Tag: Gun Rights

Possession of Lead Now Illegal in Washington DC

The amount of stupidity that occurred in Mark Witaschek’s trial is hard to describe. For those who don’t know Mr. Witaschek was facing charges for illegally possessing ammunition in Washington DC. He was found guilty but when you look at the details you will notice how desperate the prosecution was to nail this man to the wall:

Until the final hours of the trial, both the defense and government focused the case on whether the single 12 gauge shotgun shell that was found in Mr. Witaschek’s D.C. home was operable. The judge, however, never ruled on it.

In the afternoon on Wednesday, Judge Morin shook the plastic shell and tried to listen to something inside. He said he could not hear any gunpowder. He then asked the lawyers to open the shell to see if there was powder inside.

(This seemed like a bizarre request since the lack of primer — not gunpowder — would be relevant to the interoperability of the misfired shell.)

Assistant Attorney General Peter Saba said that the government wanted to open the shell but that, “It is dangerous to do outside a lab.”

The prosecutors and police officers left the courtroom to try to find a lab that was open in the afternoon to bring the judge to cut the plastic off the section that holds the pellets. When that proved not possible in the same day, the judge decided to just rule on the bullets.

Opening a 12 gauge shell is not dangerous to do outside of a lab, unless my reloading room qualifies as a lab. Uncrimp the top, down the shot out, wiggle the wad out, and dump the powder. Since the prosecution was looking to see if power was inside of the shell the method I just described would have sufficed. But since the shell couldn’t be dissected the day of the trial the prosecution moved to its backup plan:

The 25 conical-shaped, .45 caliber bullets, made by Knight out of lead and copper, sat on the judge’s desk. They do not have primer or gunpowder so cannot be propelled. The matching .50 caliber plastic sabots were also in the box.

Mr. Witaschek was found guilty because he was in possession of lead that happened to be shaped in a conical form. It appears that the simple possession of lead is now an offense in Washington DC.

This trial was purely vindictive. The prosecution wanted to send a message to the people of Washington DC and that message is “Shut the fuck up slaves. We are your masters.” It’s no secret that the overlords of Washington DC don’t want their serfs possessing firearms. When one dares to do so the police are sent out, with guns of course, to kidnap the unruly serf so he or she can be put in front of a judge. Since it’s rare for the police to actually find somebody illegally possessing a firearm (because those people are generally smart enough to hide their firearms) the overlords have to take what they get. If that means prosecuting somebody for possessing a shotgun shell and some pieces of lead so be it.

University of Minnesota Students Making Effort to Allow Students and Faculty to Carry Firearms

Brace yourselves because the sky is about to fall. A group of students at the University of Minnesota are urging the administration to allow students and faculty to carry firearms on campus:

A string of robberies on the U of M campus late last year escalated on Nov. 11, when the campus went into lockdown because of an attempted robbery at gunpoint, and the suspect got away. A month later, in December 2013, there was another armed robbery on campus.

U of M freshman William Preachuk believes things could have ended differently if he’d been able to pack heat. “I would believe that I have the right to defend myself; I have the right to protect others as well as myself only if the situation allows it,” William Preachuk said.

Preachuk signed a petition Monday that will be sent to the Board of Regents asking to be allowed to conceal and carry on campus.

Susan Eckstine with College Republicans is a permit holder and trained in using a gun. “If I was able to carry a firearm here on campus I’d feel a lot safer to protect myself from a life-threatening situation,” Eckstine said.

As usual advocates of gun control are playing Chicken Little. The most common argument against allowing students and faculty to carry firearms on college campuses is that those areas are high stress environments where emotions run high. This is an interesting argument because I don’t understand where its basis lies. While college campuses are indeed high stress environments and emotions often run high the rate of actual violence is relatively low. Fist fights, stabbings, beatings, and other forms of violence remain low enough on college campuses that when they do occur they are major news items. The linked article mentions that there have been a few robberies near the University of Minnesota campus. Those robberies were big news here in the Twin Cities precisely because such violence is rare. So I’m at a loss as to how allowing students and faculty, who are a pretty peaceful bunch judging by the current lack of regular violence on college campuses, to carry firearms will turns campuses from peaceful spots to veritable war zones.

If the high stress environment of college campuses inherently bred violence then we would already be seeing a great deal of violence. It’s an absurd variation of the “blood in the streets” argument made by gun control advocates whenever a state was planning to pass or further liberalize carry laws. The sky will not fall if college students and faculty are allowed to carry firearms because, as it turns out, college students and faculty members are rational human beings. That means a vast majority of them understand concepts like violence and recognize when it should be used and how much should be used. They’re not likely to pull a gun on a drunken student who is getting overly aggressive but have the option of meeting deadly force with deadly force in a life threatening encounter.

