Today Governor Christie vetoed A2006 / S993, legislation (http://tinyurl.com/pxxpja3) that would have banned firearms magazines larger than 10 rounds and would have banned an entire class of popular .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles. The veto marks the end of the road for this legislation for the 2014-2015 session.
“After months of intense battle over this misguided legislation that won’t stop another crime or prevent another tragedy, we are grateful that Governor Christie has heard the voice of the outdoor community and ended the discussion,” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. “The Governor clearly recognizes the difference between legislation that punishes violent criminals vs. legislation that targets the rights of law-abiding citizens.”
Author: Bitter
Target’s Statement on Open Carry
From Target:
The leadership team has been weighing a complex issue, and I want to be sure everyone understands our thoughts and ultimate decision.
As you’ve likely seen in the media, there has been a debate about whether guests in communities that permit “open carry†should be allowed to bring firearms into Target stores. Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so. But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.
We’ve listened carefully to the nuances of this debate and respect the protected rights of everyone involved. In return, we are asking for help in fulfilling our goal to create an atmosphere that is safe and inviting for our guests and team members.
This is a complicated issue, but it boils down to a simple belief: Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.
So, they’ve made clearly that they will continue to follow local laws on the issue, and they are specifically targeting “open carry” in their statement. This goes to that carrying guns just to get attention is the problem.
It’s funny to read some of the “mommy” comments on the post. Most are pretty much in the “we’re declaring victory even though the said they would keep their same policy” category, but one woman seems to realize that the stores aren’t going to actually enact a real gun ban:
Nice request but when they show up carrying today, in droves, to protest your decision, what are you going to do? Will you ask them nicely to leave (they won’t) or will you have them removed from your private property?
UPDATE: There’s this article that notes an important statement from Target’s spokeswoman:
Molly Snyder, a Target spokeswoman, said the retailer will not post signs at its stores asking people not to bring guns inside. “It is not a ban,” she said. “There is no prohibition.”
The KISS principle & Stupid Jerks
Caleb at Gun Nuts Media talks about a topic that I sort of hinted at in the comments on a post from yesterday: “There are a lot of jerks, idiots, and assholes in the world, I can guarantee that some of them legally own guns.”
Not every bad situation involving guns is invented by anti-gunners. The fact is that there are some people with very poor decision-making abilities who use cars in a dangerous manner, exercise their right to speak to say dumb things, and even brandish guns in a way that reflectors poorly on gun owners. As Caleb notes, we should be calling out these people for their poor decisions and bad actions and making clear that this kind of behavior isn’t acceptable in the modern gun community.
I realize that the easiest form of thinking is to just assume that everything is the fault of gun controllers, but just stop and consider it for a moment. Think of every hoop they would have to jump through to make whatever bad incident you’re thinking about happen. Chances are, you’ll realize that it’s really outlandish.
Energy spent coming up with conspiracy theories in every single situation is better spent on being a better representative of the pro-gun community and encouraging others to do the same.
Banning the Second Amendment
Waves were made in the gun community with a claim that a university is trying to stop a student from starting a Second Amendment-themed club, but further review shows that the student may not have expressed his intent or the situation clearly.
As someone who has been through the process before, it’s incredibly important to come up with a clear plan before approaching officials about something like this. According to the school, the student said he wanted a student group to organize a change in their gun policy. They didn’t tell him he couldn’t do that, but that a simple goal like that didn’t fit the requirements for an official school group that may be eligible for funding. That’s a perfectly legitimate response from the school, if that’s the case.
Now, if he wanted to start a Second Amendment group that does a wide variety of activities and may also have a campaign to change the school policy, that’s a very different request. Knowing the difference between those two requests will make a difference between denial and approval – unless there is real bias going on.
Clearly, there are cases of extreme anti-gun bias in academia, so it’s not out of the question that there is a problem. However, I find it telling that the latest reports say the student admitted he really didn’t know about the process of starting a club and he plans to work on the statement of intent for the group. That tells me that the school’s defense is likely accurate.
Gun Show Vendor in Hot Water
It looks like a Pennsylvania gun show vendor may end up facing a reckless endangerment charge after he accidentally shot a customer in the leg. Not surprisingly, the gun show organizer told him to pack up his table and get out.
