Tag: Gun Rights

The Government, First They Banned Felons From Owning Guns Then They Gave Felons Guns

If people actually paid attention to the ongoing fallout of Operation Fast and Furious there would likely be some outrage. Not only did the Department of Justice (DoJ) allow guns to cross the border and armed Mexican drug cartels which lead to the death of two border patrol agents, but they also allowed felons to purchase firearms:

In the latest chapter of the gunrunning scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious, federal officials won’t say how two suspects obtained more than 360 weapons despite criminal records that should have prevented them from buying even one gun.

Under current federal law, people with felony convictions are not permitted to buy weapons, and those with felony arrests are typically flagged while the FBI conducts a thorough background check.

However, according to court records reviewed by Fox News, two of the 20 defendants indicted in the Fast and Furious investigation have felony convictions and criminal backgrounds that experts say, at the very least, should have delayed them buying a single firearm. Instead, the duo bought dozens of guns on multiple occasions while federal officials watched on closed-circuit cameras.

Congressional and law-enforcement sources say the situation suggests the FBI, which operates the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, knowingly allowed the purchases to go forward after consulting with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which initiated Operation Fast and Furious.

It must be a wonderful thing for the government to have the power to pass laws and then violate them without fear of consequences. First they passed the Gun Control Act of 1968 which prohibited felons, including those convicted of non-violent crimes, from ever owning guns then they turn around and sell guns to known felons.

That’s kind of like the government telling use to live within our means while they rack up trillions of dollars in credit card debt (although they don’t call it a credit card it basically is). Hypocrisy isn’t appreciated by most people.

Glocks Are Popular With Many People

Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell let us know that the Violence Promotion Policy Center (VPC) released a new whitepaper titled “The Glock: A Favorite of Mass Shooters.” If you want to read it hit the link, I’m not giving the VPN any link love.

Although VPC is trying to link the image of Glock pistols to mass shooters, as Sebastian noted, the Glock is simply popular. The pistol is loved by police departments, sport shooters, people who carry firearms, and even some collectors. I personally use a Glock 21SF for United States Practical Shooters Association (USPSA) matches and carry a Glock 30SF. If there is any question about the popularity of Glocks just look up the numerous accessories that are available for them. Companies release accessories because Glocks are popular; it’s the same reason there are so many AR-15 accessories.

What I find most humerus about VPC’s whitepaper is that us gunnies are likely the only people who will read it. The anti-gun movement has basically become so irrelevant that the only people who read these whitepapers are either gunnies looking for a laugh and to point out the paper’s sheer stupidity and other people getting paid to talk about how evil guns are. I think the fact that violent crime rates have been going down even though more people are armed now thanks to more liberal (using the classical definition of the word) carry laws speaks volumes. Loosening gun restriction laws hasn’t lead to blood in the streets as the anti-gunners claimed would it would so people simply ignore them and their Chicken Little claims.

Senate Demonstrates Opposition to UN Arms Trade Treaty

The United Nations (UN) is nothing by a giant inter-government circle-jerk. I imagine UN meetings to be composed of members nations sitting in a giant room and telling each other how awesome they are and how much the stupid slaves need them. With this understanding it’s no surprise that the UN doesn’t believe civilians should have the right to keep and bear arms; after all if those stupid slaves could be a threat to the glorious governments of the world it would be harder to shut them up and make them obey orders.

Currently the UN has been promoting its Arms Trade Treaty which is nothing more than an attempt to further disarm non-government entities of the world. It’s nice to know that our current “representatives” like to pay lip service to the Second Amendment which has caused a good chunk of the Senate to write Obama and inform him that the UN Arms Trade Treaty will be opposed:

As of this morning, a majority of 51 bipartisan members of the U.S. Senate have signed letters to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton saying they will oppose any Arms Trade Treaty that includes civilian firearms ownership. These strongly worded letters caution the President and Secretary of State to uphold the Constitution of the United States. As Senator Moran’s letter warns, “(A)s the treaty process continues, we strongly encourage your administration to uphold our constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership. These freedoms are non-negotiable, and we will oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty presented to the Senate that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer or purchase firearms, ammunition and related items.”

Of course it would have been better if the language were changed to, “These freedoms are non-negotiable, and we will oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty presented to the Senate.” Don’t tack on all the flowery shit at the end, just say you’ll outright oppose ratification of the Arm Trade Treaty regardless of what it says. For starters the United States shouldn’t be participating in the UN at all, but we certainly shouldn’t be signing UN treaties. The UN is nothing more than an orgy of big government supporters and no person can support such an organization and be a proponent of liberty.

An Anti-Gunner Goes To a Gun Show

Anti-gunners are a unique breed, they rant and rave about a device that they usually know nothing about. Sometimes an anti-gunner feels the need to attend a gun show because there are no anti-gun shows. The author of this article decided to attend a gun show and her ignorance is gloriously displayed in the article:

They’re eager to get new members today, but not so eager to talk to me once I pull out my microphone.

