Gun Rights – Page 21 – A Geek With Guns

DEA Planned to Surveil Arizona Gun Show Attendees

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is building a system to track motorists throughout the country. Part of the system likely relies on license plate readers. But this isn’t the first incident where the DEA planned to use license plate readers to track Americans. In 2009 the DEA was planning to use them to track attendees of gun shows in Arizona:

The Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives collaborated on plans to monitor gun show attendees using automatic license plate readers, according to a newly disclosed DEA email obtained by the ACLU through the Freedom of Information Act.

The April 2009 email states that “DEA Phoenix Division Office is working closely with ATF on attacking the guns going to [redacted] and the gun shows, to include programs/operation with LPRs at the gun shows.” The government redacted the rest of the email, but when we received this document we concluded that these agencies used license plate readers to collect information about law-abiding citizens attending gun shows. An automatic license plate reader cannot distinguish between people transporting illegal guns and those transporting legal guns, or no guns at all; it only documents the presence of any car driving to the event. Mere attendance at a gun show, it appeared, would have been enough to have one’s presence noted in a DEA database.

Responding to inquiries about the document, the DEA said that the monitoring of gun shows was merely a proposal and was never implemented.

Call me skeptical but for some reason I don’t believe the DEA’s claim that it never implemented this strategy. But that is largely irrelevant now that it is implementing a nationwide system that will track motorists indiscriminately. What this proposal does show is that the technology, while indiscriminate in nature, can be used in a discriminatory manner.

Tracking attendees of gun shows is just one example of the type of discrimination widespread surveillance lends itself to. This technology could just as easily be used to identify attendees of a cannabis legalization or gay rights rally. Once you have that type of information in hand you can use it for either legal harassment or blackmail. Imagine the DEA using the fact that somebody attended a gun show and a cannabis legalization rally as probably cause to investigate somebody on the grounds that they may be a user of unlawful substances in possession of a firearm. Even if such evidence isn’t enough to bring charges it is enough to harass and badger the person.

This is the future George Orwell warned us about. I think we’ve reached the post of a boot stamping a human face — forever.

The ATF is Solely Responsible for Its Ruling

Gun owners, like libertarians, a very good at eating their own. Nowhere is this more prevalent than the conversations that have been surrounding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’s (ATF) ruling that holding a gun wrong is a felony. You would think gun owners would be focusing in their wrath on the ATF but many seem to view fellow gun owners are the true culprits.

When the arm braces were released we all knew they were going to get an unfavorable ruling from the ATF eventually. Many gun owners wrote into the ATF requesting clarification on numerous corner cases involving arm braces. Some of the requests were serious but most of them were humorous. Apparently these requests are what caused the ATF to issue its ruling and we should therefore all scorn the gun owners who made those requests.

This is bullshit. Pure unadulterated bullshit. We all knew the ATF was going to issue this ruling eventually. After all, if there’s one thing the ATF hates more than gun owners it’s fun. I’m fairly certain the ATF has a staff that just combs YouTube for videos of people having fun with firearms and tries to figure out how to make those activities illegal. As soon as videos started popping up of gun owners having fun with arm braces it was over. The ATF detected fun and it was going to swoop in to stop it.

All of you who are blaming fellow gun owners for the ATF’s actions need to knock it the fuck off. I get it. You’re angry and you feel powerless against the ATF. But taking out your rage on somebody you perceive to be weaker is childish. It’s as if your teacher gave you detention so you decided to beat the shit out of her kid.

Some of you may not be angry but are merely trying to win favor from the ATF. Turning on your fellows is a great to display loyalty to a master after all. But it’s not going to work. No matter how much you kowtow to the ATF, no matter how much you lick its boots, it will not grant you the special favors you seek. When the next fun toy gets developed it will still rip it from your hands. That’s because it views you, correctly, as its subject.

The ATF issued and will enforce the decision. It is solely responsible for this mess. So take all of that anger that you’re using to lash out at people who aren’t responsible for this mess and lash out at the ATF. Who knows, maybe if our ancestors had told the ATF to go fuck itself instead of screaming at each other we wouldn’t be in the mess. Maybe if the ATF knew everything it did would be met with resistance it would be more hesitant to issue stupid rulings. But we’ll probably never know because we’re too busy blaming each other to dedicate any real energy to hating the actual culprit.

