Why We Win, We Use Facts

There is an amazing post over on The Smallest Minority. In it the writings of Marc Rubin are totally decimated. For those of you unaware Mr. Rubin wrong the following article…

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m4d22-There-is-no-2nd-amendment-right-to-own-a-gun-and-never-has-been

In it he said he made an argument that was irrefutable that the second amendment was never meant for the right of individuals to own guns. We’ll it was refuted quite well…

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/07/refuting-irrefutable.html

Unlike Mr. Rubin’s “irrefutable” article this one cites sources and uses previous court outcomes to establish that the right to bear arms is for individuals and not the states.

New York Times Shitting Selves Over National Reciprocity Possibility

It looks like the New York Times will need to get a change of pants (note some people say this article requires registration to read it but I’ve not had that issue yet)…

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/opinion/21tue2.html

Like most anti-gun articles this one is filled with hysteria…

Passage of the amendment would make it much harder for law enforcement to distinguish between legal and illegal possession of a firearm. It would be a boon for illegal gun traffickers, making it easier to transport weapons across state lines without being caught.

If a state has concealed carry laws how is this going to make it any harder to determine if a person they see is carrying a gun legally or not? This doesn’t make any sense.

Let us use an example here. A cop in Minnesota is walking down the street and sees a person openly carrying a gun. Here in Minnesota this is perfectly legal with a permit to carry since we have no concealment requirement. How can he tell if that person has a license or not without asking? He can’t. Now take this a step further and say the person is from Utah and has a Utah issued carry permit. How can the cop known the person is out of state without asking? He can’t. So there is no change here whatsoever.

And how will this make it easier to cross state lines with guns? No permit or license is required to transport a gun from one state to another. If a police officer pulls somebody over who is transporting a firearm across state lines they can’t arrest the person for that since no law is being broken regardless if the person transporting the guns has a permit to carry a gun.

Furthermore…

Proponents of Senator Thune’s attempt to create the equivalent of a national concealed carry system claim it would reduce crime. But the evidence shows otherwise. Between May 2007 and April 2009, people holding concealed handgun permits killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens, according to a new study by the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy organization. Other examples of crimes committed by concealed-carry licensees are plentiful.

So in two years people holding carry permits have killed at most (not at least because you know if there was the chance of it being more they’d use the higher number) seven police officers and 44 citizens. Of the hundreds of thousands of permit holders out there only 51 people have been killed in two years. That’s a much lower number than the number of people police wrongfully shoot per year, heck probably per month. Furthermore there is no citation of the study and no mention why these 51 people were killed (i.e. was there a belief of the carry permit holders that their life was in danger).

But being from the Violence Policy Center who is a paid shill for the Brady Campaign I can see why these numbers are meaningless. They’ve been known to sensationalize things a wee bit more than there are stars in the sky.

Let us continue…

For Alaska to permit residents who have committed repeated violent misdemeanors or who have committed misdemeanor sex offenses against minors to carry a concealed weapon is terrible public policy. For the Senate to extend that permit to 47 other states would be the height of irresponsibility, as well as a breathtaking violation of legitimate states’ rights.

Actually the state of Alaska allows their citizens to carry guns without a permit hence anybody there can carry a gun so long as they can legally own one. What is being said here is that a person who has committed violent misdemeanors or misdemeanor sex offenses against minors (note how both are misdemeanors) can purchase a gun.

And then they bring in the states’ rights argument which I feel is irrelevant. See the right to bear arms is spelled out in the Bill of Rights which is a list of rights considered natural and inalienable. Every state of the union must follow the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Hence the right to carry a gun is constitutional not state given. As stated in our Constitution any laws not spelled out in it are reserved for the states and citizens. Well the right to bear arms is spelled out hence it’s not reserved for the states but given to every citizen.

LOGIC?! Oh noes!!!!!!!!

Excellent Post About the NRA’s Position on Sotomayor

Snowflakes in Hell has a great post about the NRA’s position on the whole Sotomayor fiasco. Gun Owners of America are criticizing the NRA for not getting involved soon enough nor with enough force but to all things there are reasons…

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/07/20/when-youre-not-holding-any-cards/

This sums it up very nicely…

NRA’s grading system is like an axe. Every time you chop a piece of wood with it, it gets a little more dull. So far, we’ve successfully split some pretty tough logs, but we’re only about halfway through this wood pile. The only opportunity to sharpen the axe comes at election time, and we’re still more than a year away from that.

States have No Rights Says BATFE

Apparently the BATFE has more authority than the states…

http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m7d17-ATF-to-Tennessee-Were-above-your-law

The BATFE sent a letter to Tennessee to let it know it’s newly passed Firearms Freedom Act doesn’t apply. Apparently the BATFE is above even the constitution’s 10th amendment.

They are also telling this to Montana.

Source: http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2009/07/atf-to-montana-you-will-respect-our.html

S.1390 Amendment for National Conceal Carry Reciprocity

I heard rumors that an amendment was going to be made to S.1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, to allow national concealed carry reciprocity. I see the amendment was made…

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s1390/show

Amendment 1680…

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.