A particularly disturbed anti-gun individual on Facebook made an absurd claim that I want to bring up just because it made me laugh. The individual, who we will refer to as Steve (because that’s his actual first name), said “This will cause a trickle effect and allow weapons of mass destruction into other areas where they shouldn’t be.” Wow. According to his logic allowing students and faculty to carry discriminatory weapons will somehow cause a trickle effect that will result in allowing them to carry nondiscriminatory nuclear and biological weapons. That’s a long leap of logic that is so absurd that it’s barely worth addressing (as I said, I merely brought it up for entertainment value). But it is interesting to see how far advocate of gun control will stretch things in an attempt to argue their case.

A Rare Instance of Political Honesty

Whatever you opinion of Keith Ellison is (mine is extremely low but that’s my standard view of politicians) you have to give him some credit for at least being honest:

According to Maher, who – of course – is an admitted gun owner, America is a country ruled by crazed gang of radical gun nuts. He’s terribly upset that the Constitution is standing in the way of putting an end to this, so he wants it altered.  To that end, he asked Ellison why the Democrat party doesn’t just ‘come out’ of the anti-gun closet and wage open warfare against the 2nd Amendment.

Then why doesn’t your party come out against the Second Amendment? It’s the problem.” Maher asked.

“I sure wish they would,” replied Ellison. “I sure wish they would.”

When Maher pointed out, correctly, that Democrats try to have it both ways where the 2nd Amendment is concerned;

Ellison said “You have got to check out the progressive caucus. We have come out very strong for common-sense gun safety rules.”

“Common-sense gun safety is bullshit,” Maher said.

I’ll save you the author’s commentary about all of the Democrats hating gun rights (because there are Democrats who support gun rights). The point of this post is to applaud Ellison for being honest on live television. If you’re in office and you don’t like the fact that the serfs can own firearms just say it. I get tired of all these politicians claiming they support the privilege (because if you need government permission it’s a privilege) of serfs owning firearms while doing everything they can to prevent serfs from owning firearms. Own your beliefs.

It may also surprise you (it sure surprised me) that I actually agree with Bill Maher on something. “Common-sense gun safety” (a euphemism for gun control) is bullshit. But I probably disagree with Maher on why it’s bullshit.

Making Up Victories

Mothers Demand Action (MDA) is one of my favorite gun control advocacy groups. Somehow the members of MDA manage to sound more insane than members of the Brady Campaign ever could. In addition to the rather insane ramblings made by members and over the top attempts at appealing to emotion the organization also has a habit of turning every defeat into a victory. Shall Not Be Questioned has the best example of MDA declaring victory over something that wasn’t at all a victory:

Mothers Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, an organization funded by billionaire Michael R. Bloomberg, is falsely claiming a victory for forcing a billboard company to take down a Slide Fire advertisement in Chicago.

The truth is that the manufacturer contracted for the billboard to stay up for only two months.

I’m sure you’ve seen children who have brutally lost at something only to refuse to acknowledge it. That’s what MDA reminds me of.

What Being a Douchebag Gets You

There is a sizable population of people who don’t like those of us who carry firearms. When one of those individuals is a business owner they often post a sign informing would-be patrons that firearms are banned on the premises. I don’t have a problem with such signs. If you don’t like me then I’m more than happy to take my business elsewhere. But one business owner in South Carolina decided to go the extra mile and insult carry permit holders:

A firestorm of backlash has been mounting against a South Carolina pub that put a derogatory sign in its store window telling gun owners to keep out.

[…]

The story first gained traction when Twitchy posted several photos of the sign from Twitter.

“NO CONCEALED WEAPONS ALLOWED,” the sign warns. “If you are such a loser that you feel a need to carry a gun with you when you go out, I do not want your business. Douchebag.”

As you can imagine this cunning plan didn’t turn out as the business owner likely expected:

Backstreets Pub Deli in Clemson has a one-star rating out of five on Yelp, with pages upon pages of negative comments and reviews by Second Amendment supporters.

Personally I’m not a fan of such antics but this type of backlash is inevitable when you throw stones. Had the owner of Backstreets Pub simply posted a sign that said the carrying of firearms was prohibited on the premises that would have likely been the end of things. People who carry firearms would eat elsewhere and nothing more would be heard about the incident. But the owner decided to stoop to childish insults, which resulted in the insults being returned.

Just because you disagree with what a person does doesn’t mean you can’t be civil. Agree to disagree, avoid each other, and leave it at that. As soon as you begin issuing insults you should expect to be insulted as well.

Criminal is an Arbitrary Label

Both advocates of gun control and gun rights spend a lot of time discussing the need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. On paper it sounds like a good idea but when you look at what the label “criminal” means in American society it becomes a less desirable idea.

