sebastian does an excellent job of ripping apart the malarkey being spewed by Henigan. Now ignorance is just plain funny sometimes and sad at other times. This article is a severe case of the latter:
But human beings are prone to mistakes – they can be clumsy, or distracted, or rushed, for example – and guns are sufficiently complicated mechanisms that even the slightest mistake can result in tragedy.
This is not true of other widely available products used as weapons. As the late columnist and humorist Molly Ivins once observed, “People are seldom killed while cleaning their knives.” In fact, the great paradox of gun design is that guns are complicated enough to invite accidents by adults, yet simple enough to be fired by a child.
Could the Brady Bunch please provide me the number of people killed every year while cleaning their guns? Even somebody with as much bias at the Brady Bunch, whom will probably include suicides in their statistics, will have a hard time coming up with significant numbers.
But it does go to who the average intelligence of an anti-gunner when they consider a firearm a complex device. I think they’d shit themselves if they ever actually looked inside of their computers.