Friday - April 25, 2008

Maybe I should just shut up

Mr. Hog, over at Hog On Ice, has bought himself a reloading press. But he didn’t buy the basic stuff to go with it, like a reloading manual and some case lube, and is having problems. Plus he bought a top of the line progressive press, and has never reloaded a round before. So he’s having a hard time.

Kim DuToit, who is not a reloader, sympathizes - “I know that the total opacity of the process for a total newbie has been what’s put me off it most of my shooting life—and if ever there was a ready customer, I’m it.”

Odds bodkins people!!! I don’t know whether to laugh, cry, or get pissed off. If you don’t have anyone to show you how to do this, and you can’t be bothered to spend 10 minutes searching things up on the internet, buy a reloading manual. Speers, Sierra, Hornady, Lee, et al ... every single one of them has a huge chapter in the front, usually with lots of pictures, that shows you exactly what you need to do, where all the bits go, and how to adjust them properly. Gun stores sell the manuals. So does Amazon.

If I wasn’t 10,000% certain that there were already dozens of How-To webpages, YouTube videos, etc., already out there, I’d get out the camera and go visit the garage and make a photo manual myself.

Look: you need a press, you need a set of dies, you need the proper kind of scale. You need a dial caliper, you need a powder funnel, and you need some kind of case lube. If you’re smart you’ll pick up an inertial puller. And a case trimmer with an assortment of cutters. And one of those deburring thingies. Then you need to buy the press, AND a loading manual. Then you read everything, play around with it, and put the press together. Most press companies have the whole thing up as a deluxe kit, ready to go. THEN you go buy brass, bullets, primers, and gunpowder. Because without the loading manual, you don’t even know which kind of bullets, primers, and gunpowder to buy!

And I’m peeved with Kim. I’ve been a loyal reader there for years, and I’ve always respected what he says, and I’ve greatly enjoyed his blogs. But that statement he made is very annoying, because it’s only true for someone who has made EXACTLY ZERO EFFORT TO LEARN. He of the great gun knowledge, who goes off to the range at the drop of a hat, who knows all these other gun people, and who seems to be so deep into the firearms experience ... complains about total opacity in terms of reloading knowledge. When legions of shooters have been on his forums for ages, talking about reloading from time to time (if not all the time). I’m sorry Kim, but I can’t swallow that one. You have made an erronious statement. And done a great disservice to those who were thinking about getting into it. Please make the smallest of efforts to learn, and you’ll find a nearly infinite amount of information out there, and it’s often even organized into beginner, journeyman, and expert categories.

If you can see, if you can read, if you have at least one functional hand, and if you are coordinated enough to be able to drink a glass of water without assistance, then I can teach you how to reload any cartridge on any press ... in under 10 minutes. Nobody is born knowing how to do this, but it is not complex. Clean. Deprime. Resize. Reprime. Charge. Seat. Crimp. That’s the entire process. That’s almost all there is to it. The only “complex” or “opaque” thing is adjusting the dies ... and that’s why I said you have to buy the dial calipers. It takes about 30 seconds to adjust each die, and if you’re Mr. Hog with his nice shiney new super progressive press, you only have to adjust them once. Once. Then you can pull your crank and spew out ammo until your arm falls off, and be happy.

Grrrrrr.

Posted by Drew458     on 04/25/2008 at 04:25 PM   
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - April 17, 2008

You Can Fool Some of the People Some of the Time

... but you can’t fool me. Obama and Clinton pretend to support gun rights during their latest really boring debate.

Gosh, some posts just about write themselves. This one hardly needs more than the header and the title. Here they go again, again. What is it with these two? The lies are pouring out of every one of their bodily orifices (Eeeww) and they think that no one is going to notice? Nobody is going to call them on it? Both of these two communists are about as anti-gun as it gets. They aren’t fooling one single gun owner who is centrist or anywhere to the right. And I think that’s it, in a nutshell. Both of them are going through the motions of pretending to support gun rights to show their far-left base that they can pretend to take centrist positions. Wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean? It’s a charade and everyone knows it, but it’s expected of them so they do it. The humorous part is that neither one is even halfway good at the pretense. Not even Hillary can lie this convincingly.

Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, still scrapping for the Democratic presidential nomination, tried to reconcile their gun-control records with their professed campaign-trail support for gun ownership on Wednesday night.

Both candidates bowed to the nation’s hunting culture—yet insisted that “common sense” should prevail. Both candidates said they support and respect an individual’s right to own guns, but the positions they endorsed—an “assault weapons” ban, expanded police access to federal gun-trace data, and keeping guns out of the “wrong hands”—are straight out of the gun-control play book.

No kidding. That’s what passes for common sense when you have a solid F- rating from all the gun rights institutes.

Noting that both Clinton and Obama have been “strong advocates” for gun licensing and gun registration, Gibson asked Clinton why she’s backed off those positions while campaigning in Pennsylvania.

