A Heart Warming Story

Some stories just warm my heart and this is one of them:

Today in Austin TX – Activists were successful in buying TRUNKS full of usable firearms that would have otherwise been destroyed (or ended up in the hands of “terrorists” – as we have seen before how cops confiscate guns and resell them to cartels…)

About 40 gun buyers, both independent and otherwise, stood in front of the Austin Police Gun Buyback Event offering CASH for the guns they were about to turn in to the city for food cards. As people rolled up, we approached them with our offers, and paid them hard cash after inspecting the guns to make sure they were operable. (the Police were unbelievably cooperative in the process)

It doesn’t look like the Bureau of Happiness and Joy Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives has decided to go after these people yet for “being in the business.” Maybe this could be a new source of discount firearms for use enthusiasts, head to the next buy confiscation and offer the same price as the police (maybe a bit more) but in good old cash. That way somebody who will do something productive with the firearm can get it instead of the state whom will destroy it (unless it’s sufficiently valuable then it will probably disappear into the gun safe of a Sargent somewhere).

Revocation Rate of Minnesota Carry Permits

An interesting post over on the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) website has been published. It’s a listing of the revocation rate of carry permits in Minnesota. I figured it would be low but I didn’t realize how laws it was:

2006: 37,000 permits held, 3 revoked, .0081%
2007: 46,000 permits held, 0 revoked, 0%
2008: 53,000 permits held, 4 revoked, .0075%
2009: 63,000 permits held, 1 revoked. .0016%

Revocation of a carry permit can occur for several reasons included improper use of a carry firearm (outside of self-defense situations for example) or a change in status from an eligible gun owner to an ineligible person. Minnesota’s rate is far less than one percent which goes to show most permit holders are law abiding citizens who continue to remain law abiding even after they receive a carry permit (so much for that whole “blood in the streets” argument the anti-gunners like to parrot).

Illinois Police Stealing Money

Illinois has appeared twice on this site today, how unfortunate for them. First Mayor Daley of Chicago is whining that his beloved database of peasants who are armed isn’t ready. Now I learned via Dvorak Uncensored that the Aurora Police Department are refusing to comply with a judge’s order to return $190,040 of money they stole:

Though neither Jose nor Jesus Martinez is charged with a crime, authorities are seeking forfeiture of $190,040 found in Jesus’ truck when he was stopped by an Aurora police officer on Oct. 18.

A Kane County judge ordered the money returned, but the city has refused.

The police followed the “logic” that anybody who has a large quantity of cash on hand is a drug-dealer and thus the money can be forcefully stolen by the state. What’s most interesting is a judge ordered the police to return the stolen money but they are refusing. I think this is a little outside of their authority. Then again I don’t understand where they received the authority to steal money from private citizens with no evidence or charges of any wrong doings.

These officers should be arrested themselves for armed robbery (they were armed when they stole the money so might as well do the same to them as they would do to any of us).

Testing Minnesota’s “Gun Show Loophole”

A certain representative with the last name Paymar has been trying to pass a law here in Minnesota to close the “gun show loophole.” Of course if you’ve been reading this site for any amount of time you know it’s not a “gun show loophole” but private property right.

Well a journalist by the name of Matt Snyders decided to test the “gun show loophole.” What he discovered is something us gun owners have known forever, buying a gun from a dealer regardless of venue requires paperwork, a NICS check, and here in Minnesota a permit to purchase or carry for certain firearms. First let’s bring up Mr. Paymar and his qualifications on firearms:

Paymar has never fired a handgun, nor has he ever attended a gun show. He was moved to act, he says, after seeing a YouTube clip. In it, Colin Goddard, a Virginia Tech massacre survivor who was shot four times, attends gun shows and successfully buys firearms without undergoing a background check or even being asked to show identification.

He’s never fired a handgun nor attended a gun show? In politics that makes him the most qualified person to write a law restricting both. In the real world that makes him uneducated and whole incapable of writing legislation that affects either.

He also brings up the Virginia Tech shooter who legally purchased both of his guns not a gun shows, but through a dealer. That means the Virginia Tech shooter when through the paperwork and background checks to obtain his weapons. In any logical argument that would make the example of Virginia Tech irrelevant and inadmissible. But as we all know anti-gunners don’t use logic instead opting for hysteria.

Anyways Mr. Snyder put forth the following mission for himself:

So I decided to try to buy a gun. To hear the Citizens for a Safer Minnesota tell it, this would be an easy task. I didn’t have a permit, but surely these gun merchants would insist I purchase their wares, federal red tape be damned. I might even enjoy it.

