Category: Gun Rights

Someone with a lot of spare times needs to make a parody of this video.

The gun show bogeyman is back in the media at the Richmond-Times Dispatch:

Massengill, who headed the eight-member Virginia Tech Review Panel, said more-thorough background checks on gun-show purchases are needed in Virginia, if only to reduce the availability of guns for illicit purposes.

Private sales or trades at gun shows involving unlicensed dealers are exempt from background checks, which can turn up information on criminal histories and hospitalizations for mental illness.

Supporters of the exemption argue that data is lacking to show a direct link between gun violence or crime and private sales. Such sales often involve a single weapon and another collector.

Massengill, who describes himself as “a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights”, at least agrees that checks “could be eased by exempting background checks for trades or sales among family members.”  Gee, that sounds a lot like what we did in Pennsylvania.  Of course, that doesn’t mean it worked here, and that doesn’t mean they aren’t asking for Just One More Law.

But Massengill said even if a background check had turned up Cho’s name, Cho could have purchased weapons at a gun show.

Outlaw private sales now, or the Bogeyman will be able to buy a gun at a gun show.  It would appear to be that for Massengill, staunch defender of the second amendment that he is, Cho is the new Bogeyman.

Ryan points out some really amusing cartoons the ATF publishes on how to run a gun shop.

STI International has pulled itself from the California market, for both civilian and law enforcement.  This is great news, and kudos for STI for doing.  We need a few of the big guys to do this too.

Joe Huffman asks what people would do if the Supreme Court rules the second amendment is an anachronism, and we eventually start losing our gun rights.

I agree with him, that I don’t think gun owners would do much.  I’ll be honest with you all, I’d probably not turn in the ammunition first, as I have no desire to fight for a lost cause against a law that’s not really enforceable.   Show me real opposition, and I might join, but aside from that, I plaster an off the books AR up in my wall with a “Break Wall In Event of a Emergency” note in my head, and keep a few thousand rounds of ammunition.   Then I’d be praying we soon develop technology to terraform other plants, because I think I’m starting to believe that in order to maintain liberty, people need the option of saying “Screw you guys, I’m going west!”

I’ve just become aware of a case in Franklin County, PA of a gentleman who was open carrying while voting last Tuesday, which is perfectly lawful in Pennsylvania, with or without a license to carry firearms. Seems he had a relatively hostile encounter with a Pennsylvania Constable:

When I went to my polling place tonight I was asked by the Constable there if “that was a weapon”. I replied that it was. He said I would have to leave because weapons were not allowed in the polling place. I asked him what law this was based on. He said it was in the Voting Regulations, to which I replied “That applies to police officers”. He said that was correct. He got the regulation book and asked if I would step outside to discuss the matter. I agreed. He turned to the page that had the regulation regarding the police and read it off to me. I told him that I agreed completely, BUT, I was not a police officer, just a private citizen. This seemed to surprise him a bit.

He then made a call to someone who would “Know for sure”. The result of that call was that whoever he called was also unable to come up with anything specific preventing me from voting while carrying. When the call was done, the Constable asked me to please secure my weapon in my vehicle before voting, because it would make him “more comfortable”. I asked him if I would be refused entry to vote if I did not, he said no, that I would be permitted to vote either way. As we went back up the steps and prepared to enter, he stated that he “Just couldn’t understand why someone would need to bring a gun here, especially in this day and age.”

Read the whole thing. A few days later a letter arrives in the mail informing this gentleman that his License to Carry Firearms has been revoked, citing Title 18 § 6109 (e)(1)(i):

[A license shall not be issued to] an individual whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.

So the sheriff in Franklin County apparently believes that using your License to Carry Firearms to, you know, actually carry a firearm, and standing up for your right to do so, makes you a person “who’s character or reputation is such” that you are “dangerous to public safety.”  What does Sheriff Bob Wollyung think he’s issues licenses for?  Did he think, maybe that people might want an LTCF to, I don’t know, carry a firearm?

