Tag: Gun Rights

Kid Suspended for Having Shotgun in Truck Off School Property

Here’s another story complements of Says Uncle that really makes my blood boil. A student has been suspended from school indefinitely for having a shotgun in his truck during school hours. But here’s the kicker, his truck wasn’t parked on school property.

The school officials feel they have the authority to enforce their policies off of their property now. Next up suspension for owning firearms, period. Here is something interesting:

Parisio said she will appeal the district’s decision to the Glenn County Board of Education. If the decision is upheld and her son is sent to a continuation school, Parisio said she would likely home-school Tudesko.

Personally if the school’s decision is upheld I hope the kid’s parents take that school to court. I did a quick jaunt through Google and it seems Willow High is a public school and therefore the kid’s parents are paying taxes to the school.

A Right Doesn’t Mean It’s Mandatory

OK I’ve heard this going around by haven’t found the source. Thankfully Says Uncle found the source of this current meme. Some guy at the Washington Post has a modest proposal, require every American to own a gun by force of law. Although this article is most likely satirical in nature it does give me a pedestal to stand on while I say something.

Any right means just that, you have the right. It doesn’t mean you must exercise that right though. Even though United States code does require everybody in the militia is required to own a flintlock rifle the law doesn’t appear to be enforced. [Incorrect as pointed out by Illeix below.] Since that law isn’t enforced it’s really up to the individual whether or not they want to own a gun. And people should have that choice. I think requiring people to own guns is a poor idea.

Don’t Blame the Tiahrt Amendment

One of the memes going around the gun control crowd right now is that the Ford Hood killings would have been prevented if the Tiahrt Amendment wasn’t in place. Sebastian over at Snowflakes in Hell tells us why that’s not true. From his post:

What Tiahrt does is prevent ATF from spending any funds to share the entire trace database with third parties not related to a bonafide criminal investigation. It also makes the trace database undiscoverable in a civil action, and inadmissible in a civil suit. Both ATF and the Fraternal Order of Police support this measure, something MAIG won’t tell you. It does not require that NICS records be destroyed. The requirement that NICS records be destroyed is not a funding matter, but is found in the United State Code, Title 18, Section 922(t):

So the reason NICS records for cleared individuals are destroyed is because of the Brady Act not the Tiahrt Amendment. Deal with it and find a new meme.

Not So Great Britain Strikes Again

Man I hate Britain’s government. Seriously if anybody reading this blog is a Brit do yourselves a favor and start a revolt. Days of our Trailers provides another example of the stupidity of Britain’s gun control laws.

This story involves one Paul Clarke. He is a 27 year old former soldier who thought he was doing the right thing. For doing the right thing he was found guilty of a crime and now faces up to five years in prison. What was his crime? Possession of a gun. Sounds simple enough doesn’t it? Well it’s not that simple. From the story:

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

Yes he found a shotgun. Believing it was his duty to dispose of it he personally took it to the police. Here is a thumbnail list of events:

he court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.

In his statement, he said: “I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.

“I didn’t know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.

“At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall.”

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

So Mr. Clarke found a shotgun. He didn’t try to illegally keep it. Instead he does what he thinks is the responsible thing and turns it in. He didn’t threaten anybody with it, he didn’t use it, he took it and went to straight to the police to turn it in. What the Hell was he supposed to do? Call the police and wait for them to pick it up? Oh wait they would be able to nail him anyways since the shotgun was in a liner and he had to remove it to see what it was. Oh damn catch 22.

If you live in Britain and you find a gun remember you’ll get the same punishment whether you turn it into the police or keep it. The only difference is if you keep you the police may never find it and therefore you won’t face jail time. Man that’s encouraging.

Finally I leave you with this golden quote from the story:

The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant.

We don’t need common sense we have laws!