Gosh, maybe it’s because of all those bitter PA voters, clinging to God ‘n Guns ‘n Hate because the government has let them down for 25 years? Somebody give Henry Charles Gibson a ClueBat please. Or should I just sink to the bottom of the tank and call this a “loaded question”?

Clinton mentioned the soaring murder rate in Philadelphia and said that as president, she would put more police officers on the street.

Sure, because telling towns and cities how to run themselves is the job of the President of the United States. Just like her husband wanted to tell all the local schools to get school uniforms.

“I will also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban,” she said, referring to restrictions on semi-automatic weapons imposed during her husband’s administration. Clinton said the semi-automatic weapons ban “really was an aid to our police officers, who are now, once again...being outgunned on our streets by these military-style weapons.”

Stay tuned, another episode of Dumb and Dumberer is coming up next. The AWB didn’t do a damn thing to reduce crime or violence. And all these years later the number of crimes committed with this kind of weapon is still small, and the number of shoot outs with the police with them is even smaller. And just how many of those few are legally obtained? That’s the only real number that might be impacted by another AWB. Pure bullshit, as usual.

Clinton went on to say

“… we will strike the right balance to protect the constitutional right but to give people the feeling and the reality that they will be protected from guns in the wrong hands.”

So she should get an “A” for effort from the left. A good lie, fairly well told.

How about Oba-loney?

Obama, asked about the District of Columbia’s gun ban—which the U.S. Supreme Court is now considering—said he hadn’t followed details of the case.

Riiight. Biggest landmark case SCOTUS has faced in decades and he don’t know a thing about it. LOSER.

Obama said the nation has to “get beyond the politics of this issue and figure out what, in fact, is working.”

He mentioned public school children being shot to death in Chicago: “And I think that most law-abiding gun owners all across America would recognize that it is perfectly appropriate for local communities and states and the federal government to try to figure out, how do we stop that kind of killing?”

Hey, that’s easy. Just disarm all the black people living in the Democrat controlled cities. “Gun crime” will drop 60% overnight. Then disarm all the latinos living right next to them and watch it drop another 25%. What, that’s illegal? Unconstitutional? Racist? Well, yeah, it is. But it’s also true. Next step would be to arm all the retail workers and everyone behind a counter at any business. After that you arm the teachers. Guess what? Armed robberies and school shootings drop to almost nothing in a month. Sure, you’ll get a mountain or two of shot up criminals, but who cares? So what’s your solution Obamarama ... because this has been studied to death for generations, and it’s clear that an infinite number of laws isn’t doing much of anything?

So what’s Obama’s plan? Nobody knows. It’s appropriate for government to try to figure it out. What the hell does that mean? More empty hot air from the wizard of Hope. Such audacity.
And it wan’t him on that 1996 questionnaire, when he came right out and said that all handguns should go away and everyone should be disarmed. Nope, not him. Just because his handwriting was all over the form doesn’t mean a thing. Why, he never even saw that thing. PATHETIC LYING LOSER.

But Clinton couldn’t let Obama walk away with the Stupid Prize, so she had to find some way to cram yet another one of her feet into her big mouth:

Clinton hedged on whether she supports the D.C. gun ban: “I want to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe,” she said. “What I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.”

Yeah, just like Obullshit, she wants to extend gun laws down to the town level. Never mind that that’s utterly unworkable, and has been found to be unconstitutional many times now, in both San Fran and Philly. But hey, let’s take a page from Mayor Nutter’s playbook of idiotic and illegal laws that won’t work and expand it to nationwide asshattery.

She said a total gun ban “with no exceptions under any circumstances” might be found to be unconstitutional—“but I don’t know the facts,” she said.

That’s about the only honest thing either one of them said the whole night. You sure don’t know the facts at all Hill. “Might be” unconstitutional. Holy crap. Even worse, she looked like the smart one compared to the other guy.

A little updatishness: John Lott Jr weighs in:

In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI’s question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said “Oh, you are the gun guy.”

I responded “Yes, I guess so.” He simply responded that “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.”

Right. Total liar, just like we always knew he was.

Posted by Drew458     on 04/17/2008 at 08:37 AM   
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control • Politics •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - April 10, 2008

FLORIDA SENATE PASSES LAW TO ALLOW GUNS AT WORK. WELL, AT LEAST AS CLOSE AS THE PARKING LOT

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (Reuters) - Most Florida residents would be allowed to take guns to work under a measure passed by Florida lawmakers on Wednesday.

The bill, allowing workers to keep guns in their cars for self-protection, was approved by the Florida Senate by a vote of 26-13. It now goes to Republican Gov. Charlie Crist to sign into law.

Backed by the National Rifle Association and some labor unions, the so-called “take-your-guns-to-work” measure would prohibit business owners from banning guns kept locked in motor vehicles on their private property.

The measure applies to employees, customers and those invited to the business establishment as long as they have a permit to carry the weapon.

Backers say the measure upholds the vision of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, who made the right to bear arms part of the Bill of Rights.

Critics say the measure usurps business owners’ rights to determine what happens on their property and puts workers and managers at risk from disgruntled employees.

