Tag: Gun Rights

The Evolution of Attempting to Repeal Minnesota’s Permit to Purchase Law

I’ve been following the progress of the bill to repeal Minnesota’s redundant and ridiculous permit to purchase law. What I think is interesting is how this bill has evolved. The bill first started off as HF 161 which would have extended the validity of permits to purchase to five years [PDF].

This would have made sense in that you’d only have to renew the purchase permit as often as a carry permit. In Minnesota a permit to carry also works as a permit to purchase so those of use with carry permits never have to obtain separate permits to purchase. Likewise permits to carry are good for five years before you have to retest. Nobody could ever give me a good reason why a permit to purchase was only good for a year while a permit to carry was good for five years, they should have both been good for five years.

Well apparently HF 161 was amended with the following [PDF] which just eliminates the stupid permit to purchase all together. I’m not sure how this bill went from simply extending the validity period of a permit to purchase to eliminating it completely but I’m glad it did.

A few law enforcement organizations are opposed to repealing this requirement and cite claims of the state background checks being more thorough. I believe this has more to do with the fact that they like having the authority to tell who can and can not exercise their right to bear certain arms (you don’t need a permit to purchase for shotguns or “sporting purpose rifles” just handguns and “assault-weapons”).

If the state background checks actually caught anybody that would have been missed by a federal background check I can guarantee you that the law enforcement organizations would be touting out each and every instance to prove their point. The fact that they haven’t brought out a single instance leads me to believe it’s never happened or has happened so rarely that bringing up the numbers would be embarrassing considering the cost of doing these additional background checks.

White House Delays Requirement of Reporting Near-Border Gun Purchases

It seems the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) didn’t get what they wanted from the White House. Word came down that the executive branch of our federal government has delayed the reporting requirement:

White House budget officials dealt federal firearms investigators a setback Friday when they rejected an emergency request for a rule meant to help catch gunrunners to Mexico.

There are two things that are interesting about this situation. First it seems this ruling would establish a restriction of your right to privacy depending on where you decided to live. That is to say people near the border of Mexico have less of a right to privacy than somebody living in Washington. Double standards are so much fun. The second thing of interest is the fact the ruling is asking for the impossible:

The decision delays for at least two months a proposed requirement that gun dealers along the Mexican border report anyone who buys two or more assault weapons in five days. White House officials said the delay will give the public more time – until Feb. 14 – to comment on the proposal.

How can you report on something that doesn’t exist? The term “assault weapon” isn’t an actual classification of any firearm type I’ve heard of.

You’re Already on My Shit List California, You Don’t Need to Keep Trying

First California Senator Boxer starts an attempt to change all states into California by mandating that every state be a may-issue state for carry permits. Now California’s other Senator, Feinstein, is trying to get the current administration to further restrict what types of rifles can come into the country. Her reasoning for this? Well:

Since December 2006, more than 30,000 people have been killed in Mexico in drug-related violence. Every day, there are reports of ruthless and brutal gun murders as Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) fight for control of smuggling routes and terrorize anyone who might get in their way. The DTOs have killed mayors, judges, and other officials who have tried to stop the carnage. They have even targeted young people, murdering 14 teenagers at a birthday party in Ciudad Juarez in October of last year.

First of all Mexico isn’t our problem. Second of all preventing guns from crossing the board is going to be difficult when the agency in charge of doing that is likely allowing those guns across the border. Oh I love this line:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and other federal, state and local law enforcement are working to stop this gun trafficking and related violence, but they need additional help.

Actually, they’re probably not. You know what would be great? If California’s senators would stop trying to take a giant shit all over my rights. You people in California should seriously consider recalling the both of them and getting some competent people in their place.

There are Lies, There are Damned Lies…

And then there is this fucking idiot. Yes I found more things to write about in the Red Star’s Letters to the Editor section. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. It seems the intelligence of the average people who write to the Red Star is lacking. Let’s take a look at what A. Gail Bier of Duluth, MN wrote in regards to repealing Minnesota’s Permit to Purchase requirement:

Let us be clear about what a repeal of the state handgun purchase law would really mean.

Yes let’s be clear on what this will mean:

It would allow people with histories of stalking, domestic violence, mental illness and drug abuse to buy an automatic weapon with less review than one needs to obtain a driver’s license.

Um… I… I don’t know how to address such blatant lying. I believe Mrs. Bier is a politician with the type of lies she’s spewing. Criminals who are ineligible to purchase firearms are taken care of by the FBI’s National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS). Whenever you purchase a firearm the dealer makes a phone call to the FBI’s NICS hot line where your information is given to operator. The FBI then tells the dealer whether the sale is a go, no-go, or delayed (in which case you have to wait for up to three days for a decision).

The Minnesota system is purely a redundant waste of money as it performs the same thing as the FBI system which has to be performed every time you purchase a firearm from a dealer. Personally I’m sick of paying for redundancies which do nothing but inconvenience lawful citizens.