ATF Rules Holding Firearms Incorrectly is a Felony

This just goes to show how meaningless the label felon is and how much power an agency can wield. Arm braces for AR pattern rifles have been a big seller. They’re designed to help you brace an AR pistol against your forearm. It just so happens that these designs can also secure the weapon against your shoulder like a traditional stock. Because of this many people have chosen to build AR pistols with arm braces instead of paying the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) $200 for a tax stamp that gives them the privilege of using a traditional stock on an AR with a barrel shorter than 16″.

The ATF has now ruled that using an arm brace to shoulder an AR with a barrel under 16″ is a felony [PDF]:

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.

What this means is that having an AR with a barrel under 16″ equipped with an arm brace is perfectly legal so long as you don’t put the brace against your shoulder. The second you do put that brace against your shoulder you are committing a felony. Holding a gun wrong is now officially a felony.

And this new felony didn’t take an act of Congress or the signature of the President. It only required an agency to write a letter. This is why the idea that Congress must vote and the President must sign a bill is some kind of meaningful check against runaway government power is laughable. In the case of firearm laws the ATF need only redefine what “redesign” means and it can create a new felony crime. No fuss, no muss.

I think this also explains why the average working professional unknowingly commits and average of three felonies a day. When an agency can simply redefine a single word and create a new felony it goes without saying that there are going to be a lot of felonies. This is also why everybody who thinks they’re a law-abiding citizen is wrong.

Using Gun Buybacks for Agorism

Gun buybacks are one of the dumbest ideas that have ever popped into the heads of gun control advocates. These buybacks works off of the idea that state can steal money from the people then use a portion of that stolen money to buy some of the people’s guns. But they’re an easily exploitable. While the idea is to further increase the disparity of force between the state and its subjects, smart individuals can use these programs to recover some of the money stolen from them. Much to the chagrin of gun control advocates, gun owners are actively working to recover some of their wealth:

The self-described “gun rights activist,” who we are not naming, brought in a duffel bag full of home made, “slam-fire” shotguns (all of legal length). He was paid $50 for each of these improvised guns. This low ball price shows just how unrealistic it is for anyone but criminals to turn guns in to the police when they have these buy back programs.

While this was a low buy back, sometimes programs go as high as several hundred dollars. Activists have turned in a few dollars worth of pipes for what added up to thousands out of the police department’s pockets.

Agorists should take note of this. With a few dollars in parts from the hardware store you can net $50 or more from any police station holding a buyback. Not only does this extract wealth from the state but it specifically extracts it from one of the worst parts of the state, the police.

Tyrannical Russian Regime Becomes Slightly Less Tyrannical

It appears that the tyrannical Russian regime has become slightly less tyrannical by allowing serfs to use self-defense as a justification when begging their lords for permission to carry a firearm:

In an amendment to its tough gun control laws, the Russian government eases restrictions, allowing citizens to carry licensed weapons for the purposes of ‘self-defense.’

Until now Russian gun enthusiasts were only permitted to carry firearms for hunting or target shooting after obtaining a license through the Interior Ministry. Russian gun licenses are to be renewed every five years, and applicants face strict background checks and are required to take gun safety courses.

The addendum to the law now lists self-defense as a legally acceptable reason for carrying a weapon

But seriously, it’s awful nice of the Russian lords to give the serfs this little indulgence. What I will be interested in seeing is how may permits the Russian government will actually issue where self-defense is listed as the justification.

Gun Owners in Washington Planning Act of Mass Civil Disobedience

During the election i594 passed in Washington, which requires all gun transfers to be performed through a federally licensed dealer. As you can guess gun owners are pissed. After all, what parent wants to pay a middle man just so they can give their child his or her inheritance to them? Who wants to pay a middle man just to get permission to sell a firearm to a friend? It’s a stupid law, it’s unenforceable, and it appears that Washington’s gun owners are planning to give their rulers a rightfully deserved gigantic middle finger:

Tens of thousands of Connecticut gun owners chose to become overnight felons rather than comply with that state’s new gun registration law. The defiance spurred the Hartford Courant editorial board to impotently sputter about rounding up the scofflaws.