The Truth Behind the FN FiveseveN

Well the media is at it again. They are proclaiming the FN FiveseveN to be a high powered “cop-killer.” Well Says Uncle points us to a story that reminds everybody that the FiveseveN is nothing more than a slightly more powerful .22 magnum.

See the Brady Bunch way back when were proclaiming that commercial 5.7x28mm ammunition could penetrate body armor. This was bullocks though as the ATF showed. The only ammunition in 5.7x28mm that can penetrate body armor is SS190 AP which civilian can’t get. Why can’t they get it? Because it’s considered armor piercing ammunition under United States law. From Title 18, chapter 44 of United States code we get the following:

(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means –

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a
handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence
of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of
tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or
depleted uranium; or

(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber
designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a
weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the
projectile.

As the Cheaper Than Dirt post mentioned SS190 AP ammunition has a steel core. Since the round can be shot out of a handgun this makes SS190 AP ammunition armor piercing under United States law and therefore not ammunition any civilian can purchase as the Brady Bunch tried to say.

The FN FiveseveN is nothing more than a slightly more powerful .22 magnum. It’s not a “cop killer.” Anyways Massad Ayoob already mentioned he can’t find a single case of a police officer being killed by this weapon.

So Much for Being a Cop Killer

We now know the killer in the Fort Hill shooting was using an FN FiveseveN. According to the media this gun is a “cop killer.” Well Massad Ayoob says not so much:

Now, I’m a little more on top of murders of police, and officer survival issues, than the average bear, and I’ve not yet found a case of a police officer being murdered with this particular handgun.

Some cop killer.

Double Double Standards

I mentioned a case of double standards yesterday. Well either there were no approved comments on that link or they weren’t showing up for me but either way I have a continuation of this article now. I just want to point out the slew of stupidity going on:

See Anne, the article author, apparently hates guns and no amount of logic will dissuade her from her apparent goal to ensure money is not given to organizations trying to fight breast cancer. Seriously she thinks the source of the money is important and gun manufacturers are bad. So user LC Scotty posts the following:

Woman shoots violent, home invading ex boyfriend.

http://blog.al.com/live/2009/10/burlgar_shot_and_killed_tuesda.html

I realize that the plural of anecdote is not data, but these sorts of stories crop up all the time.

Seems legitimate enough. A story about a women defending herself with a gun. Here’s Anne’s reply:

Isolated, anecdotal cases can always be found to justify or defend most anything.

Anne Landman

She’s also right. That’s why I present and entire blog soley about people defending themselves with guns. Choke on it! Of course an anonymous poster makes the usual, although very accurate, car argument:

What if a car manufacturer donated money for breast cancer awareness? I bet cars are involved in the deaths of many women. Oh yeah, but you don’t have an irrational fear of cars.

But Anne shows us that she’s consistant:

There’s already a breast cancer awareness Ford Mustang!

Never mind how the pollutants from the exhaust contribute to disease!

Anne Landman

Oh wait never mind:

Guns are designed for that purpose. Vehicle manufacturers have been developing and incorporating features into cars for decades to make them safer: seat belts, air bags, back-up warning alarms, sensors to detect movement behind them, etc.

Anne Landman

Of course user commander makes a good point:

Smith and Wesson has been building pink-accented “Lady Smith” guns for years now. Why is it suddenly a bad thing that they’re donating some money from the sale of those guns to cancer research?

So this isn’t something new for them but Anne is all of the sudden offended because the M&P Smith and Wesson are auctioning off is for breast cancer awareness is all of the sudden bad. Of course Anne tries to shit all over commander’s argument:

… and in this case, about selling guns.

If S&W just wanted to benefit cancer victims, why not just make a donation to a cancer research organization without pinking the product?

Anne Landman

Because the ENTIRE point behind the pink campaign is to raise AWARENESS. It’s a marketing ploy (not all of them are evil) to raise money to help research breast cancer. Anonymous donations don’t raise awareness because nobody fucking hears about them. I’m only going to post one more nugget of stupidity here. User MarshallD makes a very astute point:

Smith and Wesson and Julie Goloski have their hearts in the right place and you all should be ashamed of doubting them.

