Month: January 2013

Via Uncle, in the NY Senate. Features?

• Very similar to the ban in Illinois. Broad ban on most modern firearms and pump actions. Vertical foregrips are also now an evil feature. Blanket authority for state police to ban guns not suitable for sporting purposes.
• Ends grandfathering for magazines. Turn them in.
• Makes possession of a modern firearm a first degree crime instead of a third degree crime. You’ll go away for a long time for possessing a modern firearm manufactured after the enactment of this bill.

The push continues.

This just in:

It is clear that we will need bipartisan support in order to take floor votes on gun safety and marriage equality this week. We will take some time to work on these important issues to advance them in the near future.

The executive committee has been delayed, but we still intend to hold a hearing on marriage equality shortly.

That is politician speak for “We don’t have the votes right now.” It’s not over by a long shot folks, but they wanted to ram this through. Keep the heat on. Like I said, if you have some time sometime soon, it wouldn’t hurt to schedule a visit to the Capitol with your lawmakers to talk about the issue. You’ll usually get a tour too, and most Capitol buildings are interesting buildings to visit. This is not victory, but it’s a positive development. Keep the heat on your lawmakers.

FYI, I’m totally for marriage equality. Just thought I’d make that clear :)

UPDATE: Don’t forget that your lawmakers also have district offices. If you live far away from the Capitol, be sure to visit or call the district office.

Jim Geraghty notes:

At least 217 House Republicans know the job of Speaker is a pain in the ass, vote to punish Boehner for another two years.

It would seem we go to war with the GOP we have, and if that doesn’t scare you, I don’t know what will. Soon we will have specific bills we will need to communicate with lawmakers about. This is going to be unending and relentless. I hate that, because I’m tired of politics too and I have a day (often night these days) job, but this is what four more years is going to mean. Are we going to preserve our liberty?

More people are killed with hammers and clubs every year than rifles, of which “assault weapons” are but a subset. Ban assault hammers now!

The Hill has the story. It’s the magazine ban I think we’re going to have the toughest time with, because I see a lot of reasonable people on the center-right suggesting that maybe that’s reasonable, and we’ll have to give. Granted, I don’t think they are helping, but it’s out there and has to be dealt with. The arguments are thus:

• Criminals will have no difficulty obtaining magazines of any capacity on the black market. There are too many of them out there already, and it will have zero impact on crime or gun violence.
• I agree with John Richardson that these are not “high-capacity.” My Glock was designed to hold 15 rounds. That’s the standard capacity. What McCarthy and DeGette are proposing is a ban on all but reduced capacity magazines. I call it the magazine ban. “High-capacity,” is just allowing the anti-gun people to set the agenda with inflammatory terminology.
• Magazine size is not a critical factor in mass shootings. Most mass shooters plan their assault, bring multiple firearms, and have plenty of time for magazine changes. The shooter in Newtown had a full 20 minutes before the police response. In that amount of time, it matters little if you change a ten round magazine 6 times or a 30 round magazine twice. It would also encourage mass shooters to, at best, substitute deadlier weapons like shotguns.
• Nearly all pistols and rifles today contain more than 10 rounds, and they are overwhelmingly chosen for self defense. Why? Same reason police choose them. For someone being attacked, who doesn’t get to choose the time and manner of his act of self-defense, having more rounds in a magazine stacks the deck in the defenders favor. Magazine capacity is much less meaningful to attackers, who get to choose and plane when and where they attack. If we’re reduced to 10 rounds, I would carry a larger caliber pistol and a magazine change, whereas now I just carry the magazine in the pistol most of the time.
• There are too many magazines out there for meaningful regulation. They are not serial numbered or carefully tracked. The potential to land good people in jail is very high with restrictive laws.

A lot of people who are not shooters are treating this like it’s no big deal. Personally, it’s worse, I think, and affects more gun owners than a straight-up renewal of the federal assault weapons ban. If you communicate with lawmakers on this issue, and you should, feel free to use some of these arguments. They need to understand that magazines which hold more than 10 rounds are the norm these days, rather than the exception. When most people think “high-capacity” they think extended magazines like the Tucson nutjob used (which caused his gun to jam because they are unwieldy) and that the Aurora shooter used (which caused his gun to jam, because the drum mags for ARs are jam-o-matics).