Dozens of workplace shootings occur every year in the United States and studies have shown that job sites where guns are permitted are more likely to suffer workplace homicides than those where guns are prohibited.

“This is an attempt to trample upon the property rights of property owners and attempt to make it more difficult to protect the workers in a workplace and those who visit our retail establishments,” said Sen. Ted Deutch, a Boca Raton Democrat.

I think it’s a good piece of legislation. We’ll have to wait and see if it gets signed into law. Then perhaps it will be challenged, and some court will have to decide whether the rights of a property owner include the power to deny people invited to use that property their human rights. Because I don’t think you should get to pick and choose. All or nothing. And part of the All is the 2A. Maybe the good citizens of Florida are standing up for themselves for a Change. I Hope.

Watch this law pass, then watch workplace mayhem drop to about nothing. And watch armed robberies drop as well. Too bad they didn’t figure out a way to arm the teachers, and I have no idea why companies involved in Homeland Security aren’t included in this bill either. Maybe because they’re already armed?

Posted by Drew458     on 04/10/2008 at 05:03 PM   
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - April 03, 2008

Common Sense Wins in Pennsylvania

HARRISBURG - The House yesterday rejected a measure aimed at curbing illegal handgun trafficking, the first substantive gun restriction considered by the full chamber in more than a decade.  By a vote of 128-75 the House defeated an amendment - attached to a separate gun crime bill - that would have made it mandatory to report lost and stolen handguns.

Gun-control proponents hailed the vote itself as a historic achievement for opening floor debate on gun violence and forcing lawmakers to take a formal position on controversial legislation.

The defeat came despite impassioned pleas from Philadelphia- and Pittsburgh-area lawmakers who argued that the legislation was critically needed to control the flow of illegal weapons and protect the innocent caught in the crossfire.

Here comes the spin and the appeal to emotion:

“This is a defining moment in this state . . . and to the families of the 400 people gunned down in Philadelphia last year,” said Rep. Curtis Thomas (D., Phila.). “The urgency of now requires that we respond to people across Pennsylvania that have said we need to do something now.”

Uh huh. And just how many of those 400 were innocent victims and not gang members? And just how many were shot with unreported stolen guns? And please, “the urgency of now”? Is that like “the audacity of hope” only more pressing?

But the final vote reflected the dominant pro-gun ideology in a state where divisions over gun control run largely along geographic rather than party lines.

Yeah, city folks vs. country folks. I have heard PA described as a state with a big city at each end and Alabama in the middle. That’s a bit of an exaggeration, as is the rumor that the west end of all bridges connecting NJ to PA have a sign on them that says “America starts here”. Fake but accurate.

There is a huge difference between reporting firearms as stolen within X amount of time after the crime occurs, and reporting them stolen within X amount of time after awareness of the theft occurs. The first way makes it a criminal offense to be on vacation and not at home to count your guns every day, the second way allows gun owners to be good citizens. I’ve been hearing a lot about straw purchases lately, along with the “mock straw” idea this bill’s amendment sought to address. Is this actually happening, or is it just hot air? If it is going on, what do you think should be done to stop the “oh, I bought a boxful of guns and they were stolen right out of my car! Too bad the burglars left me this bag of money by accident.” means to arm gangs?

Posted by Drew458     on 04/03/2008 at 01:51 PM   
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - March 18, 2008

We’re all going to Heller in a Handbasket

The Supreme Court is hearing DC v. Heller today. Keep your fingers crossed. There is at least one website live blogging it, so you can go to SCOTUSblog for the latest updates. Also C-Span will be providing a delayed audio feed.

From what I’m reading of the opening discussion, I’m not exactly thrilled.

Based just on the questioning, which can prove inaccurate, the Court is divided along ideological lines in Heller, with Justice Kennedy taking a strong view that the “operative clause” of the Second Amendment protects an individual right unconnected with militia service that guarantees the right to hunt and engage in self-defense.  If the oral argument line up were to hold when the Court votes, the Court will recognize an individual right to bear arms that will not be seriously constrained by military service of any kind. There was a seemingly broad consensus that the right would not extend to machine guns, plastic guns that could evade metal detectors, and the like. There was relatively little disccusion of the trigger lock provision. Justice Breyer seemingly sought to pick up a fifth vote for a narrower reading of the Second Amendment by attempting to tie the question of the reasonableness of the regulation to whether the challenged statute left individuals with the ability to possess weapons that could be used in milita service.  But at argument, at least, none of the Court’s more conservative members expressed much interest in that approach, and Justice Kennedy’s view that the operative clause is not directed at militia service would seem not to point in that direction.

WTF?? I guess the opeing round includes everything, in a kind of kitchen sink approach. Rights not connected to militia service - good. Right doesn’t extend to plastic guns? Where the FUCK did that come from? Trigger locks? What the hell? This sounds crazy ...

