Tag: Gun Rights

Mandatory Services Equal Money

Walls of the City points out a little fact involving supply and demand. Apparently some federally licensed gun dealers are all for abolishing private sales between individuals (the anti-gun lobby coins this the “gun show loophole” even those it has nothing to do with gun shows or loopholes). Why would an FFL holder do such a thing? Aren’t they in the fight for the second amendment?

Well think about the service they provide. Think about it. If you haven’t come to the answer yet hit the link and read the post.

Us Second Amendment Supporters Sure are a Fickle Bunch

You know when it comes to groups I think us second amendment supporters can certainly take a title for one of the most fickle groups out there. We argue amongst ourselves at the drop of the hat. For instance there are long running battles in our group about what’s better the AR-15 or AK-47? what caliber is better for self defense the 9mm or the .45, and of course does open carrying help or hinder our movement?

Now don’t get me wrong I’m not complaining, I love arguments. Arguments are how things get decided and I’m proud to say I’m part of a movement that is willing to argue about topics in detail. The other side of the coin are those who use simple talking points and always agree with one another. Those people don’t get anything good accomplished because they never take other sides into consideration.

Well this weeks argument seems to be about open carrying. Rob Allen is all for it, Sebastian isn’t a fan, and Uncle is all for it but doesn’t believe it promotes the second amendment to others. Of course I’m nowhere near these three as far as the popularity of my blog (or lack thereof) but that’s never stopped me from chiming in when an good argument is afoot.

Let’s face it most peoples’ exposure to firearms is in a negative sense. For the average Joe the only time they are exposed to another individual carrying a gun outside of a range is when the gun is in their face during a mugging or robbery or when they are interacting with a police officer (and if you’re dealing with their gun it’s probably not a good thing either).

Due to this the default reaction of most people is negative when they see another person carrying a gun. If a majority of peoples’ exposure to other carrying firearms was positive I believe this default reaction would change. That’s also why I don’t believe open carrying alone is going to do anything, you need to do it well.

What I mean by that if you are open carrying as a method to change peoples’ minds be polite as possible, dress well, and besides the gun look as harmless as possible. If somebody approaches you and decided to confront you on your choice to carry a gun don’t get in their face. Explain in a calm and collected manner why you chose to carry a gun. Scream, “BECAUSE IT’S MY RIGHT!” isn’t going to accomplish anything. On the other hand explain how you carry a gun to protect yourself and your family will give the confronter nothing they want and hence they will most likely move on.

If you’re walking around carrying a gun openly make eye contact and politely nod to anybody you pass by. Say, “Hello” or “How are you doing?” Just be a nice person. If you want people to become accustom to firearms their exposure must be positive. That’s the key.

Governor Schwarzenegger Just Shafted California

Via Snowflakes in Hell we have some bad news for those of you in California, the Governator just sighed AB 962. Sure it won’t help actually deter criminals who will simply steal, purchase through straw men, or purchase their ammunition out of state. This of course is irrelevant since California’s motto is, “any law will pass so long as it inconveniences the law abiding gun owner and doesn’t cause any difficulties to the criminals.” I’m guessing California is just trying to see if there is a critical number of laws that, if enacted, with actually cause criminals to stop breaking them.

Those of you in California can look forward to surrendering your personal information and thumb print EVERY time you purchase ANY handgun ammunition. Yesterday’s episode of Truth About Guns dealt with this exact subject hence I don’t have much further to say. All I can add though is to expect a state-wide scam to ban handguns all together in the near future.

I will provide these pieces of information though. Here are the vote break downs for the California assembly and the California senate. You Californians have your job cut out for you as you need to work hard to vote out every one of the people in those lists who voted yes.

Another of Our Own Lost

Man I’m late with this news but alas it’s posted now. Gun rights activist Meleanie Hain was murdered by her husband. There is a good write up over at The Brenda Fallacy.

Likewise Random Nuclear Strikes shows us the “peace loving” anti-gun crowd is already dancing in the blood and proclaiming how happy they are that a gun rights activist was shot to death. Don’t believe me head over to the last linked article and read comments like this one by Doughh:

No offense but now there are 2 less right wing wacko gun nuts running around. Do feel sorry for the kids though.