A woman with a firearm, trained on how to use it, has a greater chance of defending herself against a violent opponent much larger than herself. I feel much better knowing that my wife carries a firearm to defend herself against a criminal.

Of course Anne doesn’t understand what self defense means:

If a woman needs training in self-defense, I suggest martial arts training. That way she has something that can’t be taken away and used against her, nor can it be stolen and used against someone else.

Anne Landman

I’m sorry but in a self defense situation I want every advantage. If my attacker has a gun and is standing any reasonable distance from me what good are martial arts going to do? What if you’re up against some crazy who’s been taking PCP and can’t feel pain? Sure he won’t feel bullets but he’ll eventually bleed out while breaking limbs probably isn’t going to accomplish much.

Anyways I just wanted to point out some of the stupidity being argued there. Anne who is claiming she’s made at Smith and Wesson because they create the best method one can own for self defense, is more or less advocating those women be disarmed.

And why did I make these remarks on my blog instead of posting them on her site? Well I did post on her site but I have more leeway with my blog and I can use whatever language I feel necessary. Also I realize no amount of logical argument is going to change her mind but I want to place a record of this somewhere since I’m worried she may decide to do some comment pruning in the future.

This is Why You Don’t Comply with Criminals

You know what the anti-gunners always say, comply with criminals and you’ll be better off than if you defended yourself. The phrase, “Just give them want they want” is often used by those against the right of self defense.

The problem is you’re making a contract with a person willing to cause you harm. I present and example showing why compliance isn’t a substitute for self defense.

Here is the story summed up. A many breaks into a family’s home and robs them of valuables. After the even the family report the incident to the police and then get a shotgun in case they experience anything like that again. Well the thug was so pissed off that the family reported him that he returned with intent to kill the family. He met the business end of a shotgun.

Remember when dealing with unscrupulous people there is no guarantee that they won’t decide to turn around and murder you after you’ve done everything they say. On the other hand dead criminals can’t harm anybody. And that is my thought of the day.

Tom Emmers

Every Wednesday evening me and other members of Campaign for Liberty sit down and have dinner. Last night we were joined by potential Minnesota Governor Republican candidate Tom Emmer. You can imagine that any candidate that sits down with us for several hours is probably going to be closer to a libertarian than a neo-conservative which, by what he said throughout the night, is very true.

I’ve mentioned Representative Emmer on this blog before after he introduced the Minnesota Firearms Freedom Act which emulates the same act passed in Montana. I talked to him briefly about it, mainly asking why there was an exemption for machine guns. This is always a good litmus test to see if a candidate is pro-gun or not as many will give reasoning why machine guns are horrible weapons that civilians shouldn’t have. Tom said he didn’t realize such a clause was in there and asked me to e-mail him the part of the bill that says that as he felt it shouldn’t be in there. I did e-mail him although haven’t heard back yet but alas this means one of two things. First he just fucked up or two he didn’t know what was in his own bill. Either way he said he didn’t see a difference between machine guns and any other type of firearm. Good.

I then asked him about suppressors. He lives right down the street from the range I go to (I didn’t know that previously) and admitted to enjoying the sound of gun fire (another good thing). But he agreed that suppressors should be legal in Minnesota as well. That question was more or less for my person interest on the subject.

Finally I asked him what he thought about Alaska and Vermont style carry laws. Once again Mr. Emmer thought they were great. He also said in his opinion the licensing thing we have in this state was nothing more than a method to appease law enforcement officers and felt we should be able to practice our right to bear arms without any for of licensing. He also made a quick mention about how we should get a clause in the Minnesota constitution proclaiming citizens’ right to bear arms (we have no such clause).

Overall I was very impressed with him, even on issues outside of guns. He is certainly a person to keep an eye on for Minnesota governor.