Category: Gun Rights

RealClearPolicy wrote and article about the M855 issue, and managed to get this comment from BATFE:

Green-tip rounds were classified as AP [armor piercing] in 1986 because the steel penetrator is what is considered the core. It’s the regulatory process, and everyone can argue semantics and perhaps it’s not written very well, but that is the story behind it. … Having the additional component behind the tip isn’t enough to get it out of AP classification.

Only if you unilaterally rewrite the law, which is what they did. If the law is actually followed, any rounds which contains lead, which M855 does, cannot fall under the definition of armor piercing.

(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or

(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

So does it fall under subsection (i)? No, because it’s not made entirely from those elements. Does it fall under (ii)? No, unless you count the steel penetrator as part of the jacket, which would be twisting the definition of jacket to an extreme.

h/t to Dave Hardy.

March is here, but it still feels like February. I hate to drop a news link dump, but I’m feeling positively uninspired by the current news cycle. So here we go:

Alan Gura: Putting Teeth in Heller’s Promise.

Dave Kopel:”Lyman Trumbull’s role as a Second Amendment champion was somewhat accidental, for he was not a “gun guy”; he didn’t carry a gun for protection, even when traveling,  and his preferred sports were sailing and croquet. The reason that he ended up doing so much for Second Amendment was that  during public career of 1840-96 he was always an ardent champion of the working man. In congressional statutes and in court cases, he defended Second Amendment rights because those rights were necessary for the working man to resist oppression by the wealthy–for the freedmen in the Reconstructed South to  protect themselves from de facto re-enslavement, and for the immigrant laborers of the industrial North to defend their rights to organize and protest.”

Yeah lady, Trayvon did bit the crap out of Zimmerman, which is why he got shot.

I guess DC decided they didn’t want the negative publicity a denial would undoubtedly cause. Being the squeaky wheel is not usually a bad strategy.

NRA is trying to whip up action in Congress to fix the issue with M855 ammunition. Looks like a modification to the language may be in process which would also restore some other ammo ATF has banned in recent years. It would also end this nonsense of “as soon as someone makes a pistol,” we get a ban.

Arizona moving on legalizing SBRs, SBSs, and suppressors. Wait, I thought they were already legal in AZ? Something tells me a reporter is confused.

Glenn Reynolds has some interesting thoughts about the Third Amendment at USA Today.

Joshua Prince is trying to get the names of people who donated to Lancaster’s defense fund. I’d bet it’s all politicians or former politicians. Price has argued in the past that it’s a conspiracy to violate state criminal law to donate.

Rand Paul tops the CPAC straw poll. I believe the future of the GOP is more libertarian than conservative, and while I think Paul will do better than many think, I think there are enough foreign policy hawks in the GOP to ensure he doesn’t win. At least not this time. I blame Putin!

Mass shooting in South Korea, where guns are banned.

Drone control will be about as successful as gun control. It’s only going to deter people who mean no harm.

PowerLine Blog discusses the M855 ban. This is really getting some serious traction. Bob Owens thinks this “may spectacularly backfire.” I agree. I think Obama might have bitten off more than he can chew with this.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you these people don’t want to take your guns. They were ready to celebrate a broad ban on ammunition, before they were corrected. BTW, I’m seeing it go around gun circles too that they are looking to ban all 5.56mm/.223 ammunition. Overall, that might end up being a good thing if it helps some people get off their butts and do something.

Campuses that allow guns: good enough for Shannon Watts’ kids.

Hey, when you demand they use strict scrutiny, it’s surprising what the courts are willing to do.

Eric Holder: It’s just too hard to prosecute people for lawful self defense.

Constitutional Carry is doing well in Kansas.

I guess publishing the information on handgun license holders isn’t a wise career move in the long term. I don’t feel the least bit sorry for her.

Giving ATF asset forfeiture powers. What could possibly go wrong?

Philly news station: Man shot after verbal dispute. What they didn’t note is that the man who was shot ended up that way because he was arguing using a knife. They don’t want to admit that ordinary people can defend themselves — doesn’t fit the narrative.

The case is Pena v. Lindley, a Calguns Foundation case challenging the constitutionality of California’s handgun roster. A roster that was created specifically for the purpose of banning cheap handguns. Not a right for the poor, I guess. Under California law, handguns that don’t appear on the roster are illegal to sell. Manufacturers have to pay recurring fees to stay on the list. The firearms have to be micro-stamped. They have to be drop tested. Otherwise they may not be sold.

There was no intermediate scrutiny two step. The court ruled that the Second Amendment wasn’t even implicated here, and this was among the kinds of regulations that were “presumptively lawful,” per Heller. The statute survived rational basis review, which is all that the court felt was required. The court believed that as long as you could still buy some handguns, the state was perfectly justified in banning large numbers of them. The judge also wasn’t buying the equal protection arguments in the case, so police can be a special class of citizen as far as the judge is concerned.

This is unfortunately not shocking, that a federal judge would so summarily dismiss a restriction on a fundamental right. We’ve seen it time and time again. Needless to say this will be appealed. It’s worth noting the judge in this case was a Clinton appointee.

At least for now, we seem to have pushed Bloomberg back, so there are gun control supporters in Vermont and New York City now who are very sad pandas. Bloomberg doesn’t have the ballot to use in Vermont, so he had to try for a traditional attack through the legislature. Fortunately for us, and unfortunately for him, in this kind of fight it’s our grassroots advantage can trump his pocketbook, because all that is required is direct action. When it comes to a fight that involves buying support from low-information voters, Bloomberg’s money is  more useful. Nonetheless, they say they aren’t going away:

“We have a very long view on this,” Braden said. “Two years ago, there wasn’t any way any gun provision would be debated. This is a long-term campaign to really change the conversation, so we can pass legislation to keep guns out of the wrong hands.”

It looks like they might still get a felon-in-possession law in Vermont though.

He said many of his constituents who oppose expanding background checks support the mental health and felon provisions. As for requiring Vermonters who are conducting private gun sales to go to a gun dealer for a background check, Sears said his constituents have been more consistently opposed.

But I thought 92% of gun owners supported Bloomberg proposal?

UPDATE: Think Progress are sad pandas too, but this time because when gun control comes threatening, it strengthens the hand of gun rights groups more than it does gun control groups.

Another gun control bill has passed out of committee in the Washington Legislature. If I were a gun owner in Washington, I’d print out this bill and roll it up. Go find yourself a gun owner who voted for I-594 because it sounded “reasonable,” and hit them on the nose with this bill and firmly say, “No!”

Any victory will embolden and strengthen the other side. Once the dam starts to crack, it’s very difficult to prevent it from breaking. This is especially true in blue states that have managed to keep their gun rights, despite years of Democratic control. Once they figure out they can hurt you, and you can’t boot them from power, they’ll just keep hurting you. Colorado was saved from this fate because they figuratively broke the noses of the people who hurt them with those recall elections

If you’re in a blue state that’s kept its gun rights despite a history of Democratic control, you’re probably lucky, and probably are retaining your gun rights on borrowed time. Once the powers that be learn they can hurt you, and you can’t hurt them back, your cause is doomed.