Repealing this law also won’t allow you to buy an automatic weapon, also know as a machine gun. This total fabrication makes me wonder if Mrs. Bier is really this stupid or has malicious intent. Here in the frozen tundra of Minnesota you can’t buy any automatic firearm unless it’s on the curio and relics (C&R) list (basically the machine gun has to be 50 years or older). If the the machine gun you want is on the C&R list you have to then get approval from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) as well as the approval of your local sheriff. Upon receiving approval from both agencies you need to pay a $200.00 tax stamp to the ATF and then when you receive your paperwork you can finally purchase your 50 years or older machine gun.

Repealing Minnesota’s permit to purchase requirement will not loosen the restrictions on purchasing a machine gun and most certainly will not allow you to do so “with less review than one needs to obtain a driver’s license.” You know how many federal checks I needed to be performed in order for me to get my driver’s license? Zero. You know how many federal checks I needed to purchase a firearm? One every time I go to purchase one.

But little miss Malice didn’t stop her lies there:

It would actually increase law enforcement costs by substituting homicide investigations and protection for law enforcement officers for the much less expensive and preventive measure of checking existing databases.

Really? How so? Every firearm purchased from a dealer will still require a NICS to be check be performed. Private sales between two resident Minnesotan’s doesn’t require a permit to purchase. Likewise the permit to purchase only applies to handguns and “assault weapons.” There also hasn’t been any state so far that has noticed an increase in homicide rates after repealing a gun control law. So how the Hell does Mrs. Bier come to her conclusion? Oh that’s right she’s an anti-gunner which practically guarantees she knows nothing about firearms. She doesn’t stop there though:

It would mean ignoring valuable state databases that contain information that does not exist at the federal level.

Such as? What valuable information is in the state database that also isn’t in the federal database? So far nobody has been able to tell me that. If you can’t tell me exactly what valuable information is in the state database then it can’t be that valuable. Likewise she mentions the federal system meaning she has some knowledge about NICS. This leads me to believe her entire letter was written with malicious intent as her previous statements lead readers to believe there were no checks on domestic abuses, the mentally ill, or other ineligible person.

I encourage lawmakers to support responsible gun ownership and the safety of Minnesotans by voting against the repeal.

And I encourage you educate yourself on subjects before you write letters for public display that make you look like an idiot. I’m also getting sick of the term “responsible gun ownership.” The way it’s always used seems to imply the only responsible gun owner is one who doesn’t own any firearms. I’m a responsible gun owner and a tax payer so support me, and yourself as a fellow tax payer, by repealing this expensive and redundant law.

The Second Amendment is Only Irrelevant if You Forget Why it Exists

Nothing gives me material to write rants about quite as consistently as the Letters to the Editor section of the Red Star. There is always some statist asshole writing about things he doesn’t actually understand. Take Roger Harrold or Edina, MN who wrote a rather idiotic little letter:

I’d like to make a case that the Second Amendment, important if not essential 220 years ago, makes no sense today. The right to bear arms at the time of the Revolutionary War was understandable.

Makes no sense today huh? I can point to a great case that would demonstrate otherwise, the events in Egypt. The people of Egypt are in revolt but still have no managed to give Mubarak the boot. Part of this problem comes from the fact that the people of Egypt are unarmed, if Mubarak wanted to stop the rebellion and had an army willing to follow his orders there would be nothing the protesters could do except become martyrs.

We have the second amendment because the founders of this country threw off the shackles of a tyrannical monarchy and didn’t much care to see such events happen again. The second amendment ultimately exists as a final check against government tyranny, should the government get out of hand we can remove them through force if they’re unwilling to surrender their power peacefully. This makes the second amendment just as relevant today as it did over 200 years ago.

Another case for the second amendment is self-defense. As a living entity I have a right to self-preservation. There is no way to justify to me that I shouldn’t be allowed to defend myself against an aggressor with any and all means at my disposal. The second amendment gives me the best tool for the job, a simple mechanical device that can propel a projectile at high speeds towards my attacker. By trying to take this simple device from me you are stating you wish me harm at the hands of another. You are telling me you want me to die at the hands of another. You are flat out saying you want me dead. You’ll have to excuse me if I take some offense to your statement of wishing harm upon me. The letter continues:

We had no standing army to speak of, no National Guard, no well-trained and equipped police force to defend us. For many, guns were needed for hunting as part of their livelihood.

If our country had just gained its independence in 2010, I don’t think we’d see the Second Amendment.

I believe if we gained independence in 2010 we would have the second amendment codified in our system of law. Why? Because we needed those guns to toss the British out on their asses last time and we would have needed them if we decided to do it now instead of 200 years ago. Also I laugh at his statement of a “well-trained police force.” Most people I know who are into firearms are much better shots than the average police office who only has to qualify with their firearms once a year. I’d trust a man who competes in any competitive shooting sport to have my back more than a police officer. Mr. Harrold continues on with his poorly thought out diatribe:

Dolan points out the differences between the United States and other developed countries in homicide rates involving guns. They are staggering.