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy emerged as a strong defender of the right of domestic self-defense.  At one key point, he suggested that the one Supreme Court precedent that at least hints that gun rights are tied to military not private needs — the 1939 decision in U.S. v. Miller — “may be deficient” in that respect. With Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Antonin Scalia leaving little doubt that they favor an individual rights interpretation of the Amendment

Well, that sounds reassurring. Miller isn’t just deficient, it’s friggin crack.  OVERTURN IT. But this is just the first day, so things could go back and forth. Don’t get too worked up that strange things are said and wierd arguments are made at this point. Let’s air them all out, throw them all out, and see what’ left when the dust settles.

Plastic guns and trigger locks. Extraordinary. You’ve got to have a “penumbra” wider than the orbit of Jupiter to read that one into “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

Fresh reactions can be read here, and here.

(graphics snagged from the NRA-ILA) who has posted an amazingly understated paragraph or two on this case.

update - 2pm Arguments are done. Barely and hour and a half. Outside the court, Cathy Lanier, DC Chief of Police, is on TV slinging the BS - “high capacity”, “easily concealed”, “shooting in schools and churches”, ”DC ban isn’t complete - because the police are allowed to have handguns”, “public safety”, “a city can impose reasonable regulation on any constitutional right”. DC AG Peter Nickles is slinging the same crap. Walter Dellinger, Former Acting Solicitor General - “I think this is a reasonable law”, handguns are bad, they’re all used in crime, the facilitate suicide, cops are all concerned ... more BS about machine guns and armor piercing bullets which are a threat to law enforcement .... yadda yadda ya, same shit, different day. DC City Council Chairman Vincent Gray echoes the same sentiments, claims homicides have gone down since the enactment of the no-handguns law (which is a crock of poop) ... “more guns is going to lead to more crime” says the mayor. Obviously, there is nobody from the other side at this interview ... mayor implies he’s going to try for an end run if the decision goes against him?

Next at the mic is some wiener from Brady, Dennis Henigan ... “we don’t want an interpretation that can be used as an assault weapon against the gun laws in this country.”(wonder how long it took him to think that choice line up?) “we want the courts to have a very limited role in assessing what the rights are when the more important thing is public safety (or something to that effect. I can only type and listen so well). Commie.

Alan Gura is on - he’s Heller’s attorney. Looks about 17. “The Constitution does not end at the borders of Washington DC”.
Bob Levy, another of Heller’s attorney, is OK with reasonable regulation, feels it’s OK to ban certain types of handguns (ie plastic ie Glocks). Oh this is getting weak. Weak!!!

Ha, Heller makes the “well armed citizens make for a polite society” line.

So, this is it? That’s all the oral arguments we’re going to have? I guess so. The rest is in the paperwork. Mr. Heller puts in a small positive statement too, as does Tom Palmer from the Cato Institute.

Now we’ll have to wait until JUNE for an answer. What, C-Span is doing a call-in poll to see if you think Yea or Nay? Let’s go to the callers and hear what they say! Bah, I’m turning off the TV.

Posted by Drew458     on 03/18/2008 at 12:11 PM   
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - March 17, 2008

Another NJ bill to disarm the law abiding public

Here we go again. Another piece of unworkable, unsafe, ultra-expensive piece of anti-gun legislation has been put in the New Jersey legislative pipeline. Another benighted effort to “fight crime” that will only add to the overwhelming power of the State Police and turn many law abiding gun owners into de facto criminals. These left wing dingbats never stop. They never think through the reprocussions of their bills, because not one of them understands the smallest thing about firearms and the gun owning public.

NJ bill A2490 - four pages of total stupid

Sure guys, every one of the thousands of ammunition manufacturers that can churn out a million rounds a day is going to stop their factory every 50 rounds to stamp a different serial number on the bullet and case, and they’ll also happily invest another fortune to make sure those 50 bullets line up with those 50 cases. No, what they’ll do is just stop selling their products in NJ, which is exactly what the hidden agenda of this bill desires.

And for all you good citizens, you’d better shoot up all your ammo now AND get rid of all your unnumbered reloading supplies, because this bill turns you into a criminal in a year. And you’d better run out and buy up and then shoot off all your dealer’s current supply of ammo, because that becomes illegal at the same time. But don’t worry. When this bill passes, your dealer will soon be out of business anyway from the expense of all the extra record keeping. Expect the State Police budget to triple, since they’re the ones who will have to maintain the database of how many bullets everyone owns.

Fucking idiots. Why can’t they pass a law that slaps these legislators in the balls with a leather belt for such stupidity? Hey, if they’re going to act like numbnuts, let’s make sure they really are numbnuts.

Posted by Drew458     on 03/17/2008 at 01:15 PM   
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - March 15, 2008

What, no “gun amnesty” in Britian?

Via the Liverpool Echo

A young man was praised by a judge for handing in a sub-machine gun to police, and then jailed for two-and-a-half years. Shaun Wood voluntarily handed in the weapon, which he had been looking after for an associate for three months, after crumbling under the pressure of “minding” it. At Liverpool crown court yesterday, Judge Sean Duncan described his decision as “brave”, but handed him a reduced term for possessing a prohibited weapon.