What is a criminal? Criminal, in our society, is a completely arbitrary label. If a select group of individuals gather in a designated marble building, write some words on pieces of paper, and a majority of them later vote to make those words law then anybody in violation of those words is no a criminal.

Imagine that today, March 7th, Mr. Smith is an upstanding law-abiding citizen. Tomorrow some guys donning suits and gathering in a marble building write some words that Mr. Smith is in violation of and vote to make it law. By March 9th Mr. Smith is no longer a law-abiding citizen but a wanted criminal.

This is why I have no time for programs that are supposedly meant to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Until we redefine criminal to actually mean something other than arbitrarily selected individuals the mission of keeping anything from the hands of criminals is foolhardy. Instead we should first work to make the process of defining who is and isn’t a criminal something consistent and predictable instead of arbitrary. Once that has been done we can have a discussion about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

Facebook Does Nothing, Gun Control Advocate Declare Victory, and a Handful of Gun Rights Advocates Lose Their Shit

Moms Demand Action (MDA) has found itself unable to buy politicians so it has switched tactics to harassing companies. One of the companies on the MDA hit list was Facebook. After being the target of minor harassment for sometime Facebook decided to revise its policies regarding the posting of ads for commonly regulated goods, including firearms:

Today, we are introducing a series of new educational and enforcement efforts for people discussing the private sale of regulated items:

  • Any time we receive a report on Facebook about a post promoting the private sale of a commonly regulated item, we will send a message to that person reminding him or her to comply with relevant laws and regulations. We will also limit access to that post to people over the age of 18.
  • We will require Pages that are primarily used by people to promote the private sale of commonly regulated goods or services to include language that clearly reminds people of the importance of understanding and complying with relevant laws and regulations, and limit access to people over the age of 18 or older if required by applicable law.
  • We will provide special in-app education on Instagram for those who search for sales or promotions of firearms.

We will not permit people to post offers to sell regulated items that indicate a willingness to evade or help others evade the law. For example, private sellers of firearms in the U.S. will not be permitted to specify “no background check required,” nor can they offer to transact across state lines without a licensed firearms dealer. We have worked with a number of individuals and organizations on the development of these efforts, which will be implemented and enforced in the coming weeks. We are grateful in particular for the advice offered by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Americans for Responsible Solutions, Sandy Hook Promise, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Moms Demand Action, which helped us develop an approach for the private sale of firearms. We also appreciate the feedback provided by the Facebook Safety Advisory Board.

As it did with Starbucks, MDA managed to convince another company to issue a statement of policy change that didn’t actually change anything. Now when an ad for a firearm sale is reported the Facebook system will send the poster and automated reminder to comply with relevant laws. Pages that primarily deal with the sale of firearms will be required to post a reminder for users to comply with relevant laws. Finally the Instagram app will remind users to comply with relevant laws when searching for firearm sales. In other words Facebook is reminding people that there are laws regarding firearm transfers.

The part that a few (by which I mean a very very minor number) gun rights activists have been bringing up as a bad change is the prohibition on ads that say no background check is necessary. Since intrastate transactions in many states don’t require a background check this blanket prohibition is not necessary in all cases. I don’t find this to be the big anti-gun ploy a few outspoken critics are trying to make it. Those of us who have researched firearm regulations in the United States know that the topic is incredibly complex. On top of the federal regulations there are also 50 individual states with their own lists of regulations. Facebook, being a social networking site, probably doesn’t have lawyers on hand who are experts in gun regulations. It is also headquartered in California. Therefore it’s likely that Facebook, not having the proper lawyers on hand, went with the safest option and decided to comply with California law in regards to background checks.

I highly doubt the prohibited language is a grand conspiracy. If Facebook wanted to implement anti-gun policies it could have. For example, it could have posted a prohibition against ads for aesthetically offensive firearms and standard capacity magazines. But it didn’t. Instead it did the corporate equivalent of telling MDA “There, we did something. Now shut up and go away.”

For you gun control advocates out there I’m sorry to report that you accomplished nothing. You are still free to declare victory but doing so will simply prove to the world that you’re delusional. For the handful of gun rights activists making this out to be proof that Facebook is anti-gun I’m sorry to report that it’s not. I know you have a deep need to be the victim but you’re not in this case. For everybody else I apologize for interrupting your day only to report nothing important happened. But I’m guessing most of you will agree with me that nothing happening is a good thing in this case.

Minnesota Carry Permit Holders Almost Doubled in 2013 Compared to 2012

Carry permits appear to be getting more popular in this frozen tundra commonly referred to as Minnesota. Last year the number of permits issued was almost double of the number of permits issued in 2012:

Minnesota sheriffs’ offices issued almost double the number of permits to carry handguns in 2013 than they had the year before, according to figures released by the state Friday. It was the largest number since the state’s permit-to-carry law was enacted in 2003.