The vendor is trying to claim that someone else must have loaded the gun while he had his back turned, and then when he picked it up to show the woman the gun in a holster, it went bang and she was injured. There’s so much that sounds wrong here, I’m not going to speculate.
Fairfax County Playing Games with License Holders
Virginia gun lawyer John Frazer has information for Fairfax County concealed carry permit holders who may be facing minor misdemeanor charges that won’t impact their eligibility. According to John:
Fairfax County gun owners should be aware that the Circuit Court clerk’s office may treat concealed carry permit applications as incomplete, and forward them to a judge for review, based on disclosure of pending criminal charges. …
People whose applications are denied in this situation can either wait until their pending charge is resolved, or challenge the denial in an ore tenus (“word of mouthâ€) hearing in circuit court.
There’s a little more that people who might know someone in this situation should read.
When I renewed my permit there, they tried to play games with me, too. I was told that I would hear back in just beyond the deadline. I asked her if she meant to say that they would have a permit to me before the deadline, and it’s clear she was not happy about an informed applicant. I got my renewal on the last possible day.
Of course, she was also probably a little angry at me because when I said I was renewing, but the county it was issued from was Montgomery County, she went off about how it’s not a renewal from another state and how I needed to learn my new local laws, etc. When she stopped, I finally let her know that there is, in fact, a Montgomery County in Virginia that issues Virginia carry licenses. (h/t to VSSA)
The Dreaded Pigeon Shoot Ban
When anti-gun lawmakers in Pennsylvania want to derail a pro-Second Amendment bill, the first amendment they usually reach for is a ban on pigeon shooting. The ban is opposed by NRA, but they know they can pull a few lawmakers off from the coalition who will vote in favor of the ban. It’s basically their own little poison pill amendment.
Well, it looks like the sponsors finally decided to attach it to a non-gun bill today. If it hasn’t already happened, then it’s expected to get a vote today as an amendment on a bill that bans the consumption of cats and dogs. I don’t see any votes on the Senate Judiciary website for an amendment, nor do I see any amendments from the Senate on the bill history page.
It will be an interesting issue if this does end up going to a vote on a non-gun bill. It takes one of the biggest tools of the anti-gunners off of the table for stalling future pro-rights legislation. That’s typically a good thing. It’s an issue where I don’t think the activity should be banned, but the fact is that it’s an uphill climb to defeat the ban every time it comes up. I really hate the idea of throwing any member of the shooting community under the bus, but I’m also kind of tired of seeing everything else sidelined because of this one issue.
We’ll see how it works out – if it’s going to be a continuing issue for gun bills or if it was pulled from the calendar again.
Time is Running Out for New Jersey Gun Owners
ANJRPC is alerting members to keep up the pressure on Gov. Chris Christie:
Please keep urging Governor Christie to veto A2006 / S993 (gun ban / mag ban). We must continue to mount a sustained campaign until the Governor acts. If he takes no action, the bill will automatically become law when the deadline passes in early July. Talking points on this legislation can be found here.
Time to “Start Mowing [Gun Owners] Down”?
![Time to “Start Mowing [Gun Owners] Down”?](https://www.pagunblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Kimber1911.jpg)
Bob Owens highlights a blog post that asks when the government will just start taking out “non-criminal cranks — scofflaws and political malcontents” just to prove a point that they are in charge.
I just don’t even know how to respond to that. The fact that she states she wants to see people with whom she simply has a political disagreement with gathered up by our government forces and “mow[ed] down,” even if, as she acknowledges, they have committed no crimes is just beyond my comprehension as a normal human being.
A Right Delayed is a Right Denied
Jeff Soyer notes an article out of Connecticut that Gov. Dannel Malloy’s Sandy Hook Advisory Commission plans to suggest mental health “suitability screenings” for gun owners and sellers in their state.
Later in the article, they note that the commission that has been meeting since January 2013 still doesn’t have any of the medical records for Adam Lanza. If a commission ordered by the state governor can’t get records together in 18 months, how long will they make “applicants” to own or sell guns wait while they attempt to gather records?
The final report with formal recommendations is due this summer, so I’m sure that every gun control dream will be listed.