The court heard Wood had run up a debt with his Childwall drug dealer after losing his job. To pay off the £200 cannabis bill, he agreed to store small amounts of the drug at his home in Clayford Crescent, Knotty Ash. The court heard the 22-year-old was ordered to hold increasingly serious drugs, including crack cocaine, until he was given the Mac sub-machine gun and ammunition. But Charles Lander, prosecuting, said the pressure got to Wood. He picked up the gun, which was hidden under floorboards, and began to walk around Southport. He eventually went in to the town’s police station where, “visibly shaking and distressed”, he voluntarily handed it over to police officers. Wood told them he simply wanted to get rid of the gun and had been contemplating suicide. He admitting loading bullets, but said he had been unable to sleep while it was in his house. Wood, who admitted possession of a prohibited weapon and ammunition on November 7 last year, has no previous offences.

Despite accepting Wood must have had “some fascination at first” to fit the gun’s magazine, Judge Duncan added: “If people are brave enough to come forward and hand in guns, the courts will acknowledge that bravery.”

Such an acknowledgement. Gee, only 2 1/2 years in the tanty for getting a machine gun off the streets. And you know he probably ratted out the drug dealer too. So they’ll both be in prison together. What do you think the odds are of this kid’s survival? About equal to a soap herring in a whirlpool?

Charles Lander, prosecuting, told the court the pressure got to Wood, who had repeatedly asked for the gun to be removed from his home, after three months holding the weapon.
...
“There is no intelligence police had that he was on the radar. They knew nothing about him until he came and handed the weapon in.”

Aha, now I see what the problem is. Causing the constables a bit of embarassment by showing everyone how inept they are is a worse offense than hiding a MAC-10 in the closet. Yup, send this guy off to jail, and let’s forget the whole thing ever happened.

Maybe young Mr. Wood should have told the judge that he only did the crime because of his drug addiction. Like we posted the other day, that should have cut his sentence in half. Wait, wait, he DID tell them exactly this, and they DID cut the mandatory sentence in half!! So, what was the benefit of being brave and doing the right thing? Exactly NOTHING. Oh yeah, expect the illegal firearms to be turned in at a record pace from now on.

Posted by Drew458     on 03/15/2008 at 11:53 AM   
Filed Under: • Crime • Guns and Gun Control •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - March 12, 2008

DC to copy Boston’s Dumb Idea

A week before SCOTUS starts on Heller, Washington DC mayor Fenty announces that the city is going to enact it’s version of Boston’s “Safe Homes” plan. Fourth Amendment? We don’ need no steenkin Fourth Amendment!! That’s right, the DC plan, called the “Safe Homes Initiative” will have the local cops going door to door asking people if it’s Ok if they come in and search your house. No warrants. No Reasonable Cause. No reason at all, but they’ll ask nicely and say “pretty please”. In theory they’re only looking for illegal drugs and illegal firearms, and the whole thing is an “amnesty program”.

No word yet on whether these officers will be issued jackboots ahead of time. Is it true that all such “visits” will be conducted in the middle of the night?

Holly Shiite, we’ve become a police state. And there are people, thousands and thousands of people, who think this is a great idea.

D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier announced several new initiatives today aimed at combating gun crimes, including one encouraging residents to submit to voluntary searches of their homes in exchange for amnesty if the residents have illegal guns or drugs.

The “safe homes initiative” is aimed at residents, such as parents or guardians who know or suspect their children have guns in their home, who want to cooperate with police, Lanier said.

“If we come across illegal contraband, we will confiscate it,” Lanier said. “But amnesty means amnesty. We’re trying to get guns and drugs off the street.”

All seized guns will be tested to see whether they have been used in criminal activity. If they have, police may initiate a criminal investigation, Lanier said.

The program will begin March 24 in the Washington Highlands area of Southeast Washington, where officers will go door to door asking residents for permission to search their homes. It will then expand to other areas of the city.

In addition to the safe homes initiative, D.C. police are starting to hold monthly meetings with law enforcement partners to identify trends in gun-related crimes.

“We are not satisfied with the number of guns on the streets of the District of Columbia,” Fenty said.

This doesn’t seem like that big a story. But this is now the second city in the USA to enact such a plan in the last 4 months. That’s about the most frightening thing I’ve ever written. This isn’t an anti-gun initiative, it’s a Gestapo move against civil rights. I don’t care if your kid is a mess and you are the worst parent on the planet ... your kid; your problem. Deal. You do not let the cops play door-to-door daddy ever, because they’ll get used to that kind of power in one damned big hurry. Just say NO. Politely. Then close and bar the door. Then call your lawyer.

h/t to Ravenwood’s Universe

Posted by Drew458     on 03/12/2008 at 08:32 PM   
Filed Under: • Government • Guns and Gun Control •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - March 04, 2008

Hurry Up Heller

In a benighted effort to disarm criminal gangs, NJ has passed Assembly Bill 339 out of committee and towards the Senate floor for a vote. Committee members approved the measure 5-1. The bill limits firearms permit holders, who have already passed a thorough background check, to purchasing only one handgun per month.

