The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Walls of the City writes Laura Washington, informing her about our embracing the term People of the Gun, and gets a response. From the point of view of an outsider looking in, you have to wonder what she has to be thinking. Within a few days of her putting “People of the Gun” to paper, we have our own web site and merchandising.
Hell, even I can hardly believe it. Â These Internets are surely a wondrous thing. Â Thanks Al Gore!
Dave Hardy links to an ATF internal related document outlining the problems at the agency:
Field agents have attempted to challenge the un-ethical, and illegal actions of field managers through various means in recent years only to meet with retaliation so destructive it almost inevitably results in the challenges or allegations being withdrawn.Fear of ATF leadership has replaced transparency. Lack of trust and the absence of good faith in trying to resolve these issues have caused a growing number of Agents to rely upon legal means to invoke the protections and seek redress. Record numbers of EEOC, OIG, OSC, whistleblower and internal grievances face the new management team. Requests for congressional intervention by Agents across the country…
Read the whole thing. Dave’s experiences with the federal buearaucracy seem to mirror a lot of this. That’s why I’ve said that ATF reform or even abolishment aren’t going to fix the problem, because they will be temporary at best, or will shift into another agency. The only thing that will work is altering or abolishing federal gun laws, to give whatever agency is enforcing them less leeway, and fewer laws to enforce.
Clayton Cramer has a great post up illustrating some of the things we’ve been arguing about this week in regards to HR2640, and mental health firearms prohibitions in general. There’s more due process involved in a mental health prohibition than many people realize.
I have to agree with Bitter here that it’s a really bad idea for the gun rights movement to tie their fortunes to the Republican Party. If recent history is any indication, that ship, if not actively sinking, definitely has more than a few holes in the hull.  The Republicans might be out in the political wilderness for a while.  I liked the Republicans more as a minority party than a majority party, and I hope that they will find their mojo again and start standing for things people actually want to vote for.
Until then, we have to find a way to work with Democrats, or our gun rights are doomed. This isn’t the time to be snubbing pro-gun Democrats like Bill Richardson.
Sometimes self-defense stories illustrate important points. We’ve all seen a lot of stories that contradict a lot of the myths out there, on both sides, about using firearms to defend your life.  This is an important one from New Jersey. Why is it important? This is why:
The woman ran to her bedroom, locked the door and grabbed her husband’s handgun and ammunition, Traina said.
The gun is legally registered to the woman’s husband, he said.
She then ran into the bathroom, locked that door and loaded the weapon while sitting on the floor.
Emphasis mine. The Garden State has decreed that, once the technology is available, all firearms sold in New Jersey will only be operable by the authorized user, except to law enforcement, who apparently didn’t want anything to do with the technology.
I suppose this woman could have thrown the smart gun at the man trying to attack her. It might be kind of heavy with all those electronic and mechanical extras in it, after all.
I noticed Jeff blogging about the Swiss Militia not storing ammunition at home, but letting them keep their rifles. I used to work with a Swiss guy, and had this explained to me once.
Basically, ammunition that’s issued by the government in the home is tightly regulated. You are not allowed to open that ammunition except under orders, or in a national emergency. The government keeps track of ammunition issued as part of your militia duty. Ammunition for practice and shooting is commonly available in Switzerland, so this change in law won’t affect the ability of the Swiss to store ammunition in their homes, or to buy ammunition for sport shooting, hunting, or self-defense. They just will no longer be issued ammunition by the Swiss government, to be kept and not used except in a national emergency.
This is entirely a symbolic victory for the gun control forces in Switzerland. That’s not to say this isn’t something to worry about, we know how the gun control movement operates, and they will take their symbolic victories, and use it to build a movement for greater restrictions. The Swiss ought to be worried, very worried, as this is just a first step.  But as a first step, it’s a really small one.