As of Friday, more than 165,000 people had valid permits to carry guns in Minnesota, according to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

So what does this mean for Minnesota? Contrary to what gun control advocates have been claiming for ages, the Mississippi isn’t running red with blood. For the most part nothing really appears to be changing in this state. It seems rational adults don’t turn into blood thirsty monsters after they receive legal permission to carry a firearm.

What this increase in issued permits likely means is a slow cultural shift. Firearms seem to be regaining their status in American culture. This is a good thing as it may also indicate a cultural shift, however small, towards decentralization. Instead of relying primarily on centralized police departments to provide defense many people are beginning to provide for their own defense. I would like to see this attitude spread into other areas as well. The less centralized our culture becomes the less apt to widespread failure it will be.

ATF Demonstrates Its Irresponsibility with Firearms

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is supposedly tasked with, among other things, enforcing federal firearm laws. You would think an agency tasked with enforcing firearm laws would also demonstrated some modicum of firearm responsibility, right? As it turns out the ATF doesn’t exactly have a stellar record of knowing where its firearms are:

ATF agents have lost track of dozens of government-issued guns, after stashing them under the front seats in their cars, in glove compartments or simply leaving them on top of their vehicles and driving away, according to internal reports from the past five years obtained by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Agents left their guns behind in bathroom stalls, at a hospital, outside a movie theater and on a plane, according to the records, obtained Tuesday by the news organization under the federal Freedom of Information Act.

Oh, and you know all of the stink gun control advocates make about wanting laws that mandate “safe storage” of firearms to protect the children? Perhaps they should spend less time focusing on us gun owners and more time focusing on the ATF:

In December 2009, two 6-year-old boys spotted an agent’s loaded ATF Smith & Wesson .357 on a storm sewer grate in Bettendorf, Iowa. The agent lived nearby and later said he couldn’t find his gun for days but didn’t bother reporting it — until it hit the local newspaper.

The article contains more incidents where ATF agents lost firearms. I’m not sure if these loses were part of the ATF’s ongoing program to provide guns to drug cartels or just pure incompetency. Either one is equally likely when the ATF’s past is considered. But I think the moral of this story is that the ATF is not competent enough with firearms to have any authority regarding firearms.

Connecticut Moving to Confiscate Aesthetically Offensive Firearms

Gun control advocates like to point out that registration is not confiscation. Gun rights advocates like to point out that registration leads to confiscation. A recent development in Connecticut shows that the gun rights advocates are, regardless of claims made by gun control advocates, not paranoid nutcases:

That triggered widespread dumbfounded confusion amongst state officials, including Governor Malloy, who seemingly cant seem to accept the fact that people are willfully refusing to comply with the arbitrary diktats of their tyrannical “leaders“. Since Jan 1st 2014, Malloy has come up with any number of excuses to explain what to him and others like him is incomprehensible.

At various times blaming it on the Post Office closing early on Dec 31st 2013, for “confusion” and most recently at a Winter Governors Association Meeting last week he finally resorted to simply saying he refuses to believe the numbers are accurate and that people really are actually complying. ( http://tiny.cc/ivjubx )

See the a copy of a letter sent by the Connecticut State Police to one resident, whose registration paperwork was rejected, (right).

The problem now becomes, even though the paperwork was rejected it is without a doubt certain that the Connecticut State Police kept the declaration of ownership and now have at least some official records of those who are not in compliance. It was reported late yesterday by the Manchester Journal Inquirer ( http://tiny.cc/9qlubx ) that letters are now going out to at least a certain number of gun owners that they have been found to be in non compliance with the law and were technically felons.

This is why you never register firearms. By registering you admit that you are in possession of a firearm that the state is interested in. If the state is interested in a type of firearm you can all but guarantee that it will eventually become interested in confiscating that type of firearm. But confiscation doesn’t always have to come in the form of a piece of legislation. Police officers charged with handling registration forms can merely claim that the form was not properly filled out and therefore the weapon listed on said form is forfeit, which appears to be what is happening in Connecticut.

Enforcing this law will become interesting. As I stated earlier, Connecticut doesn’t have sufficient cages to house all of the potential violators of this new registration scheme. However it may have enough cages to select a few individuals who did register, claim that their paperwork wasn’t properly filled out, and prosecute them. As that appears to be the strategy selected by the Connecticut law enforcers those who registered their firearms also painted a gigantic target on their backs.

Never register your firearms. It’s a lesson that cannot be stated enough times. When you do register in the hopes of avoiding the wrath of the state you risk making yourself a target. But what the state doesn’t know about it can’t go after. So long as it doesn’t know about the firearms (or any other property) you possess it cannot move to confiscate them.