The bill does not apply to rifles or shotguns. I guess NJ is happy and eager for it’s law abiding citizens to buy them dozens at a time.

Is this bill really necessary? How is this going to stop crime? The idea behind the bill is obvious, and rather insulting. The idea is that people are legally buying pistols in bulk quantities and then “losing” them or having them “stolen” shortly thereafter. The insult is that the government is making the assumption that anyone who purchases several handguns at a time is actually making a de facto straw purchase for criminals and then exploiting a legal loophole to avoid prosecution. Gee thanks NJ. Even after a county, state, and federal background search that proves I am neither a criminal nor a mental patient, the assumption is that I am a crook.

Given the media’s phobic attitude towards guns, is it even possible that one such “crime” has occurred and the story not become major headlines? Has there been a single prosecution of a straw purchase enacted through circumstances of false loss or theft? Not that I’ve heard and this is one of the things I listen very carefully for.

The other possible reasoning behind the bill is equally insulting. This is the Super Nanny concept that says I can own guns, but I can only own so many of a certain type or acquire them at a slow and careful rate. NJ doesn’t want me to get my hands on too many pistols at the same time. They’re probably afraid that they’ll metastasize into some sort of critical mass in my closet and go off on a shooting rampage all by themselves.

NJ bill 339
blurb from the NRA/ILA

Posted by Drew458     on 03/04/2008 at 09:39 AM   
Filed Under: • Government • Guns and Gun Control •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - March 03, 2008

The state of RKBA in a nutshell

Kevin over at the Smallest Minority posts a whopper of an essay; Of Law And Sausages is a 13,000 word read worthy of Bill Whittle and worth the hour it takes to read. Believe it or not, this is tight writing. He could have easily made it twice as big.

Back in May of 2003 when I started this blog, I had just begun a months-long debate with an Irishman living in London. The topic of that debate, unsurprisingly, was the Second Amendment. During that debate he asked me a question: “(L)et’s say a liberal government came to power and wanted to ban gun ownership. It would not be able to, because of the Second Amendment, right?”

That’s the question, alright. When the Supreme Court takes up District of Columbia v. Heller (née Parker v. D.C.) in a few days, we may finally get an answer to it.

After starting out with a “state of the state” that shows the very flawed beliefs held today, he then goes on to investigate the Second, citing many examples of Original Intent, and shows how the evolution of gun control laws have developed, with each one standing on the shoulders of the fallacies built by previous legislation, from the original and legally proper, if not poorly reasoned, reaction of the Kentucky legislation to their loss in Bliss v. Commonwealth in 1822, up through Cruikshank, Presser, Miller, Cases, and all the way to DC v. Heller which the Supremes will start looking at in a few days.

So from the founding of a nation in which, according to Thomas Jefferson, it is a citizen’s “right and duty to be at all times armed,” a nation in which St. George Tucker understood that the constitution could not be used to “permit any prohibition of arms to the people,” a nation where in 1857 the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment protected a right of citizens “to keep and carry arms wherever they went,” where in 1939 the Supreme Court ruled - not on a defendant’s membership in a militia, but on the suitability of his weapon for militia use, we reached the point where the right of individuals somehow became a right of the States - the famous shift from an “individual rights” understanding to a “collective rights” interpretation. Moreover, “no individual even has standing to challenge any law restricting firearm possession or use.” At least not in the Ninth Circuit (where I happen to live.)

The extinction of the right to arms was almost complete. The meaning of the Second Amendment of the Constitution was altered without the use of the Amendment process - merely by the repeated death-by-a-thousand-cuts judicial re-interpretation, and the power of stare decisis.

Now we reach today, and D.C. v. Heller. The city of Washington D.C., a Federal District under control of Congress and most emphatically not a “state,” passed what is essentially a complete ban on the possession of functional firearms by its (law-abiding) residents in 1975. Because Washington D.C. is not a state, the Cruikshank and Presser Supreme Court decisions do not have any influence - the Second Amendment applies directly to the city government. A lawsuit was brought against the city under the auspices that the gun ban violated the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Washington, and the case proceeded all the way to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, considered one of the most important circuits in the Appeals Court system for its precedent-setting.

A three-judge panel voted 2-1 that the right to arms IS an individual one (agreeing with the Fifth Circuit) and that the laws in question DID violate the Second Amendment.

The City appealed to the Supreme Court. Cert. was granted. Oral arguments start in just a few days from now.

And we may finally get an answer to the question: “(L)et’s say a liberal government came to power and wanted to ban gun ownership. It would not be able to, because of the Second Amendment, right?”

This is a Most Excellent undertaking on his part. He draws no conclusions at the end, even though we all know what his views are, even though the errors made by poor and specious decisions in the past are readily apparent. I could not have resisted banging the podium in closing, but in truth it isn’t necessary. If you can understand the part of the Second Amendment that says “shall not be infringed” then you can spot the house of cards being built out of whole cloth over the generations. This reference quality piece of work is the best of what blogging can be; Kevin’s essay could just as well be used as an amicus curiae brief for Heller.