Yes Finland and Switzerland doesn’t have nearly as many homicides involving firearms yet are pretty well armed nations. The problem with violent crime in the United States is multifaceted. Unlike many other countries we are not made up of a homogeneous culture of people with means. Switzerland and Finland are well armed but their populations are made mostly of people with a decent amount of money, a similar culture, and similar beliefs. The United States populations ranges in every aspect including wealth, race, religion, and personal principals. That coupled with the war on drugs (which caused a spike in violent crime that has subsided since) are far more plausible explanations for our higher homicide than the tool that isn’t exclusive to our country.

I have a Ph.D. in counseling psychology. Don’t ever think that we will be able to stop deranged minds from doing what happened in Tucson

Having a Ph.D. doesn’t mean jack shit. I’d bet money Mr. Harrold is also a Keynesian which has been demonstrated to be a failed system of economics. But had Mr. Harrold stopped his sentence there he’d have sounded slightly more intelligent. Of course he didn’t stop there:

without better gun control.

If gun control is the answer why has violent crime been dropping in the United States even though the rate of gun ownership and carry permits being issued have gone up? We have more people legally able to walk the streets carry firearms yet our violent crime is going down? The “assault weapon” ban sunset and yet our violent crime rate is going down. Florida, one of the first states to convert to a shall-issue carry permit state, noticed their violent crime rate drop when they switched the law over.

How can you say with a straight face that gun control works at preventing violent crime? It’s been proven time and time again that gun control doesn’t reduce violent crime yet when we loosen gun control laws violent crime either remains unchanged or goes down.

The problem is anti-gunners don’t have a leg to stand on. Their arguments are proven false time and again yet they’re so invested in being right they’re unwilling to look at the actual data.

I Think I Can Help

Good old Josh Sugarman. He’s one of those guys who always finds time out of his busy day of learning how to use a toilet like a big boy to make false claims about firearms. It seems he thinks Arizona is a big source of guns for the Mexican drug cartels:

Gun shows in Arizona are a significant source of military-style firearms for Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations. The anchor’s[Kelly] reference to Civil War guns isn’t even relevant since any gun manufactured before 1898 is not a “firearm” under federal law.

My question is how can you stop this when the very organization, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF), that is supposed to stop this is likely the source of the firearms smuggled across the border? Oh snap mother fucker. I guess the best thing we can do to prevent the supposedly smuggled guns is to shut down the ATF. How about Joshy, you on board? Nope? Ah, yes I’m sure that’s too logical for you.

Senator Boxer Trying to Abolish Shall Issue and Constitutional Carry Laws

Let me just say this right away, fuck you Barbara Boxer and fuck all of you who voted for her. Seriously you can all just go sodomize yourselves with retractable batons. Why am I so angry at her and her supporters? Because she is trying to pass a federal law, S.176, that would abolish shall issue and constitutional carry laws throughout the United States.

The bill, references as the Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011, would strip each state of their right to issue carry permits however they saw fit. It would make all states may issue. And of course anybody applying for a permit would have to “demonstrate good cause.” You want my good cause? The second amendment. Need another? My right to self-defense granted by the fact I exist.

Those of you in California may want to makeup for your mistake of sending Boxer to D.C. You can do this by starting a recall election. I think there is grounds for that being she just introduced legislation that would completely ignore the United States Constitution and the entire concept of states’ rights. If you do recall I’ll completely ignore the whole transgression of sending her to D.C. in the first place. Seriously it’ll be like it never happened. Heck I’ll even say something nice about your state. Deal?

Government Efficiency at Work

When you’re a lawyer fighting for the rights of the people it seems you’ll never get paid. Alan Gura, who fought for us in both Heller vs. District of Columbia and McDonald vs. Chicago still hasn’t gotten paid for the first case.

Meanwhile the government has paid $140,000 to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Lawful Self-Defense for stomping all over our rights.

Gee can you tell what side our government is on? It sure as the Hell isn’t ours.

Legislation to Make a Statement

There is a bill being proposed in South Dakota that would required every male above the age of 21 to purchase a firearm. They proposal is being used to make a statement against the Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act:

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.

Using legislation to make a statement about legislation is a dangerous game that I can’t condone. First of all requiring everybody to purchase a firearm is just as bad as barring people from purchasing firearms. A right doesn’t require mandatory participation, if you wish to stay silent you may even though you have a right to free speech. A right simply means the option to exercise it is there should you chose to.

Many gun nuts are stating the point of this proposal is a good thing. I have a problem with it simply because legislation has been known to pass even though nobody thought it would go anywhere. Anytime a proposal on a new law is made it opens up the door for the proposal to become law.

I respect the idea being brought forth (the government can’t force you to buy something) but I don’t like the method being used in this case.

ATF Opens for Comments on Shotgun Study That Will be Ignored

Get your e-mail client of choice ready because the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has opened up the floor for comments on their latest shotgun “study.” I think it’s appropriate to remind them that three gun is a sport (and that their assholes but I digress):

You can comment on the report by e-mail to shotgunstudy@atf.gov or by fax to (202)648-9601. The deadline for comments is May 1, 2011. Read the entire study online at: http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/wp-content/images/012611-study-on-importality-of-certain-shotguns.pdf

So e-mail and/or fax your response to the above mentioned contacts. They’ll likely ignore us since they know what better for you and me than, well, you and me. But it’s always fun to complain.