Tag: Gun Rights

The ATF Doesn’t Acknowledge Meat Popsicle as a Race

Race is a hot issue as of late (truthfully race has been a hot issue throughout the history of the United States). Between the propensity of police officers in certain cities targeting people of certain races with much higher frequency and whether or not there’s enough diversity in the technology market everybody is talking about race. That’s probably why the Washington Times is finally asking why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is asking everybody purchasing a gun from a federally licensed dealer what their race is:

With little fanfare, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2012 amended its Form 4473 — the transactional record the government requires gun purchasers and sellers to fill out when buying a firearm — to identify buyers as either Hispanic, Latino or not. Then a buyer must check his or her race: Indian, Asian, black, Pacific Islander or white.

The amendment is causing a headache for gun retailers, as each box needs to be checked off or else it’s an ATF violation — severe enough for the government to shut a business down. Many times people skip over the Hispanic/Latino box and only check their race, or vice versa — both of which are federal errors that can be held against the dealer.

Requiring the race and ethnic information of gun buyers is not required by federal law and provides little law enforcement value, legal experts say. And gun industry officials worry about how the information is being used and whether it constitutes an unnecessary intrusion on privacy.

I have two theories regarding this. My first theory has to do with Operation Fast and Furious, the ATF operation to smuggle guns to Mexican drug cartels. Perhaps asking whether the gun purchaser is Hispanic is a way to speed up searches for Fast and Furious-related firearms. OK, I’m partially joking about that. My actual theory is that the ATF is demanding to know each buyer’s race for the same reason it asks each buyer if they’re prohibited form owning a firearm: the government likes to collect information redundantly. When you submit to a background check your personal information, including full legal name and current address, are submitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). That information should be enough for the FBI to do a search for you in its database. If your name comes up all of your identifying information is already available to the agency since it was recorded during your arrest or involuntarily confinement to a mental health ward.

It’s the same stupidity that forces you to fill out paperwork when filing your taxes. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) already has all of the information it need to send you a bill since your employer is so helpful to withhold taxes from your paycheck. There’s no need for you to fill out any tax forms other than deductions. But the IRS isn’t efficient by anybody’s regard so it demands you provide it with the information it already has access to because that’s how government works.

Bill Gates Knows What’s Best for You

Just because Bill Gates is really good at making money he believes that he knows how to run your life better than you do. Recently his charitable foundation made a $1 million donation to a campaign in Washington state trying to prohibit private sales of firearms:

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda, have donated $1 million to a Washington state campaign seeking to expand background checks on gun sales, bringing the total amount the campaign has brought in up to nearly $6 million.

The donation to the Initiative 594 campaign was given Friday, but it was not made public until Monday, when it posted on the state’s Public Disclosure Commission website.

I-594 would require background checks for all gun sales and transfers in Washington state, including at gun shows and for private sales. Under the measure, exemptions would exist, including gifts within a family and antiques.

Gun control advocates try to criticize anybody who opposes mandatory background checks with variations of “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.” They imply anybody who opposes background checks has a criminal history. But they are also dishonest about what they want. While they claim that they want to prevent criminals from purchasing firearms what they really want is to prohibit you from selling your property without government permission. I cannot read minds but I will go so far as to imply most gun control advocates want this prohibition in place because it makes the burden of gun ownership higher and therefore would further discourage it. Additionally mandatory background checks would allow the state to more easily restrict firearm ownership by creating more criteria for what defines a prohibited person and having those additional criteria enforced by federally licensed dealers.

In the end laws restricting individuals are always about trying to control the lives of others. Those who advocate them, such as Bill Gates, are control freaks and deserve to be ignored by the rest of us.

Armslist.com not Responsible for Murder Committed with Weapon Obtained via Site

There has been a lawsuit open against Armslist.com because an individual obtained a weapon from a person who advertised it on the site and used it to commit murder. Much to the dismay of gun control advocates Armslist.com has been declared not responsible for what happened:

The case decided Tuesday by the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals concerns a woman murdered in 2011 with a .40-caliber handgun that a Seattle man advertised on Armslist for $400. A Canadian man bought the weapon.

Demetry Smirnov, the gun purchaser, murdered Jitka Vesel in Chicago with that weapon after an online romance soured. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison. The man who sold him the gun, Benedict Ladera, was handed a year in jail for illegally selling the firearm, as federal regulations prohibit the transfer of weapons to people in another state or country, the appeals court said.

There is no other way this case could have been ruled in a logical universe. It isn’t possible for one individual to know the intent of another individual just like it is impossible for a third-party to know the intent of two individuals who happen to use its services. Claiming that Armslist.com was responsible for what happened would be no different than claiming Google was responsible for a murder because the weapon used was traded between two individuals via Gmail.