A true and proper decision on Heller will overturn 130 years of bogus laws and benighted decisions by the Supremes. Hold your breath. Anarchy and “the Wild West” will not be the result, but a bit of freedom and some honest governing could be. (see? I couldn’t resist giving the bully pulpit at least one whack)

Posted by Drew458     on 03/03/2008 at 03:43 PM   
Filed Under: • Government • Guns and Gun Control •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - February 26, 2008

safety reminder for journalists … um, I mean reloaders

All you gunnies have seen stories like this before. Here’s another one. You can’t be reminded too often. Watch everything. Verify everything. Never assume anything. Like the carpenters say, measure twice and cut once. Luckily the shooter involved is going to live. He only lost part of his hand.

A bit of info for non-reloaders: there are several hundred different kinds of gunpowder on the market. Each one burns at a slightly different rate than the others. Each one may be perfect for one kind of cartridge but dangerously wrong for another kind. Unfortunately, some very different kinds of gunpowder have similar names. This is a case of what happens when you don’t pay attention, and use “#7”, a very fast pistol powder, instead of “Reloader 7”, a medium speed rifle powder. Had the shooter used “sp 7”, a rather slow rifle powder, not only would the gun not have blown up, the bullet would have barely made it out the end of the barrel. Another thing that made the situation worse is the rifle itself. The Marlin 1895 is a well made modern rifle based on an old design. It is plenty strong enough to handle the pressures generated by any sane loading of the cartridge it is chambered for, but it will break when those pressures get to the insane level. This accidental loading may not have blown up in a stronger rifle, but then again it may have. Steel is only so strong, and these pressures are approaching the burst strength of even the best steel.

here’s the original in a gun forum

Accurate #7 is not Reloader 7













Just a little reminder ... pay attention ... be careful ... don’t be a dummy ... or a statistic.

Posted by Drew458     on 02/26/2008 at 10:51 AM   
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - February 08, 2008

DC v. Heller update - latest amicus curiae

Dick Cheney and 305 Congressional Representatives
sign Pro Second Amendment amicus curiae brief for Heller

via NRA-ILA

Led by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), bi-partisan majorities of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives - in fact, the largest number of co-signers of a congressional amicus brief in American history - filed a strong brief in support of the individual rights view. 55 members of the Senate and 250 members of the House co-signed this brief along with the Vice President of the United States. This landmark brief argues that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual, fundamental right to Keep and Bear Arms; that any infringement on this right should be subject to the highest level of constitutional scrutiny; that D.C.’s categorical ban on handguns and self-defense in the home is unreasonable and unconstitutional under any level of review; and therefore, that the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in this case should be upheld.

Very nice of them. If you would like to see who supports this Constitutional right, the list is here. “D"s and “R"s you have to supply yourself. I noticed that the one rep from my state of NJ who signed it, Scott Garrett of the 5th district up near my red corner of the state, is a Republican.

The brief itself is here. It traces the history of the Second Amendment and the various acts of federal gun control over the history of our country, including the Reconstruction Era Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, and repeatedly shows that the federal government view is that 2A is an individual right of the people. Not a collective right of the people. Not a right of the States - which they point out have no “rights” only “powers”. The only quibble I can make is that they pull some “modern common sense” out of thin air and say:

The Second Amendment refers to the right to “keep” arms (such as at home) as well as to “bear” arms (meaning to carry them). Protected arms include commonly-kept firearms that one can keep and carry for lawful purposes, such as ordinary rifles, handguns, and shotguns, and not crew-served or heavy weapons.

Because when the British came for the Colonists at Lexington on that fateful day in April, they weren’t coming to seize a few pistols. They came to take the cannons. Three of those cannon were 24 pounders, which were the biggest seige guns of the day. Granted, artillery today is a far, far cry from the field pieces back then, but the fact remains that the Second Amendment does NOT say small arms. It says arms. The prohibitions against artillery, machine guns, WMDs etc. came later, though they are just as unconstitutional as DC’s gun ban laws.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
Nope, it don’t say nothing about what type of arms, or whether they are “small” or not.



In other gun news, the drunken nitwit from Massachusetts is pushing his microstamping bill, S.2605, while fellow useless tool Xavier Becerra brought the parallel bill, H.R.5266, to the House. Both are sitting in their respective Judiciary Committees. Time to warm up the pens again.

Posted by Drew458     on 02/08/2008 at 09:30 PM   
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control •  
• Comments (9) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - February 01, 2008

Brady group full of nonsense as usual

Latest Bull from Brady

Brady Campaign releases latest “scorecard” on gun laws in the Several States. “Most states lack common sense gun restrictions”; naturally Brady has the exclusive moral high ground to define “common sense”. Which they utterly lack. Funny thing is, the states at the top of their list are also the states with the highest levels of crime, gang violence, and left leaning politics. Too bad they didn’t have the balls to put Washington DC on their list. I cut and pasted the top and the bottom of their list; you can read the whole thing here if you don’t see your state.