NRA REPRESENTATIVE: I’m sorry. We don’t do media.

That’s the basic attitude I get even when I enter the large grey exhibition center.

SUPERVISOR (over radio): Who is she with?

SECURITY GUARD: KALW Public Radio.

SUPERVISOR (over radio): Copy. Let me check.

Why all the concern?

Why the concern? Because gun owners are used to having everything they say or do used against them by popular media. There isn’t anything we can possibly say to the anti-gun dominated media that won’t be twisted to fit their desires so we’ve just decided to stop saying anything. And there was this amazingly ignorant statement made by the author:

In case, you’re like me and your knowledge of guns is limited to whatever you’ve seen in movies or on TV, the “AR” in AR15 stands for “assault rifle.” They’re massive, Rambo-style guns.

The “AR” in AR-15 stands for Armalite, the company that first manufactured the AR-15. As the AR-15 was the 15th model of firearm manufactured by the company they called it the Armalite Model 15, or AR-15 for short.

Also AR-15s are not massive Rambo-style guns. I would venture to say many AR-15s are actually much smaller than most rifles considered by the anti-gun media to be of a hunting purpose. You can build some amazingly small and light AR pattern rifles. Of course, being anti-gun, the author jumps on a statement made by one of the dealers:

MAIDA: This is an 1887 – so probably cowboy age – revolver. This is pretty old, too. This is from the mid-1800s.

DILLING: That’s really small.

MAIDA: It’s a little … They would call this a gambler’s derringer, because unlike what people think about the Old West, you had to check your guns.

Even in the Wild West, they had rules about guns.

It was that the Wild West had rules about guns, the property owners did. If a property owner didn’t want you in your establishment with a gun strapped they told you to check the piece. These weren’t laws but private property owners decided what they would and would not allow people entering their property to do. Personally I have no problem with such things because a property owner should be allowed to set whatever rules they desire as it’s their property. Likewise if I don’t like their rules I can go give my money to their competition down the streets.

But I’m left wondering – why would that love of guns extend to wanting to own a tactical military rifle? I ask around, but find that even in a warehouse full of people aspiring to be straight shooters, it’s hard to get a straight answer.

It’s hard to get a straight answer because people who are opposed to gun rights generally don’t understand freedom in general. The reason I want to own a “tactical military rifle” is because I like them and I bloody can own them. It’s the same reason I drive a Ford Range instead of a small car, I like the Ranger. Because I want to own something is a perfectly justifiable reason because I put my labor and effort into obtaining that thing I wanted.

I don’t need to prove a need to own something and I don’t need to justify what I want to anybody by myself (and if you’re married, to your wife). The fact of the matter is I exchanged my labor with somebody else in exchange for something I wanted. Usually that something I traded for was money (well Federal Reserve notes technically) because it’s a general purpose item that I can exchange for many different things I want. If I want to use some of that money to buy an AR-15 then there should be nothing stopping me from doing so because it was my labor that allowed me to obtain that rifle. The product of my labor is mine and I have no reason to justify why I want whatever that product is.

Anyways that is the kind of dribble you get when anti-gunners go to gun shows.

Why Police Must Be Recorded

Many states currently have laws against recording police officers while they’re on duty. The only reason I can see for the existence of these laws is to allow the police to get away with crimes they commit while on duty. What kind of crimes? How about threatening to murder a person because he was lawfully carrying a firearm. The following is a dashcam video of this very scenario:

The first thing that really caught my attention (besides the officer being a complete fucking asshole) was the fact the officer took the driver’s permit, put the drive in the car, then pretended he couldn’t find the driver’s carry permit. Normally I would write this off as an honest mistake (the officer pocketing the permit absent mindedly) but the conduct of this officer makes me believe that action wasn’t an accident at all.

From there the officer literally threatens to murder the driver. There are a couple of things to take away from this situation. First, never ever ever talk to the police more than you’re legally required to. After the driver was finally able to inform the officer that he was carry a firearm he should have said nothing afterwards. Don’t try to explain your situation, don’t try to reason with the officer, say nothing as is your fifth amendment right. It’s the job of the officer to use everything you say against you a believe me they will do exactly that. This goes double for hotheads like the officer shown in the above video as he’s angry and if you talk you’re likely to raise you voice in anger as well.

Second, if you’re in Ohio and must legally inform the police that you’re armed ignore any attempts of officer to cut you off. If they attempt to interrupt you before you’ve informed them that you’re carrying keep talking and raise your voice above the officer’s so he can’t claim he didn’t hear you.