Obviously he should have no problem here. After all according to the anti-gunners you can just walk into any gun show and walk out with fifty machine guns without raising any eyebrows. But the truth, as usual, is at odds with what the anti-gunners think. The first gun show Mr. Snyder attended yielded several things. First it wasn’t just guns for sale:

Over at a literature table, dozens of books offer a history of killing machines from the 18th century to the present. Nazi-themed tomes, for whatever reason, seem particularly popular.

This is where the anti-gunners claim those of us in the shooting culture are Nazis. The truth is far less insidious though. Many gunnies are also big history buffs. They don’t collect World War II memorabilia because they think Hitler was right, they collect it because it’s a part of history that should never be forgot. One of my uncles actually collects many items from World War II from flags to helmets. He’s not a Nazi, racist, or bigot. He’s a history buff and owing a piece of history is a big deal for him. It’s no different than owning a jacket worn by a famous movie star except the memorabilia from various wars actually has meaning since good men shed blood over it. So how did Mr. Snyder fair on the gun front? Well:

Before any transaction is finalized, all licensed vendors must place a call to the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System, an all-day hotline that every diligent vendor has on speed dial and which is referred to as “Nicks” (NICS). If the call turns up any felonies, instances of domestic abuse, or mental illness, the sale is canceled.

“This is not the venue for selling machine guns,” Tim adds as he nods respectfully to a passing browser. “Those are hard to come by. Only hard collectors get into them. Very expensive, plus there’s a $200 federal transfer tacked on for every sale.”

That’s a dirty little secret the anti-gunners never tell you. All transactions through dealers requires a NICS check and an ATF form filled out while machine guns are heavily regulated. So that only leaves sales between individuals:

About 12 minutes later, a prim man wades through the booths, black Romanian WASR-10 AK-47 slung over his shoulder. A white sheet of paper taped to its glistening black barrel announces its price: $500 or best offer.

“I want my baby to go to a good home,” he says, eyeing me up and down.

I can tell by his squinting, sun-weathered eyes that he doesn’t mean mine.

And as Mr. Snyder found out most individuals are picky where their property winds up.

That’s one failure so Mr. Snyder attends another gun show. First of all he finds out unlike what the anti-gunners claim gunners are not racists:

When three black men enter the show at around 1 p.m., however, no one pays them much mind. Asked about their experience here, they seem more taken aback by the question’s presumption than the surroundings.

“I’ve been to three gun shows, and I’ve never had a problem,” says Grant, turning to his friends for corroboration. They nod. They’re not here to purchase, Grant adds. For many, gun and knife shows are the male equivalent of window-shopping for shoes.

And later Mr. Snyder again attempts to obtain a firearm at a gun show without a permit or background check:

“You have your permit to purchase, right?” asks the vendor.

The answer to the question was an unfortunate no.

“No permit to purchase?” he said. “You’re shit outta luck, my friend.”

This “loophole” is starting to look more like a brick wall. How does Mr. Snyder fair at the next show? Surprisingly just as well as the other two mentioned shows:

But three consecutive attempts yield reactions ranging from apologetic to annoyed.

“No permit to purchase, no sale,” snaps a looming, pear-shaped man as his plump hands hastily repackage what would otherwise be a sale. “Wasting your time here without one. Good day.”

The vendors here are sticklers on every provision, clause, subsection, and footnote on the books. In one case, a clean-cut seller in a charcoal-black Harley Davidson shirt conversed curtly with two men, one who appeared to be in his 70s, the other fiftyish. The vendor refuses to sell more than two handguns to the befuddled duo.

“Them’s the rules,” says the vendor. “I don’t give a fuck, but them’s the rules.”

“Well, in that case, I’ll just buy the Colt and sell it to him,” replies the elder of the two.

“Now that’s a straw buy,” retorted the vendor. “One hundred percent illegal. I don’t give a fuck, but if I were to sell ya that after you just told me that, I’d lose my license!”

“I’ve known him since he was this high,” says the man, holding his liver-spotted hand four feet off the floor.

“I understand that, but it’s worse than dealing with the IRS if I sold ya two!”

Six days, three gun shows, and 19 attempts to buy handguns sans permit had yielded zero sales.

That’s right six days, three gun shows, 19 attempts to purchase, and zero guns. Some loophole that turned out to be. So much for that “gun show loophole” that allows anybody to purchase untold numbers of guns without any regulation.

So the next time you hear a blow hard anti-gunners claiming anything about firearms go talk to somebody in the shooting community. We have experience and knowledge in the firearm fields, we know the laws, and we will give you the truth instead of the hysteria.