New York’s similar registration law suffers such low compliance that state officials won’t even reveal how many people have abide by the measure—a desperate secrecy ploy that the New York State Committee on Open Government says thumbs its nose at the law itself.

Now Washington state residents pissed of about i594, a ballot measure inflicting background check requirements on even private transactions, plan an exercise in mass disobedience next month.

According to the event’s Facebook page they plan to gather en masse at the Washington State Capital and exchange firearms without involving any middle men. Since only federally licensed dealers can access the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to perform a background check these transfers will be in violation of the law.

I’m a big fan of civil disobedience because it shows how impotent the state is. Assuming half of the 6,100 people (as of this writing) marked as going show up it will be impossible for law enforcement agents to arrest them all. Even if they did manage to round them all up they probably wouldn’t have enough cages to keep them in. The state’s power is predatory in nature. It attempts to isolate individuals and attack them. But when it faces masses of people it must either back down or use violence on all of them, which quickly erases its legitimacy in the eyes of many.

This even will, in all probability, also cause many gun control loons to reveal their true faces. I’m sure social media outlets will be jam packed with comments by anti-gunners who claim to want peace demanding the police execute these unruly gun owners. Nothing brings out an anti-gunner’s violence nature like disobedient gun owners. I look forward to reading their rants for the LULZ.

Registration Leads to Harassment After Death

After the death of a loved one what’s the first thing you want to deal with? If you answer cops coming to your door in search of the deceased’s firearms I recommend moving to Buffalo, New York:

Buffalo, New York police are now visiting the homes of those recently departed in search of firearms as part of a new plan to help keep tabs on local guns.

The move, put into effect by Police Commissioner Daniel Derenda, is described as an effort to stop firearms, specifically handguns, from winding up back in circulation and off the books.

“We recently started a program where we’re cross referencing all the pistol permit holders with the death records, and we’re sending people out to collect the guns whenever possible so that they don’t end up in the wrong hands,” Derenda told WGRZ. “Because at times they lay out there and the family is not aware of them and they end up just out on the street.”

As they say, registration leads to confiscation. That confiscation may happen on a random day of the state’s choosing or it may happen after a loved one has died. But this story proves once again that registration is a stupid idea. Oh, and it also proves that the state’s goons are assholes.

Yoshitomo Imura Will Spend Two Years In a Cage

Yoshitomo Imura decided to create some firearms using a 3D printer. What made his attempt different than most of the attempts we hear about is that he lives in Japan, a country known for its strict weapon control laws. What made his attempt stupid was that he bragged about doing so on the Internet. Because he couldn’t keep his mouth shut is will not spend two years of his life rotting in a cage:

Yesterday, a Japanese man was sentenced to two years in prison for manufacturing 3D-printed guns. Yoshitomo Imura, a 28-year-old from Kawasaki, was arrested in May after posting a video of himself assembling his very illegal firearm to YouTube, which probably wasn’t the best idea on his part.

The right to bear DIY weaponry is still a contentious issue in most of the world. But if guns are illegal in your country—as they mostly are in Japan—then it makes sense that the law isn’t suddenly going to side with you when you decide to have a crack at making one in your garage. Imura appears to be the first person in the world to receive a prison sentence for making 3D-printed guns.

I applaud Imura for what he did. His act of defiance demonstrated that gun control laws are ineffective. However, when you’re breaking the law you shouldn’t brag about it unless you plan to make a big scene in a courtroom because that’s where you’ll likely end up.

What does surprise me is the sentence. Considering Japan’s weapon control laws I’d have imagined a longer sentence. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he’s not going to spend more time in a cage but when he was arrested I was expecting the sentence to be longer.

Two Different Ways of Responding to Threats

I’ve been talking about threat models lately and how people respond to them. Most recently I discussed Sarkeesian canceling her event at Utah State University because the police were unwilling to prohibit individuals with valid carry permits from carrying at the event.