Third, all officers should be recorded while they’re on duty. This also means there should be no laws against individuals recording the police either. If the dashcam video had not seen the light of day the driver could very well be facing graver charges as the officer would basically be able to claim anything he wanted. Without video and audio evidence it’s your word against theirs and the state is always going to side with their own agents.

Four, have a lawyer available to you. You should have setup a consultation with a lawyer when you obtained your permit because the last thing you want to figure out after you’ve had to defend yourself is who you’re going to call. The driver in this video would have been better off remaining silent and contacting his lawyer at the earliest convenience. With the way the officer was acting I wouldn’t have been surprised if he started beating the driver.

The officer in this video should be brought up on every available charge in the book. At the very least he threatened to murder a non-violent individual. If those who are supposedly tasked with protecting us are threatening to murder us we should no longer be required to keep them in our employ.

Another Idiot That Doesn’t Understand Economics or Crime But Wants to Meddle with Both

There is stupid and then there is extremely stupid. Joe Huffman found an example of the latter in the form of a person named Otis Rolley who thinks adding a $1.00 tax to each bullet [PDF] will help reduce gun crime:

Reducing the violence in our neighborhoods will take a full commitment from the Mayor’s office, the police, neighborhood and community leaders, and faith leaders. It will take a partnership across the city.

To do this, as Mayor, Otis will:

[…]

— Impose a $1 per bullet tax on all bullet purchases in the city;

[…]

Impose a $1 per bullet tax. It is undeniable that we have to do more to reduce the devastating impact gun violence is having on our community. While the courts have consistently ruled against significant gun control legislation, there is still a way to decrease crime: substantially increase the cost of its’ commission.

Increasing the cost of guns won’t work because many criminals don’t purchase new guns and they can be borrowed or even rented in some areas. Therefore, as Mayor, Otis will move to impose a $1 per bullet tax (or about $50 per pack). That will increase substantially the financial cost of committing a crime and, unlike guns, bullets cannot be shared after their initial use. This will also dramatically cut back on the random firings that too often happen around holidays and celebrations.

That is a lot of herp derp to put between two blockquote tags. Here’s what Mr. Rolley’s plan will accomplish:

— Punishing legitimate gun owners who wish to do business in the city by buying ammunition;
— Punish stores selling ammunition;
— Nothing else;

Mr. Rolley doesn’t understand the basic concepts of economics or crime. First you have the economic issue that this type of city-wide tax would cause. If a box of ammunition in Baltimore costs $50.00 more than anywhere else due to such a tax gun owners are just going to buy their ammunition outside of the city (either by traveling or, more likely, ordering it online). What this tax would effectively do is drive business out of the city and that’s normally not considered an acceptable economic goal to most people.

Then you have the whole concept of crime. Criminals have the same options available to when it come to purchasing ammunition elsewhere but they also have another option, theft. If somebody is willing to commit a violent crime chances are they will have no problem going down to the local Wal-Mart and stealing ammunition. There is a large disparity between stealing and murder but chances are pretty high that a person willing to commit the former will also be willing to commit the latter.

And there is always the fact that ammunition can be manufactured. Many gun owners, myself included, also reload ammunition for a hobby and it may come as a shock to anti-gunners but bullets can be cast out of melted down lead. It’s true. You can go around town stealing wheel weights off of peoples’ cars, melt them down as they’re made of lead, and cast them into bullets. In that case Mr. Rolley’s proposed tax idea would lead to people making their own bullets and a epidemic of shaky cars. Lead can also be found in other places like fishing supply stores so even banning properly balanced wheels won’t stop this clever workaround.

Violent Crime Dropped Again in Minneapolis

Remember, if we let people carry guns there will be blood in the street as every argument turns into a gun fight. That’s what the anti-gunners would have you believe but truth be told the anti-gunners haven’t been able to point at a single case where violent crime dramatically increased after the passing of carry legislation. Heck violent crime has been steadily decreasing for a while now and I’m happy to report that the violent crime rate in Minneapolis dropped agian:

Violent crimes reported by mid-year in Minneapolis have dropped to their lowest point in a decade, and every category of crime except larceny has fallen from last year, statistics show.

While the drop in crime parallels what’s happening in cities nationwide, local leaders who gathered in north Minneapolis Monday credited better policing and a crackdown on gun-toting felons for reducing murders, aggravated assaults, rapes and robberies.

I’m not surprised that the Minneapolis governing body didn’t even mention the possibility that raising the potential cost of performing a crime in the form of more legally armed people may have contributed to this as well.

Although I won’t go so far as to claim causality between more legally armed people and a lower violent crime rate I will point out that the correlation exists. This correlation directly opposes the anti-gunners’ claim that more legally armed people will lead to an increase in violent crime rates. As this is the case there is the possibility that having more legally armed people leads to a lower violent crime rate but no possibility that having more legally armed people leads to a higher violent crime rate.