We’re Not Happy Until Everybody is Watched

As it sits right now if you want a cellular phone without having to be on a list (the phone company’s subscriber list in this case) the only way to go is pre-paid. In this case you walk into a store, grab a pre-paid cell phone, and pay for it using cash (it’s that funny green colored paper for those of you who only know how to pay for things using plastic cards). A couple of senators have decided that any means of avoiding the government knowing what you’re doing is a bad thing.

Senators Charles Schumer and John Cornyn have introduced legislation that would require people buying pre-paid cell phones to show identification and be recorded. For a quote from the stupid:

“This proposal is overdue because for years, terrorists, drug kingpins and gang members have stayed one step ahead of the law by using prepaid phones that are hard to trace,” Schumer said.

So now what? They’ll have to go back to either using phone booths or stolen cell phones? Face it this law won’t change anything, criminals are always one step ahead of the authorities. Oh but best of all:

Faisal Shahzad, the 30-year-old suspect in the Times Square plot, allegedly used a prepaid cellphone to arrange the purchase of a Nissan Pathfinder that he attempted to turn into a car bomb, the senators noted.

Wait a minutes doesn’t a car require tax, title, and license? That generally means you have to register it with the state. So how exactly would having a law preventing people from buying pre-paid cell phones without identification help? Oh that’s right it wouldn’t.

Let’s hear some concerns from the people who actually think things through:

Civil liberties advocates have concerns about the proposal, saying there must be a role for anonymous communications in a free society. “They remain important for whistleblowers, battered spouses, reporters’ sources,” said James X. Dempsey, policy director for the Center for Democracy and Technology. And yet, he said, the space for such anonymous or pseudonymous communications has been narrowed. Pay phones, for example, have largely disappeared.

Pre-paid cell phones obtained with cash are also useful to those who want to keep the government out of their business.

Thankfully there currently is no similar bill in the House. But I’m sure that will change in about two days since this is needed to “fight the terrorists” (terrorists being anybody who doesn’t step into line with the government).

The Dangers of Legislating Behavior

Jay over at MArooned sums up why it’s dangerous to allow our politicians to legislate any behavior:

That’s the whole thing. It never ends. Once we let them dictate one behavior, there’s no stopping those who would use the power of the state, the men with guns, to force the people to bend to their whims and wants. Today cell phones, tomorrow iPods, next week it’s passengers and heating choices.

It’s a slippery slope. Once you’re sliding down the slope it’s practically impossible to stop until you hit the bottom. In this case Jay was talking about calls to ban all cellular phone use while driving because it’s said to distract drivers. As he pointed out the logical conclusion is to ban passengers since they provide distractions as well.

This logic can be applied to anything. For instance when our government regulated the ownership of machines gun and other such “scary” guns via the National Firearms Act is started us down a slippery slop. Now thanks for the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act the transfer of machine guns produced after an arbitrary date to civilian hands is completely illegal.

This should be kept in mind whenever legislation regulating what can be posted on the Internet comes up. Sure first they will say they need to protect the children but it will not stop until everything that isn’t government approved is banned (think China).

Once you allow the state to be your nanny there is no escaping the nanny state.

Honduras Still Receiving Backlash for Enforcing Their Constititution

A while ago there was quite a stink over Honduras actually enforcing their Constitution and removing their then president from power. Well a lot of well respected neighboring states including Venezuela and our own government didn’t like the idea of a country actually obeying it’s own laws and threw up a stink.

Now they are threatening (promising?) to not attend the yearly European Union-Latin America summit if Honduras’s current president, Porfirio Lobo, attends. See they don’t recognize the legitimacy of Mr. Lobo’s seat because a potential dictator was removed lawfully to put Lobo in place. I love this:

An aide to Brazil’s President Lula, Marco Aurelio Garcia, said: “If Honduras attends, then at least 10 Latin American presidents will not go to Madrid, starting with the president of Brazil.”

I wonder what types of governments those 10 countries have. Probably something along the lines of what Venezuela has which is idealistically opposed to what the summit is apparently about:

But correspondents say its goals of development and democracy-building remain far off.

Yeah that’s not sounding like a threat so much as a promise.

California Assemblywoman Trying to Ban Open Carry

Well the pants shitting hysteria is upon us. Apparently Assemblywoman Lori Saldana (there’s supposed to be some goofy mark above the ‘n’ in Saldana but if it isn’t in the ASCII table I ain’t fucking with it) thinks the open display of unloaded handguns is evil and needs to be stopped. And of course she is citing that incident where 20 people were murdered by open-carry protesters… oh wait that never happened so she’s using this as her justification:

Saldaña cited an open-carry event in Pacific Beach last year as alerting her to the need for a ban on displaying guns, even unloaded, in public. There, with thousands of people at the beach on a Saturday, about 60 members of the movement walked along the boardwalk.

