Month: January 2011

The Washington Post has been particularly antsy lately to see our rights removed, and they seem to be closing off the week with a call to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban, largely based on this study, which appeared earlier, that they claim shows it’s effective.

I’ve looked into this somewhat, and the Virginia Criminal Firearms Clearinghouse does indeed have magazine capacity as a field on the form. It seems, however, that the Post has made quite a leap to suggest this is effective. It’s interesting data, but it’s one state, and we have no idea whether the firearms in this database are representative of crime guns. It seems very strange that criminals should have a difficult time buying magazines of greater than ten rounds when as a law abiding person, I had no problem.

The disappointing thing about this article it has made us realize we have one more database we have to close off, so that our opponents can’t mine it for data and draw unfounded conclusions support limiting our constitutional rights. I do thank them, however, for pointing this glaring error out to us, and hope NRA takes this up with the Virginia legislature forthwith.

Just read through this fairly quickly, but I think the Saigas are safe. Here are the evil features:

1. Folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks;
2. bayonet lugs;
3. flash suppressors;
4. magazines over 5 rounds, or a drum magazine;
5. grenade-launcher mounts;
6. integrated rail systems (other than on top of the receiver or barrel);
7. light enhancing devices;
8. excessive weight (greater than 10 pounds for 12 gauge or smaller);
9. excessive bulk (greater than 3 inches in width and/or greater than 4 inches in depth);
10. forward pistol grips or other protruding parts designed or used for gripping the shotgun with the shooter’s extended hand.

The Saiga is imported with a 5 round magazine, and has none of these features coming, so I’m pretty sure it’s safe. It only addresses importation. The study looked the meaning of the sporting purposes clause, and determined that IPSC, IDPA, etc are not shooting sports within that definition. For shotgun purposes, they’ve determined that only clay sports and hunting count.

A New York trial court rules that there’s not Second Amendment protection for air guns because they are not “arms,” within the meaning of the Second Amendment. It seems to me, however, that the right to keep and bear arms necessarily has to include some right to practice with and become proficient in the use of arms. Since air guns are of high utility for practicing and honing skills with arms, their possession and use ought to be protected as readily as powder firearms. Dave Kopel has, I think, successfully argued this point previously.

From Newsweek:

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

What’s shaping up, it would seem, is that we’re going to get some kind of NICS bill out of this, like we did after Virginia Tech. The risk is, what else are we going to get with it?

Thanks to read Mike and Red Five X for the pointer.