Of course there are a lot of gun control advocates who believe otherwise. Their belief stems solely from the fact that they want to see fire and brimstone brought down upon anybody who is in any way involved with a firearm (except for their armed guards, of course). There is no logical argument for such a position though, it’s merely the product of a desire for petty hatred. Fortunately the 7th Us Circuit Court of Appeals understood this and save another business from unnecessary legal burden.

We Have to Do Something

I didn’t pay much attention to the anti-gun kick Rolling Stone magazine was on last month. For some reason I came across its article the supposedly explains how gun control advocates can win against the National Rifle Association (NRA). The article is mostly bullshit but one item stood out to me because of how blatant it was:

4. Act, Don’t Dither

When catastrophic events like Newtown unfold, there’s an impulse from many elected officials to slow down, to gather facts, to ensure that cooler heads prevail. Politically, this is why gun-control dies.

This point is so blatant yet so correct. It’s true that gun control dies when the facts come in, which is why gun control advocates need to exploit tragedies immediately if they hope to gain any success. But I would argue that any movement that dies because of facts isn’t a movement worth fighting for.

I think the biggest reason gun rights have been winning against gun control is because the latter relies on deceit and falsities. Gun control’s heyday was the era directly preceding the information age. Before widespread Internet connectivity it was much easier for gun control advocates to control the message and conceal the facts. Now that so many people have access to the Internet the facts are impossible to conceal and the facts speak pretty clearly in favor of gun rights. So the only hope gun control has a succeeding is making a move before the facts have actually been gathered.

Another Loophole Created by Gun Control Advocates

Anybody who has been involved in the gun rights movement for any length of time knows that advocates of gun control love to toss around the word loophole. Loophole, when used by advocates of gun control, simply means a legal method of an individual to possess a firearm. Shannon Watts, the head of Michael Bloomberg subsidiary Moms Demand Action (MDA), tweeted yesterday about needing to close the gun rental loophole because of its link with suicides:

Because I’m a helpful guy I decided to read the linked article to see how this horrifying problem is affecting every man, woman, and child in the United States. As it turns out the problem this loophole is supposedly responsible for isn’t much of a problem:

Following a death this January at the Los Angeles Gun Club, the Orange County Register scoured coroners’ data from just three counties and found 64 cases of gun-range suicide over a 12-year period.

64 cases in 12 years? That’s an average of approximately five suicides per year. So far this year six people have been killed by lightning strikes in Florida. The reason the problem of suicides at gun ranges is seldom discussed is because it’s exceedingly rare. More lives would be saved by finding a way to mitigate lightning strikes in Florida.

Humans in general perform poorly at assessing risk. Proof of this exists in this week’s Ebola scare even though the risk of contracting Ebola is very rare. Like the people currently losing their shit over the non-threat of Ebola virus, advocates of gun control have been losing their shit over any non-threat they can somehow associate with firearms. I advise advocates of gun control to stick to issues that actually harm people such as American imperialism and police brutality… oh yeah, they never mention those, which is funny considering they want those agents of the state to have a monopoly on gun ownership.

2nd Annual Twin Cities Gun Owners and Carry Forum Family Picnic

I received an e-mail alerting me that the Twin Cities Gun Owners and Carry Forum is hosting its 2nd annual family picnic on August 9th at Boom Island Park in Minneapolis. It’s scheduled to go from 11:00 until 15:00. The website for the event is located here and the Facebook event can be found here.

2nd-tcgo-cf-family-picnic-flyer

I will be at Defcon during this event so I won’t be able to attend. But it’ll probably be a good time for you if you’re into guns (which I’m assuming you are since you’re reading this blog).

That Was Fast

No sooner did the Washington DC Police Chief issue his troops orders to not arrest people lawfully carrying firearms within the city in response to a recent lawsuit lawful carry in that city was gone again:

A federal judge on Tuesday granted a 90-day stay in a ruling that upended the District’s ban on carrying handguns in public, giving city officials time to consider whether they will appeal the case or concede and begin drafting gun carry laws.

The breathing room was a relief to local leaders who indicated they might craft legislation in response to the ruling, which deemed it unconstitutional to deny individuals the right to carry guns on city streets.

I doubt anybody is surprised by this. I’m sure the city officials will be busy writing the most restrictive carry laws they can during this 90 day grace period. While the complete prohibition against carrying was ruled unconstitutional there is no reason why Washington DC won’t be able to follow in the footsteps of Hawaii and create a shall issue system that only allows those especially favored by the state to obtain permits.