The gall of those people to peaceably demonstrate in a public area! My God somebody could get ideas that we should respect peoples’ rights! This must be stomped down immediately. But there’s more:

“Guns are an intimidating presence,” Saldaña said. “The average citizen can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys.”

Let me run this quick multiple choice question past you that should help the average citizen identify friend from foe.

You see a man walking down the street openly carrying a handgun. Is he:
A) Shooting at you?
B) Not shooting at you?

If you answered ‘A’ he’s a bad guy, if you answered ‘B’ he’s a good guy (as far as you’re concerned of course, if he’s not shooting at you he’s not a concern of yours).

Anyways the bill is Assembly Bill 1934. 1934? That number sounds familiars. Oh yeah it’s the year the National Firearms Act was enacted. A coincidence but a funny one regardless. Those of you in California need to stomp this law and a few others worming their way through your legislation down, HARD. I know your representatives don’t listen to you but make it damned clear if they pass anti-gun bills they won’t be getting another term. And follow that by actively working against them to ensure they don’t get another term.

Oh to close this we have a quote from a police officers:

Said Emeryville Chief James, “We view open carry as an officer safety issue. Officers are taught from Day One at the academy that guns are a threat. … We teach tactically how to respond to that threat.”

Holy shit how do the police deal with the guns other cops are carrying? After all the police are all openly carrying their firearms therefore all of your officers must treat each other as a threat. We know you can’t trust the uniform since people impersonate police officers quite often.

What’s Mine is Mine and What’s Yours is Mine

Jay over at MArooned has a post showing some people don’t understand the concept of private property. Here’s the jist of the story:

A group of homeless people and housing activists took over a privately owned Mission District duplex on Sunday in what served as the climax of a protest designed to promote use of San Francisco’s vacant buildings as shelters for the needy.

OK so we have a bunch of people who decided they could just take over a home for a while and protest. The police stood by and did nothing but watch and eventually left without making any arrests. But some of the things aid by those homeless individuals made me realize something. People respect the concept of private property until they don’t have property:

Because of housing speculation during the real estate boom, “a lot of tenants were evicted,” Gullicksen said. “Now a lot of those homes are sitting empty. The city should be doing something to turn vacant buildings into affordable housing.”

They may be vacant but they aren’t owned by the city you putz. But of course Mr. Give-Me-Your-Money has a solution to the city not owning the property:

Specifically, he said the city should foreclose on buildings where hefty back taxes are owed or use its powers of eminent domain to turn over long-vacant homes to nonprofit developers. The group is not advocating turning over the city’s stock of new but unsold properties to the homeless.

So the city can either steal the house by collecting on taxes that shouldn’t exist (I’m sorry but property tax isn’t a legitimate tax in my book it’s just a mechanism to ensure you don’t actually own your property) or use their power of eminent domain to outright steal the house. Now eminent domain has always troubled me since it allows somebody to steal another person’s property so long as the one doing the stealing has the government on their side. Like property tax, eminent domain is a mechanism that prevents individuals from actually owning property since ownership implies it can’t be taken without the theft being labeled a crime giving the owner recourse. Needless to say anybody who makes a suggestion based on leveraging property taxes or using eminent domain pisses me right the fuck off. Oh and I love this part:

Jose Morales, 80, lived in the San Jose Street building for 43 years before he was forced to leave in 2008 through the Ellis Act, which allows property owners to get out of the rental business.

Morales said he now lives in a small space in an office building in the Mission District.

“The city should have protected me,” he said. “It’s like they don’t see me. It’s like I’m a ghost to them.”

Guess what buddy you just learned something, you need to take your own protection into your own hands. My question is this, you rented this home for 43 years right? Why the Hell can’t you just go rent SOMEWHERE ELSE? I know what a concept huh?

In this case the city shouldn’t have protected your whiny ass. The individual who owned the house decided he no longer wanted to rent it out. Tough shit buddy. What an individual does with his own property is his business alone. Thankfully the property owner’s attorney understands the concepts I’m talking about:

Zacks said he hopes charges are filed over what he characterized as “people taking the law into their own hands and breaking into property.”

“It’s sort of ridiculous to think that a private property owner like Mr. Tehlirian would have any obligation to house the homeless,” he said. “It’s a problem we should deal with as a community, not something that should be foisted on the back of a small property owner.”

Exactly a person who owns a house should not be required to let somebody else live there. If you want to set up a charity home and let homeless people live there you have that right. But nobody should be demanding a government entity force a homeowner to house the homeless. If you want the government to steal shit from those who can afford it and give it to you who can not afford it move to a communist nation. What is being demanded is redistribution of wealth which is exactly what Karl Marx was all about.