Looking at threat models and responses at a very high level there seems to be two types of reactions. The first, which Sarkeesia demonstrated, is a reaction that attempts to control the threat while the second reaction type is an attempt to harden the threat’s target.

Let’s consider a threat model commonly discussed here, individuals facing the potential of being murdered. Gun control advocates look at the model and identify the threat and focus on controlling that threat. In their eyes the threat is an armed aggressor and their reaction is to attempt to restrict their access to arms. A gun rights advocates look at the model and identify the threat and focus on hardening the target. For them the threat is an armed or unarmed aggressor and their reaction is to attempt to ensure that the target is equipped with a means to defend against the aggressor.

Obviously I’m of the thought that an appropriate response to an aggressor is to harden the target. The reason I subscribe to this school of thought is that the target is the factor in the model that you can control whereas the threat is not controllable. If somebody threatens to kill me I can take measures that make carrying through with that threat difficult. Some of the actions I can take is to train in martial arts (which, in my opinion, includes firearm training), carry a weapon to defend myself with, wear body armor to make certain types of attacks less effective, randomize the routes I take to go from home to work, install audible alarms on my doors and windows, carry a bright flashlight that can be used to blind an aggressor, etc. These are all things that I can do.

But what can I do to control the threat? Truthfully there really isn’t anything I can do in that respect. Laws are ineffective against the unlawful. Since committing murder is already illegal it seems unlikely that the threat will abide by any laws that attempt to restrict his or her access to arms. Furthermore weapons are simple things to construct so even if the laws decrease the amount of available weapons the threat can craft his or her own. There is also no reliable way for me to control when the threat will attack me. This is an interesting point in regards to Sarkeesia’s situation. While the threat that was issued said that the attack would occur at the campus there is no way to know that the issued threat wasn’t disinformation meant to throw the target off. The threat could very well attack when Sarkeesia made her way from the airport or hotel she was likely starting at to the campus or after she left the campus.

I would argue that any threat model response that relies on controlling the threat will be ineffective. Short of killing the threat there is no way to absolutely control his or her actions. But even killing them requires that you can first identify them, which is often not possible until the threat makes a move against you. This is why any competent security team focuses on protecting the target. Whether you’re talking body guards, building security, or computer security the focus is always to harden the target.

The Butthurt is Strong with This One

Gun control advocates can be quite the hysterical bunch. Usually it doesn’t impact us gun owners much since their hysteria usually takes the form of infinite fountains of impotent rage. But once in a while their hysteria leads them to do something that we have no choice but to notice. A gun control advocate in Rochester went and did one of these things:

Matthew Halleck brings his two girls to and from the outskirts of Harriet Bishop Elementary in Rochester every day. “I’m going to protect my children anyway I can,” said Halleck.

For Matthew, that means carrying a concealed gun that he has a permit for, while adhering to all legal boundaries. “It’s not crossing the street here, where the crosswalk is, it’s making sure it’s concealed so the kids can’t see it,” he said.

But Matthew is no longer the only one who knows he’s carrying a gun. Recently a sign went up in a front yard across the street from the school. It has Matthew’s picture on it and reads, “This man carries a loaded gun around your children every day.”

“Since we don’t have a way to stop him, we felt it was important to notify the neighborhood and the parents that there is an armed man in their presence,” said Kimberly Edson, a Rochester resident who put the sign up. “The first couple days of school he had it very visible, we saw it and were quite concerned,” she said.

You can feel her butthurt from across the Internet. According to the story she also called the police on Mr. Halleck but was informed that he wasn’t breaking the law so wouldn’t be arrested (once in a while you get a sensible cop). Mr. Halleck also called the police regarding Mrs. Edson’s sign and was told that she has a First Amendment right to put up such a sign (two sensible responses from the police is rather remarkable).

Obviously there’s nothing Mrs. Edson can do as Mr. Halleck is operating within the law. Likewise, although he’s contemplating a libel lawsuit, there shouldn’t be anything Mr. Halleck can do since Mrs. Edson is exercising her right to expression. But this story does a good job of point out something that should be stated more often: if you don’t want the whole world knowing that you carry a firearm then don’t tell anybody. Concealed means concealed and advertising the fact that you carry a gun means somebody could announce that fact far and wide.