Apparently Meleanie had become worried in recent times that her husband was becoming dangerous. It seems her husband had become abusive and she was making an attempt to leave him taking their two kids with her. In the end the bastard shot her and himself but by sheer fortune didn’t bring harm to either of their children.

Although we have a ton of “peace loving” anti-gunners dancing up and down a user going by the name of graycoyote tells us some very important details:

You’re conveniently leaving out a couple of details.

1) Scott Hain, not Meleanie, fired the first shot. She had privately confided with several of her friends that Scott was become more abusive and controlling of her life, and she was considering divorcing him and taking her two kids (2 and 6). It appears that early indications is that she told him that she was divorcing him, so he shot her with HIS service weapon from work.

2) Scott Hain was both a corrections officer and a parole officer, and officially considered a law enforcement officer under PA law. So a cop shot his wife with his service weapon, essentially.

3) All of you assholes who are just absolutely gleeful that she was killed, or it is some sort of lesson to be learned here that “guns shouldn’t have been as available to allow stuff like this to happen”, Scott Hain was a cop, who would be untouched by a majority of gun control laws even in places like DC, Chicago, and New York.

Yup no amount of gun control laws would have prevented this as her husband was a cop who qualified to carry a service gun.

Anyways for the few of you who haven’t heard of Meleanie she made the news a while back by exercising her second amendment right at a soccer game. The anti-gun crowd shit their pants proclaiming she was being irresponsible carrying a gun that close to *gasp* CHILDREN! In actuality nobody was shot and if somebody had been there to cause anybody harm Meleanie would have been able to give the attendees a fighting chance.

Hopefully her children make it through this with some semblance of sanity left.

The Anti-Gunners Sure are Grade A Assholes

Sometimes you find stories that make your blood boil. This is one of those stories via Says Uncle. A man who worked for Planco, a subsidiary of Hartford, was fired for looking at web sites that listed gun parts. Note the firing wasn’t even due to some mislead company policy against looking at websites that aren’t specifically work related:

When Jackson was searching the Web for a replacement shotgun stock, supervisor Christie Vazquez — who admitted in a subsequent deposition to being “very anti-gun” and had quarreled with him before about politics — noticed what he was doing. Vazquez said she was scared because it was only a few weeks after the Virginia Tech massacre (see CBS News video), so she promptly reported her colleague’s Web browsing to Planco’s human resources department. Vazquez also informed the HR department that Jackson owned guns and was a member of the National Rifle Association.

Can you find the logic in this:

There is no evidence that Jackson was a violent person, and Davis later acknowledged that the list of Web sites were shopping sites that didn’t have any violent pictures or anything that alarmed her. Nevertheless, Vazquez and another supervisor claimed they were concerned for their safety, and Planco fired Jackson six days later.

Didn’t think so. And of course Jackson even escorted Vazquez in a bad neighborhood as he had a carry permit:

The lawsuit, filed by Exton, Penn. attorney Mark Scheffer, noted that Jackson and supervisor Vazquez had — at least at one point — enjoyed a friendly relationship. Jackson, who has a legal concealed carry permit in Pennsylvania, accompanied Vazquez when she was hunting for apartments in dodgy areas of Philadelphia. He gave her a tour of the Philadelphia Inquirer, where he used to work, and took Vazquez to a shooting range and showed her how to use a gun. (She confirmed in a later deposition (PDF) that she enjoyed the outing.) Another employee who worked in the same department said he heard Vazquez ask Jackson about purchasing a handgun for protection.

Some thanks there. The anti-gun crowd always claim they are against violence but they really mean they are against violence unless they can have a proxy do it. It’s OK to have a friend escort you through a bad neighborhood if they are able to carry a gun. It’s OK for the police to show up and shoot a home invader. Seriously I hate hypocrites and the anti-gun crowd are the biggest hypocrites out there.

I’m glad I work at a company where a good chunk of the employees are pro-gun and gun owners. On top of that I’m pretty well known as “the gun guy” and have become a resource for a couple people looking to purchase firearms or get carry permits.