It also wouldn’t surprise me if the city officials decided to appeal the decision. The rulers of Washington DC never struck me as a group that liked the idea of armed slaves living within its borders. We will probably see every trick in the book pulled out to ensure the status quo remains.

If at First You Don’t Succeed

You know what they say, if at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again. But then again sometimes it’s smart to quite while you’re ahead, which is what this dude should have done:

Beaudoin broke a door lock and entered a home about 5:20 a.m. in the 4200 block of Hwy. 53. Homeowner Neil Reller grabbed a shotgun and struggled with Beaudoin, striking the intruder on the head several times with the gun so hard that the stock broke off the weapon.

Were I hit in the face with a shotgun stock so hard that it broke the stock I think I would have called it a night. Mr. Beaudoin was obviously a more determined man than I:

Beaudoin, his face covered in blood, fled in his vehicle about 8 miles to the southeast and showed up at the Himes’ home in the 5700 block of Hwy. 53. He told Ethel Himes that he had been assaulted. When Himes let Beaudoin inside, he threw her onto the living-room floor, choked her and beat her head on the floor.

Brad Himes came upon the struggle and went to his bedroom for a handgun. Beaudoin followed the son and lunged at him, prompting Brad Himes to shoot the intruder.

A sheriff’s deputy gave first aid to Beaudoin, who died at Rainy Lake Medical Center.

See what I mean? Sometimes it’s a better idea to just say “Fuck it.” and give up. While I’m sure Mr. Beaudoin thought he clever plan of claiming he was assaulted was fool proof it’s never a good idea to get into a physical confrontation after recently getting your ass severely kicked. This is especially true when getting shot is a realistic outcome, which is always the case when invading a home.

Suddenly Everything Changed in Washington DC

It’s amazing how quickly things can change. Last week a federal judge ruled that Washington DC’s ban on carrying a firearm was unconstitutional. That was a surprising ruling in of itself but most people, myself included, expected that the Washington DC police would simply ignore the ruling. In another surprising turn of events the Washington DC Police Chief has ordered his soldiers to not arrest people who are lawfully carrying within the city’s borders:

As of 6:24 p.m. on July 27, 2014, this is a welcome development. Many have said that the D.C. political establishment will ignore the judges order. This shows that Police Chief Lanier is, at minimum, unwilling to be found in contempt. Notice the broad extent of the order: no arrests for a person who can legally carry a gun in D.C. or any State.

Mind you I wouldn’t want to be a guinea pig because I’m not convinced that the DC police will actually leave people carrying within the city alone. But the fact that the city’s Police Chief ordered his troops not to is pretty shocking on its own.

I wonder how long it will be until the city finds a way to reimplement a ban that meets the arbitrary requirement of constitution.

It’s Not Technically a Lie

Friday the goons over at Moms Demand Something or Other Action (MDA) posted the following tweet:

Here’s a screenshot just in case the tweet falls down the memory hole (which seems to happen with alarming frequency on any Twitter account controlled by gun control advocates):

moms-demand-peer-nations

This caused Linoge and myself to wonder what a “peer nation” is:

wtf-is-a-peer-nation

We see with this tweet by the folks over at (MDA) a common tactic used by gun control advocates: massaging data. In almost any of the reports issued by any of the major gun control organizations there are terms such as “developed nations” and now “peer nations” scattered about within. These terms have no definite meanings, which makes them convenient stipulations on the data being used.

I could, for instance, claims that a “peer nation” is any nation that relies predominantly on coal to generate electrical power, possesses one or more aircraft carriers, has a population made up predominantly of people who hail from another part of the planet, consume beef as a primary form of meat, have no laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol but heavily restrict its sale and manufacturing, and has at least two cities with a population greater than one million. Doing so would lead to absolutely useless data but I could make claims without technically lying. This is what gun control advocates have been resorting to. I wouldn’t be surprised if they start with the results they want and continue to add stipulations onto what qualifies as a developed or peer nation until they get the data necessary to match their results.

I’m reminded of government provided statistics on inflation, unemployment, and other economic matters. They always look good. Even when things are bad the government provided statistics make them look at the very least OK. When you look into how the government calculates those statistics you see that it adds on a tremendous number of stipulations and when those stipulations aren’t enough they add a few more.

The thing is if you have to add so many stipulations to get the results you want then you’re working with meaningless data. Massaging data until you get a desired result doesn’t allow you to identify anything of value. You have to start with an honest data set, calculate the results, and work from there. But like the government, gun control advocates know if they worked with an honest data set they wouldn’t have a case.