CSGV Financials Aren’t Looking So Hot

Those of us in the gun community have been railing on the Coalition to Stop Gun ownership Violence (CSVG) for a while because they’ve been making some outrageous posts about gun owners. Hell some of their statements were bad enough that Twitter pulled their account for a while. Needless to say it brings joy to my heard to see their not doing so well financially:

The good news is that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is continuing to hemorrhage money. The bad news is that CSGV has shifted almost all of their operations into their 501(c)(3), the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. This trend is following all gun control organizations that we’ve been tracking. I say bad news only because I’d prefer all of them having to file for unemployment, but when it comes to political reality, it’s good news. So what are the trends?

CSGV continues to lose money. In 2008, they took in $224,887, and in 2009, they took in $207,066. At the same time, CSGV increased their program expenses from $94,426 in 2008, to $110,061 in 2010. As a result of that, CSGV’s net assets dropped from $21,706 in 2008 to $14,335. No one has technically been on payroll at CSGV since 2007, and that was when they were paying Michael Beard $35,306 to act as Secretary of the organization. In fact, even going back to 2004, Beard has essentially been the only person making any money off CSGV.

It’s nice to see lying can only get you money for so long (unless you’re the government, but they get to take it by force).

Amendment to Defund Required Reporting of Multiple Long-Gun Sales

It appears as through some of our “representatives” have decided that the Department of Justice’s (DoJ) scheme to force firearm retailers in states bordering Mexico to report multiple long-gun sales isn’t a good idea. An amendment to the 2012 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill has been added that would defund the illegal scheme:

Today, during consideration of the FY 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill, pro-gun U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) offered an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for a new and unauthorized multiple sales reporting plan proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The Amendment was passed by a vote of 25-16.

The Rehberg Amendment, which was strongly supported by NRA, will defund the Justice Department’s controversial and illegal move requiring federally licensed firearms retailers in states bordering Mexico to report multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles.

As the National Rifle Association (NRA) points out, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) have no legitimate claim to demanding multiple long-gun sales be reported:

It is important to note that under existing law, BATFE already has full access to every dealer’s firearm transaction records, either during a bona fide criminal investigation or simply to enforce compliance with record keeping requirements. This new reporting procedure would create a registry of owners of many of today’s most popular rifles–firearms owned by millions of Americans for self-defense, hunting and other lawful purposes. Most importantly, however, the BATFE has no legal authority to demand these reports.

They can already access firearms dealer records at will so why do dealers need to further report on their customers? The fact of the matter is the ATF was the organization that allowed guns to cross the border into Mexico. Many firearms dealers pleaded with the ATF to allow them to deny sales that appeared to the dealers suspicious but their pleading was met with a demand to permit the sale. Abolishing the ATF is the only correct response to “Operation Fast and Furious” as they were the culprits that allowed guns to illegal cross the American-Mexican border.

Then again this is par for the government’s course; they fuck up and then blame innocent bystanders.

Another Operation to Smuggle Guns Into Central America Possibly Uncovered

The isn’t even beginning to settle for “Operation Fast and Furious” and now another plan that may have resulted in guns being smuggled from the United States into Central America has been uncovered. “Representative” Gus Bilirakis has inquired with Attorney General Eric Holder on whether or not “Operation Castaway” may have resulted in guns being allowed to cross into Honduras:

Bilirakis expressed concern about reports that the strategy “may not have been limited to weapons trafficking to Mexico.”

He asked Holder and Melson whether “similar programs included the possible trafficking of arms to dangerous criminal gangs in Honduras with the knowledge of the ATF’s Tampa Field Division” and a Justice Department office, via Castaway.

Bilirakis’ letter specifically asked whether the Tampa division participated in a “gun walking” scheme allowing guns to go to Honduras. He also asked whether ATF or DOJ know if any of the firearms ended up in the hands of the “notorious” MS-13 gang — a violent gang spread across Central America, Mexico and the United States.

Obviously the Department of Justice (DoJ) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) are denying that Castaway has any similarities to Fast and Furious but I found something interesting to note:

The lengthy court document states that the ATF noticed Crumpler’s numerous purchases in a national firearms database — it turned out he was later selling them at gun shows. According to the plea agreement, the ATF had an undercover agent buy from Crumpler and later observed the suspect at several gun shows in late 2009, selling to numerous buyers without a license. At one point, he told an undercover agent that he knew the firearms were making their way to Honduras.

Emphasis mine. I wonder what national database they’re talking about. According to United States law all records pertaining to National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) checks must be destroyed if the person buying passes. This leads me to question what kind of information the federal government is maintaining on firearm purchases and how legal that information is under federal law (not that the federal government gives who shits about what is legal).

What will be interesting is whether or not the ATF allowed guns falling under the scope of Castaway to knowingly enter Honduras. Catching the ATF red-handed in two illegal operations certainly wouldn’t reflect highly on their agency.