Another Take on Bloomberg’s Gun Show Antics

Snowflakes in Hell has a nice little write up on Bloomberg’s latest little stunt. All in all it’s summed up greatly by the last paragraph:

What’s really disgusting about Bloomberg’s tactics, is none of these transactions and dealers shown here have anything to do with gun show loophole. It’s illegal to operate as a gun dealer, for livelihood and profit, without a Federal Firearms License. It’s illegal to knowingly sell guns to criminals. In all of these cases shown, they could be prosecuted under current laws. But he’s not going to tell you that, because the goal is to get rid of gun shows.

The so-called gun show loophole is more accurately known as a private individual selling their own property to another private individual. See the federal government claims the reason they have a right to control guns is due to the commerce clause. It’s stated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution and states:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

It relates to powers of Congress only. It grants Congress the power to regulate inter-state commerce. The claims are wide and varied but suffice to say since guns are usually built in one state and sold in another if falls under inter-state commerce according to the federal government. Since it falls under inter-state commerce they feel they have the power to regulate it as much as they can. This is what state laws like Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act are all about. They state guns produce, sold, and used inside the state of Montana should be free of federal regulation. Likewise if you are selling your gun to another person in the state it’s not inter-state commerce and hence the reason the federal government is unable to regulate it. Since these type of sales are exempt from federal regulations they do not require the seller to perform a NICS check,which would be illegal anyways.

I’ve covered this in my Truth About Guns podcast but I will state in here as well. Bloomberg and his posse are saying we should require private sellers to run background checks on buyers. The problem is private individuals are not legally allowed to do so only Federal Firearm License holders are allowed to access it. From the FBI itself:

Authorized use of the NICS is limited to the purpose of obtaining information on whether receipt of a firearm by a prospective transferee would violate federal or state law.

FFLs, their officers, employees, agents, and/or other representatives are permitted to request background checks of the NICS only for the authorized purpose.

Accessing or using the NICS, or permitting access or use of the NICS by another, for any unauthorized purpose is a violation of federal law, sanctions for which may include criminal prosecution; a civil fine not to exceed $10,000, and/or cancellation of NICS inquiry privileges.

So FFLs, their officers, employees, agents, and/or other representatives are permitted to request background checks. Likewise allowing any other person to access the NICS is punishable by a fine up to $10,000. The only way to access the NICS system is to get an account and in order to do that you need a Federal Firearms License.

Since it’s impossible for a private dealer to access the NICS system they can not run a background check. Hence the only way to legally require a background check is to force all sales to go through a licensed dealer. This is to say in order to sell your own property you would require the involvement of a third party. That is akin to saying it’s not your own property. Imagine if you had to go through a dealership every time you wanted to sell a car.

Since car accidents kill more people than guns every year (by a wide margin) wouldn’t it make sense to require a federal license to sell automobiles? That way a background check could be performed on potential buyers and if they had a past history of criminal behavior you could deny them access to one of the biggest means of death in this country. See how stupid it sounds when applied to cars? Why is it any different from guns? Remember automobiles are involved in far more deaths every year.

The bottom line is the anti-gun crowd wants to abolish gun shows. Not because they are a potential source for criminals to get their guns (very very VERY few criminals get their guns from gun shows, Snowflakes in Hell has the information on that). No it’s because that’s where those of us fighting for our right to keep and bear arms congregate. The only way to stop a movement is to break up the crowd. The anti-gun crowd is trying this through multiple angles such as pitting hunters against those of us who use guns for self defense.

Likewise I believe they are jealous since they lack a show type to congregate. Maybe they should start having anti-gun shows. I can see it now a place full of like minded people not buying guns. They could have tables empty and devoid of firearms and firearms accessories. I’m sure that would get a huge attendance.

Bloomberg Stepping on the Fed’s Toes

Mega douche Mayor Bloomberg is at his antics again. This is coming from Says Uncle. He sent his thugs into several out of state gun shows and had them purchase firearms from private individuals. His thugs went to non-dealers (that would be private individuals like myself and probably you) and purchased firearms while apparently admitting they were from out of state and couldn’t pass a background check.