The amendment was introduced by Senator John Thune of South Dakota. The text of the amendment is available here…

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=111&amdt=s1618

And for those of you who don’t want to open another link here is the text…

SEC. 1083. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) Findings.–Congress finds the following:

(1) The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(3) Congress has previously enacted legislation for national authorization of the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(4) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms to individuals, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without need for a permit.

(5) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(6) Congress finds that the prevention of lawful carrying by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(7) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(8) Congress therefore should provide for the interstate carrying of firearms by such individuals in all States that do not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by their own residents.

(b) In General.–Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following: Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof–

(1) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that–

(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;

(2) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that–

(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

(b) A person carrying a concealed firearm under this section shall–

(1) in a State that does not prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes, be entitled to carry such firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern the specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a resident of the State; or

(2) in a State that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, be entitled to carry such a firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a person issued a permit by the State in which the firearm is carried.

(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to–

(1) effect the permitting process for an individual in the State of residence of the individual; or

(2) preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.”.

(c) Clerical Amendment.–The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.”.

(d) Severability.–Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(e) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

It seems well written to me. Normally I’m against any bill that would mandate rule from the federal government over the states. But in this case the federal government is doing their job and enforcing the Bill of Rights by further saying, “the right to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed.”

It still leaves the ability for states without any means of conceal carry to keep people from legally defending themselves so don’t think this will give you constitutional rights in Illinois. Hopefully this passes as it will further strengthen the constitution and help people exercise their right of self defense.

Getting Rusty

I went shooting this weekend and must say I’m getting rusty with the shotgun. A friend and I did some rifle, pistol, and shotgun work. For shotgun work we shot clays, or more specifically he shot them while I failed at it. I haven’t shot clays since probably high school and it really showed. I can’t even blame the gun since my friend was using it to.

For pistol I was doing good until he introduced me to my new nemesis the shot timer. This was a huge eye opener for me though. I always knew adding stress to a situation would make me a much worse shot but I didn’t realize how much worse. Either way I’m ordering a shot timer now so I can practice with some added stress.

For rifle shooting I was testing loads in the M14 SOCOM 16. I’m trying to find a load that I can use as a defensive round. Needless to say I loaded up 50 rounds of various powder loads with 155 grain bullets. They were nicer to shoot than my 168 grain bullets and they looked good on the chronograph to boot. Not to mention most of the shooting was done from a standing position and I was hitting the paper well (it was at 100 yards with iron sights).

So yeah I’m rather disappointed in myself but hey it’s a good reason to practice more.

Rights Still Hold Around Obamessiah

Good news for John Noble the man brought up on charges for carrying a legal firearm too close to the Obamessiah…

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09199/984795-57.stm

He’s been acquitted. Apparently we still have some rights as citizens even if we are within an unspecified range of the president. Of course the judge still had some words…

In my lifetime, there have been a number of assassinations of presidents and presidential candidates. A number of presidents were shot at. I’m very cognizant of that the defendant’s actions were very foolish. But not all foolish actions are criminal acts.

I don’t see how doing a peaceable demonstration is foolish myself. The man was simply standing outside of the rally with a bible and a legal firearm stating how he felt about the Obamessiah’s remark about people clinging to their guns and religion. He made no threats to anybody and didn’t disrupt the rally in any way. I’m sure if he had done the same thing while carrying a hammer nobody would have cared.

It is nice to see that you can be found innocent if you haven’t broken any laws.

ATMs that Defend Themselves

This is certainly a unique story I found on Bruce Scheier’s blog…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/12/south-africa-cash-machine-pepper-spray

In South Africa they are testing ATMs that squirt pepper spray into the face of anybody deemed to be tampering with the card slot…

The technology uses cameras to detect people tampering with the card slots. Another machine then ejects pepper spray to stun the culprit while police response teams race to the scene.

Here is the issue though image recognition isn’t 100%. In fact it’s very spotty at best. Hence I’m guessing there will be a lot of false positives here. Either that or the machines will be set towards the safe side and not actually spray the people that are tampering with the ATM.

Either way this sounds like an interesting idea with a flawed implementation.

Source: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/pepper_sprayequ.html

Three Britain Gun Ban Barrier Failures in a Row

Cripes! Another shooting in the country where their gun controls laws are supposed to be so strict no gun violence can occur…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/8156243.stm

The person who was shot was an officer no less. Of course being the gun ban is stopping criminals from using guns most officers in Oceania aren’t armed. And why would you want to arm people who are charged with brining criminals to justice anyways? It’s not like there is a need for them to have to defend themselves or anything.

Yet Another Person Shot in Britain

Wow the criminals in Oceania are dumb. They are using guns to shoot people even though hand guns are illegal…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8155039.stm

This is just so shocking to me. I mean possessing and using hand guns are there which means criminals shouldn’t be using them. I mean it’s not like a criminal is going to break a second law when they are doing already criminal activity. That’s just not right.

Seriously they need more wizards to fix that magical gun ban barrier.