All this PSH about black powder guns is reminding me of a local Congressworm by the name of Joe Hoeffel. Joe is the guy that unsuccessfully challenged Arlen Specter in the 2004 election. I don’t like Specter much at all, but I’ve still voted for him, and this is why:
After a disgruntled former employee of Norristown State Hospital took two hostages, killing one and seriously injuring the other with a replica of an antique firearm, Joe introduced legislation that would bring antique and replica firearms under the same federal regulations as modern firearms.
But then gun control advocates tell us “You want the right to bear arms? Fine! You can have muskets and flintlock pistols, just like they had during our founding father’s times. Our founding fathers never would have imagined an AK-47.” Bogus argument, made even more bogus by the PSH over black powder arms when incidents like this sprout up.
Some of you may know that American Airlines banned firearms on overseas flights to Europe and Asia. Needless to say that makes it a little difficult for competitors and hunters to attend competitions and hunt in other countries.  I originally found out about this from the AA web site, that I had to look up because I’m using AA to fly to the GBR. Fortunately, it looks like we’ve made some progress here with the company:
“After a series of meetings, involving NRA and Safari Club International (SCI), we are pleased to report that there has been some progress. American Airlines has decided that it would amend its policy to allow legally declared firearms to be transported on nonstop flights to other destinations in Europe outside of the UK, and to Asian destinations. We have been informed that due to continuing onerous policies by the government of the United Kingdom, American Airlines is still not allowing civilian transport of firearms into the UK at present.
That’s good news. It would seem the UK government was the responsible party for this whole policy.  This is another significant illustration of the danger of the international gun control movement, which I’ve detailed here before.
I notice Larry Pratt keeps bringing up a Pennsylvania case where a man was committed involuntarily for observation under Section 302 of Pennsylvania’s Mental Health Procedures Act. This provision is described as follows:
Section 302 is the part of the Act relating to treatment without consent for observed behavior constituting a clear and present danger to the individual and/or others. The behavior must have occurred in the past 30 days. Under Section 302(a) any responsible party can petition for an involuntary evaluation by stating that an individual may be severely mentally disabled.
Now, it should be noted that for purposes of a federal firearms disability, this section is insufficient. The regulations specifically exempt persons held for observation.
Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.
But that’s federal. The PA Uniform Firearms Act is also a controlling law:
A person who has been adjudicated as an incompetent or who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for inpatient care and treatment under section 302, 303 or 304 of the provisions of the act of July 9, 1976 (P.L.817, No.143), known as the Mental Health Procedures Act. This paragraph shall not apply to any proceeding under section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act unless the examining physician has issued a certification that inpatient care was necessary or that the person was committable.
So unless the person actually ends up being involuntarily committed to a mental health institution, there’s no prohibition under federal or state law that prevents him from owning a firearm in the future, unless he’s committed. It should be noted that Pennsylvania already has a mechanism in place for restoration of rights for commitments and adjudications. In the editorial I mentioned last, a PA district attorney was quoted as saying:
“I contacted the sheriff and had his license to carry a firearm revoked. And I asked police to commit him under Section 302 of the mental health procedures act and that was done. He is now ineligible to possess firearms [for life] because he was committed involuntarily,” the district attorney reported.
I think that particular DA needs to read the law, because he’s wrong.
From Arms and the Law reader David Lawson:
It is true we have protection against prosecution for unlawful use of a weapon or failure to register the weapon or possession of an illegal (non-NFA) weapon due to the Hale De Mar act. However, I am certain he will not see that firearm back unless it is sold by the police to some gangbangers that then use it against him.
Emphasis on the part I think makes the joke complete is mine. Also, I’m really happy to see Dave Hardy has set up a new blog:
http://www.chicagohandgun.org/
If Heller wins, it’s because folks like Dave have laid much of the groundwork for the victory. It’s good to see he’s already working on the next step, should Heller prevail before the Supreme Court, as I believe it will. Let’s win Washington, then onto Chicago!
UPDATE: A commenter points out that it might be the commenter Dave, and not Dave Hardy, that has the Chicago site. If it is, then great for commenter Dave! Doesn’t really change what I said, other than pointing out the fact that there are too many Davids in this issue! We gunnies definitely have the biblical metaphors wrapped up.