Officials in most states have done little to keep criminals and other dangerous people from easily obtaining guns, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The new redesigned scorecards are being released today for all 50 states.

Two-thirds of all states score less than 20 points out of 100. Almost half of all states score 10 points or less out of 100.

“We make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons. Our gun laws are so weak that, in most states, there are few or no laws to prevent gun violence,” says Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “This is true at the federal level as well. We need effective gun laws to curb gun violence and illegal gun trafficking.”

My God, the level of stupid here is right off the scales. The entire statement is a compendium of lies. Who buys this bullshit?

“While advocates and officials deserve credit for strong gun laws in states like California, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York, even more needs to be done in these, and all, states to ensure that dangerous people don’t have easy access to guns,” said Helmke.

The Brady Campaign scorecards provide a new and redesigned analysis of whether states are enacting the laws needed to protect citizens from gun violence. The new scorecards also show states how their gun laws can be strengthened and their scores improved.

The categories covered by the 2007 scorecards are as follows:

—States can earn up to 35 points by taking all measures needed to “Curb
Firearm Trafficking.” States can fully regulate the gun dealers within
their borders, limit bulk purchases of handguns, provide police certain
technology to identify crime guns, and require lost or stolen guns to
be reported to the police.

—States can earn up to 25 points by “Strengthening Brady Background
Checks.” This involves requiring background checks on all gun sales
and requiring a permit in order to purchase firearms.  Short of
universal background checks, states can also close the gun show
loophole, at least requiring background checks for all gun show sales.

—States can earn up to 20 points by “Protecting Child Safety” when it
comes to guns.  States can require that only childproof handguns be
sold within their borders, require child safety locks to be sold with
each handgun, hold adults accountable for keeping guns away from kids
and teens, and require handgun purchasers to be at least 21 years of
age.

—States can earn up to 10 points by “Banning Military-style Assault
Weapons,” as well as banning high-capacity ammunition magazines.

—States can earn up to 10 points by making it harder to carry “Guns In
Public Places” (except for trained law enforcement and security) and by
allowing localities to “Preserve Local Control” over municipal gun
laws.  This includes keeping guns out of workplaces and college
campuses, not forcing law enforcement to issue concealed handgun
permits on demand, not permitting “shoot first” expansions in self-
defense laws, and not preventing municipalities from passing their own
gun laws.

We acknowledge the research of Legal Community Against Violence on state gun laws. Their publication, “Regulating Guns in America,” and website served as a basis for our analysis. For more information about Legal Community Against Violence, see http://www.lcav.org.

I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but I guess I need to say it yet again. Not a single one of the Brady rating points does a thing to make the lives of law abiding citizens safer. None of them do anything to prevent crime. Many of their points are already covered by federal laws. The child safety locks laws bring the nanny state right into your home and replace responsible parental behavior with state laws. And the “not preventing municipalities from passing their own gun laws” is a Brady wet dream that has failed in the courts time after time after time.

But the Brady idiots do us a nice favor here. Simply read their chart in reverse to see what level of freedom exists in your state. 

Posted by Drew458     on 02/01/2008 at 01:48 PM   
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (11) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - January 23, 2008

National “Hug your guns and thank god you’re an American” day

As noted at View From The Porch, today is John Moses Browning’s birthday. Born 153 years ago, “St. John” was one of the most prolific and talented firearms designers who ever lived.  With 128 gun patents to his name, you probably own at least one firearm or cartridge that he designed.

 

PS - you can still buy the rifle he’s holding

Posted by Drew458     on 01/23/2008 at 02:06 PM   
Filed Under: • Guns and Gun Control •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Page 19 of 19 pages « First  <  17 18 19

---

Five Most Recent Trackbacks:

LAAR She Blows! Part One
(2 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Planes Ideas Blog
[...] CABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEB [...]
On: 07/12/11 01:57

The Tactical Cowboy
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Sights Service Blog
[...] E LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE [...]
On: 07/10/11 08:30

Nasty Dirty Money
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Money Reviews Blog
[...] ONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLES [...]
On: 06/17/11 08:31

Amazing aerial images taken by daring Allied pilots on secret missions during WW 2
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Hookers and Booze
peiper over at Barking Moonbat EWS found some absolutely kickass aerial photos from WWII. I grabbed this one because I’m a big fan of the movie A Bridge Too Far.…
On: 11/23/09 04:14

Clear Thinking and Straight Talk
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at baldilocks
Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home Read all of it--and tell every American you know to do so. (Thanks to BMEWS) UPDATE: The author of the above blog is…
On: 10/02/09 09:29

---

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner

Oh, and here's some kind of visitor flag counter thingy. Hey, all the cool blogs have one, so I should too. The Visitors Online thingy up at the top doesn't count anything, but it looks neat. It had better, since I paid actual money for it.