This type of “investigation” (I use the term loosely as no police were actually working on this) falls under the territory of the FBI and ATF whom apparently have told Bloomberg to knock it off before. Says Uncle has several links to stories involving Bloomberg stepping on federal agents’ toes and muddling up their investigations.

Says Uncle also has a followup post explaining very clearly that no loophole exists. The purchases and sellers both broke the law. Simply breaking the law doesn’t constitute a loophole, it constitutes breaking the law:

My issue with it is the fact that the investigation illustrated that you can break the law by breaking the law. If a person purchases a handgun out of state, they break the law. They have a webpage set up and a report in which they state they bought guns out of state (page 17). That’s illegal. Also, they engaged in straw purchases, also illegal.

So Bloomberg’s thugs broke the law while demonstrating the law can be broken. To me this seems to require police to arrest the persons committing illegal acts. See police officers can break the law as part of a string operation (which Bloomberg is calling this) in their jurisdiction. But Bloomberg’s thugs don’t appear to be police and if they were they would be New York cops and therefore out of their jurisdiction. I think the ATF should practice their history of abuse on those so called investigators.

Coming from a gun show this weekend where an out of state person tried to purchase a handgun at the table I got me Glock 30 from I can say dealers usually don’t go for this. In the case I witnessed a person had a California ID and tried to purchase a pistol and the dealer told him no way in Hell. Maybe it was one of Bloomberg’s thugs in action. If so they obviously didn’t get any takes since they never mentioned Minnesota as a state where they were operating.

Also I apologize that there isn’t a direct link to the story but the site with the actual story requires registration to read it. As a personal policy I don’t link to sites that pull that kind of shit.

Brady Campaign Sticking Fingers in Ears and Saying “I Can’t Hear You” Loudly

Days of Our Trailers lets us know the Brady Bunch are in denial. Super Douche, Paul Helmke, has reportedly stuck his fingers in his hears and began screaming “I can’t hear you” as loudly as possible. Although highly annoying to both of his fellows at the Brady Bunch Headquarters they were able to type up a press release:

“The Chicago case is unlikely to have much practical impact on most gun laws regardless of how the Court rules. Even if the Court were to hold the Second Amendment applicable to states and localities, such a ruling is unlikely to change the crucial holding by the Supreme Court in Heller that a wide range of reasonable gun laws are presumptively constitutional, and that the Second Amendment right is narrowly limited to guns in the home for self-defense. Since the Heller decision, the gun lobby and criminals have brought at least 170 challenges to gun laws or to block criminal gun prosecutions. With only a handful of exceptions, those challenges have failed.”

After reading this and believing it Paul Helmke reportedly stopped yelling but still left his fingers in his ears. Both his staff reportedly said they prefer him like this because it prevents him from throwing his feces around the office.

A Reminder Owning a Gun isn’t Enough for Self Defense

After something bad happens to a person or somebody they know they often respond by going out and purchasing a gun. I’ve talked about this before but simply owning a gun isn’t going to keep you save. Well Robb Allen heard of a situation and reminds us:

Getting a shotgun isn’t going to keep you safe. It’s not a magical talisman that wards off evil spirits. The only thing it does is help give you the advantage you need to survive a fight.

Before one thinks about getting any firearm for home defense, they should ask themselves a few questions

Am I willing to use lethal force and accept the consequences of doing so?
Will I train with the firearm so that in a time of crisis, I can use it accurately and safely?
Can I secure the weapons against unauthorized use such as children?

All of these points are important. Head over to his blog and read what he posted.

Supreme Court to Hear Chicago Gun Ban Case

Good news everybody the Supreme Court is going to hear the Chicago case on the banning of firearms. According to the article we won’t have a verdict until summer rolls around but if the Supreme Court is smart, and they follow the Heller decision, states and local cities won’t be able to ban firearms anymore.

It’s amazing to me when I realize we have one of the most anti-gun administrations in power yet the gun rights movements been going stronger than ever. Coincidence? Maybe we just needed a fire lit under our collective butts, because we’re moving full ahead now.