We have a lot of work to do on the magazine issue. Most people, at this point, even pundits and elites, know the “assault weapons” issue is a crock of shit. The magazine issue is a different story.

UPDATE: Thanks to the reader who shared this piece by Massad Ayoob.

This is what the corrupt Chicago machine has to say about us:

Kotowski, a Democrat, called firearms the last unregulated product in the United States.

“It is about time that somebody stands up to the bully that is the gun industry,” Kotowski said to reporters after the hearing.

Really? What other product do you need to submit to an FBI background check to purchase? Need a federal license to manufacture and deal in? Require a sworn statement be made to the feds? Require forms? What other product (in IL) do you need a license to own and keep in your home? What other product do we outright forbid to certain classes of people? (Even registered sex offenders can get an Internet connection, typically). What other product is it illegal for me to sell to someone in another state? To transport incorrectly? What other product is a felony for me to give to a child? I’m not saying all these laws are unconstitutional, but it’s regulation. The idea that firearms are some kind of unregulated free for all is a wild-eyed fabrication. I don’t think you are dense, Senator Kotowski, I think you know if people believe gun ownership is a wild free-for-all, they are more willing, in that ignorance, to think more gun control is a good idea.

And you’re not standing up to the gun industry, Senator Kotowski, you’re standing up to this. You’re not a hero, sir, standing up to some faceless industry, you’re a scoundrel, intent on infringing on the rights of millions of fellow Illinoisans.

Say that an AR-15 really isn’t useful for anything. Sorry, when these are your creds:

I generally consider myself a Second Amendment supporter, and I haven’t yet decided where I stand on post-Newtown gun control. I would own a gun if New York City laws didn’t make it extremely difficult to do so. But I nevertheless find Keene’s arguments disingenuous. It’s odd to cite hunting and home defense as reasons to keep selling a rifle that’s not particularly well suited, and definitely not necessary, for either. Bolt-action rifles and shotguns can also be used for hunting and home defense. Unfortunately, those guns aren’t particularly lucrative for gunmakers. The lobby’s fervent defense of military-style semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 seems motivated primarily by a desire to protect the profits in the rapidly growing “modern sporting rifle” segment of the industry.

You don’t own a gun, yet you surely know what’s useful for self-defense and hunting? Have you ever hunted? Even shot an AR-15? Look, dude, you have about as much expertise to pontificate on this as I do on hookah bars in Manhattan. There are a lot of reasons the AR-15 as generally useful, all around firearm, which is why it’s the most popular selling rifle (even outside the current panic environment, where they are selling faster than they can be made). This article also reads like someone who has never had to deal with a breakdown in law and order, such as what follows in the aftermath of a major hurricane, which I’m sure some of my Florida readers who went through Hurricane Andrew can give you quite an education on.

Massachusetts just swore in their new legislature, and it’s vowing to take up gun control. You’d think there wouldn’t be much more they can do in Massachusetts, since they’ve long had an assault weapons ban and magazine restrictions, but as we’ve seen from Illinois, the end game is prohibition on as many classes of firearms they can get away with.

Not unexpected, Connecticut is talking gun control for 2013 too. The first wave of attacks will come in the blue states that already have pretty awful gun laws, and have largely already beaten gun owners into the dirt and made them politically irrelevant. It should be noted that these states previously formed the basis for federal legislation. There is no writing off this state or that state. We fight the best we can. Take this example from someone in Illinois:

I live in Illinois and am getting ready to go to Springfield for the next day or two to see what I can do. My legislators are both on our side but I intend to visit the office of every legislator and let them know personally how opposed I am to this. If you learn of any rallies that may develop in Springfield or know of any way I can help in Springfield, let me know…

This is highly effective, and to anyone reading in Illinois, if you can take the time off work and drive to Springfield, do it. Showing up in person and chatting personally with lawmakers is the most effective form of communication. We’ve already made a lot of compromises in Illinois. There’s full licensing of gun owners. In many ways they are a gun control paradise. They are ranked ninth in the nation by the Brady Campaign. Yet it’s not enough. Massachusetts, which has strict and discretionary licensing to own pistols, and a general assault weapons and magazine bans, apparently has not gone far enough. We know the end game, and anyone who says the end game isn’t prohibition is fooling themselves, and I would not count on the courts to save us.

From a Marine.