I am becoming increasingly intolerant of the abuse of  § 6109 (e)(1)(i) that I’m seeing in our Commonwealth, and I will support any effort to repeal that discretion which it seems entirely too many jurisdictions are willing to use improperly.

Just one more law is all it will take to stop the illegal flow of guns. Here in Pennsylvania, they say one-gun-a-month is a vital tool needed to combat firearms trafficking to criminals. The same people told us years ago we had to ban private sales on handguns to combat trafficking to criminals, and we did that. So now, “Just One More Law”. But look at how well it’s worked out for the United Kingdom:

Noonan’s brother Dominic was arrested in May of that year in possession of a blank-firing gun that had been imported from Germany and then converted into a deadly weapon. He was later jailed.

But the gun was one of a batch of hundreds imported from Germany by a gang who had employed an engineer to convert them.

The article goes on to say the reason criminals are manufacturing firearms is because it’s a heftier profit margin to machine a blank firing replica gun into a firing gun, than it is to buy real ones on the black market. Hardly surprising, but now Britain is pushing the EU to place regulations on replica guns. All it will take is “just one more law”, and the criminals will give up making a living by trying to hurt others. If the gun control folks want to know why we aren’t willing to work together, it’s because they will always need “just one more law.”

UPDATE: More from Jeff.

UPDATE: Ahab too.

Via John Lott, apparently the Finns were under quite a bit of international pressure to change it’s “lax” gun laws:

International gun control activists have urged the Finns to rethink their laws in the wake of Wednesday’s tragedy.

Finns are sensitive to their international image, and often complain their country is portrayed as a gloomy northern outpost of Europe, where long dark winters drive people to binge drinking, suicide or random outbursts of violence.

Sensitive, but they are agreeing to make this change in their law:

The government said Friday it would raise the minimum age for buying guns from 15 to 18, but insisted there was no need for sweeping changes to gun laws shaped by deep-rooted traditions of hunting in the sub-Arctic wilderness.

Good for them for pissing on Rebecca Peters and her group’s demands.  But consider that Finland’s gun laws are still stricter than ours:

“The application was rejected because a 9 mm gun is considered too powerful … for target practice shooting,” Detective Superintendent Tero Haapala told The Associated Press. “He was recommended to get a .22-caliber gun.”

After Wednesday’s shooting drew international attention to Finland’s gun culture, the Interior Ministry issued a statement saying firearm sales were “strictly controlled.”

Before granting a weapons permit, police “assess the applicant’s suitability to posses a firearm, his or her way of life, behavior and possible mental health problems,” the statement said. Applicants must prove also they have a legitimate need for a gun, such as hunting or target practice. Self-defense is not a valid reason.

Sounds pretty strict to me, and yet:

Gun control activists said the shooting at the Jokela High School in Tuusula, some 30 miles north of Helsinki, proved the need for stricter gun laws in Finland.

“Compared to other European countries, Finland has a serious gun problem,” said Rebecca Peters, director of the London-based International Action Network on Small Arms.

Not enough.  We must not give an inch to these people.  They won’t stop until they all go under the saw.  If Paul Helmks wants to find ways to work with the NRA, since his organization isn’t about banning guns and all, why doesn’t he start by denouncing this international gun ban movement led by Rebecca Peters?

Gun owners in Northern Virginia rejoice.  It would appear that Democrat Chap Petersen has creamed Jeanmarie Devolites Davis.   Also, Ken Cuccinelli appears to have eeked out a win.

For the rest of us, it’s a nice middle finger to Bloomberg.  So Jeanmarie, who’s endorsement do you think was worth more?  Bloomy’s or NRA and VCDL?  Chap Petersen would do well to remember who helped him get elected, and other squishy Republicans like Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney would do well to remember gun owners get particularly annoyed with Republicans who double cross them.