Year: 2008

Why is it that anti-gun folks love pushing bills in response to tragedy that would in no way shape or form have even remotely prevented it? Latest from Nebraska:

The NRA is urging its members to fight a bill in the legislature that calls for, among other things, mandatory trigger locks. The NRA is convinced this latest gun control plan would have a “drastic effect” on law-abiding gun owners.

But Action Three News has learned that victims of the Von Maur massacre, some who lived, some who’s relatives died, are ready to fight for the bill.

The trigger locks would be required on any gun, rifle, or assault weapon. In addition once gun owners know a weapon is lost or stolen, they’d have 48 hours to report it. Finally no one found mentally ill in the last 10 years could buy a gun.

Do these people really think a trigger lock would have stopped this guy? And what kind of “assault weapons” is not also a gun or rifle? This is the usual panel of gun control being pushed by the anti-gun groups everywhere else. In this case, exploiting people who are mourning the loss of loved ones promoting a political agenda, that wouldn’t have prevented their tragedy. The shooter in the Von Maur shooting was already prohibited from owning a firearm by existing laws.

UPDATE Joe’s Crabby Shack, which is a local Nebraska gun blog, has a lot more detail about this.

Via War on Guns a quite good editorial taking The Administration to task for its brief:

Which raises the question:  What the heck was the Bush Administration thinking?  For decades, a critical component of the Republican coalition has been working class gun owners who are bothered by the Democrats’ embrace of gun control.  Republicans actually seem to have won that battle, with Democrats backing off of gun control legislation in the recent Congress.  Why after enduring so much hostile press would the Bush Administration sell out the NRA at this critical juncture?  And why make the reversal in a difficult election year, when the support of gun control opponents will be so critical to Republican fortunes?

What’s it have to lose selling anyone out at this point?  Bush is about as lame duck as they come, and I’ve never gotten the impression he’s all that concerned about his party’s fortunes.  The Bush family are wealthy New Englanders with no real connection to the gun culture.  As the article points out:

The less generous answer lies in the reality of the Bush Administration.  Contrary to the caricatures painted by liberals, there are precious few issues that the Administration has not sold the Right out on.  No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit, monstrous budget deficits, McCain-Feingold, Patient’s Bill of Rights . . . all of these issues cross the gamut of modern politics, and all of them are issues where the Bush Administration’s Rovian plotting has placed it at loggerheads with standard conservatism.  Even on judges, where the Administration usually wins plaudits, conservatives forget Harriet Miers, and forget that two of Bush’s first ten Court of Appeals appointments were Clinton appointees.  Is it really that hard to believe that the Administration would lurch to the left on the issue of guns?

No, not hard to believe, but we still get to be pissed.

The Virginia Senate rejected the gun show bill 9-6.