Category: Gun Rights

I figured I’d put this out in front for all to see. From the comments:

This is another in a long line of stories that makes the nra apologists squirm because it threatens their denial mentality about the nra.

Rather than re post the same hard hitting stuff so sebastian can avoid it, I’ll just post this very telling link so all can see how he behaves when he’s shown the ugly truth about the nra. http://www.pagunblog.com/?p=1494#comment-11852

He seemed to want everyone to see that, so I figured I’d help out. I’d also like to point out, just to complete my treason, that I’ve said in the past there are gun control laws I’m willing to live with. Not that I think they are worth anything, mind you, but given the courts have chosen to do nothing about the second amendment, there are compromises I’m willing to live with.

So yes, I don’t really care of NRA has expressed support for the NFA 6 years before I was born, because I’d be happy just to get rid of the 1986 Hughes Amendment, and if that means I need to stand on the NFA in order to make politicians comfortable with that idea, then so be it. If I have to stand on the NICS system to prevent further restrictions on gun purchases, so be it.

We did not get where we are today because of the NRA, or because we compromised. We got here today because our fellow citizens elected politicians that wanted us to be here. If you’ve ever spent any time talking to real people about the gun issue, you know that most people believe that some level of gun control is necessary. That’s what we’re up against, and that’s why we’re here. The only solution to that is changing hearts and minds, and I’ve becoming convinced we’re making progress in this area, but there is a long way to go.

Once we get to the point where the NFA is even up for serious debate, I’ll be happy, but we’re a long way from that. The second amendment was meant to put these issues outside of the political process, but until the courts actually say it means something, that’s an academic consideration. Until then, it’s politics. I know it sucks, but that’s the reality.

Looks like the ATF has paid Red’s Trading Post another visit for rubber glove treatment. Upset about how Red’s Trading Post is being treated? Contact the Office of Inspector General at the DOJ. Be polite, but make sure they know you believe ATFs actions in regard to Red’s are excessive. I will post what I’ll be sending along to them later this evening.

Also, it wouldn’t hurt to contact your Congress Critter in regards to reforming the law to deal with these abuses. There were several bills working their way through Congress before the changeover happened in 2006. We’d all like to see the ATF abolished, but the fundamental problem is with the law, and if that isn’t fixed, the problem would just shift to another agency. The ultimate problem isn’t that there’s federal law enforcement tasked with enforcing federal gun laws, it’s that there are too many federal gun laws to enforce. Until the latter is fixed, the problem will continue.

I’ve often said that NRA needs to be a big tent organization.   We have to make common cause with people who are mostly on our side, but might not be willing to take things as far as you or I would.  This would include hunters, many in law enforcement, traditional shooters, and people new to the issue.   We have to reach out to these people and work with them, rather than sizing up their second amendment purity, and choosing to ostracize them if they don’t meet sufficient muster.

It’s no secret that one of my big pet issues is repealing the 1986 Hughes Amendment, and allowing new registration of transferable machine guns under the NFA.   Does this mean I support the NFA?   Well, not entirely.   But it does mean I’m willing to accept it for now because a more realistic goal is getting rid of the Hughes Amendment.   By standing on the NFA, even if I don’t really agree with it, it helps to build a larger coalition against the part you do want to get rid of in the short term.

One of the traps we tend to fall into as gun-rights activists is believing that we are not a very very small minority.   If you’ve ever looked at GOA’s Form 990, based on estimates from income reported from membership dues, they would have, at most, about 30,000 members.  Even, absent NRA’s existence, GOA could pick up another 20,000 member of dedicated, hard-core, no-compromise activists, that’s stil 50,000, and politicians in Washington will safely ignore you.   This is why it is necessary to reach out to less hard-core members of the shooting community; we simply don’t have the numbers in order to be politically successful.

The failure to build a “big tent” is no where more apparent than in the Libertarian Party, where a dedicated group of hard-core activists have worked very hard to build an organization that’s based on strong principles, and fields candidates based on their ideological purity.  The Libertarian Party also can’t win elections, and isn’t building a movement.  Libertarian principles are now safely ignored by politicians.

Let’s not let this happen to the gun-rights movement.

Ryan presents a somewhat differing view than I’ve been espousing here in terms of HR2640.   I say somewhat different because I do think the current law is completely inadequate, and that more still needs to be done, even after HR2640 “restoration of rights process” is in place.

But as much as I do wish we could have gotten more, I still think HR2640, on the whole, is a small push in the right direction.  Any means to address a firearms disability, even if it’s fraught with trouble, is better than not having any recourse at all.  I consider HR2640 to be half a step back and a step forward.   Not as far as I’d like to go, but I’ll take what I can get out of this Congress.

Thirdpower takes on some anti-gunners and ends up chatting wtih Gary Mauser.  Good show.  It’s interesting to me that they accuse a lot of second amendment scholars of being gun lobby stooges, when a lot of the time there’s either no association, or very little.

But, of course, we’re not the only ones who do this.

Via Syd of Front Sight, Press:

 By an overwhelming 81-10 vote, the Senate passed Sen. Vitter’s amendment to prevent any funding to foreign organizations that infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of lawful American citizens. Any organization that adopts a policy anathema to the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment would no longer be eligible for U.S. financial assistance—including the U.N.

That’s quite a margin.   But this is still an entirely symbolic victory.  We’re still a ways off from being able to repeal the meaty chunks of federal gun control laws, unfortunately.

Via John Lott, on Mexican gun laws:

Gun control advocates claim that the problem is guns from the US. Here is my question: Why is it that if the Mexican’s can’t control the drug trade, they are going to be able to stop the drug gangs from getting the guns that are necessary to protect their drug businesses?

I think the whole gun issue is mostly developing a bargaining chip that can later be used against the United States.

All I can say is, I’m glad I live in Pennsylvania.  California isn’t the only state to institute approved handgun lists.   Also playing this game are Massachusetts and Maryland.  Bitter has a Massachusetts compliant SIG, which basically involves drilling a hole in the chamber so you can see brass in it.   Stupid feature for stupid people, and it adds about 200 bucks to the cost of the gun.

But those features only work for people who would know enough to check the standard way, by actually checking the chamber.   It’s just a way to make selling firearms in the state more of a hassle, so fewer do, this driving up the price.  Higher prices mean fewer legal gun owners, which make more onerous restrictions politically easier.

Don’t believe me?  California has banned lead bullets for hunting.  This is serious folks.  The slippery slope is real.

From the Brady Campaign, they’ve passed Microstamping in California. If you live in California, it is very important to:

CALL GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER AND URGE HIM TO VETO THIS BILL!

I will have more to say on micro stamping soon. This is one issue I urge manufacturers to follow the lead of Ronnie Barrett and refuse to sell your product in California, including to law enforcement. It’s the only way we’re going to stop crap like this from spreading.

UPDATE:  The Flashing Light has an interesting bit of commentary:

Someone suggests that gun manufacturers not sell in California in the future. That’s an ideal thought, maybe, but thinking it through I don’t see how they could afford to do that. Doing so would set in motion a whole lot of market and government actions of which some are predictable, but many are unforeseen. And I doubt most gun and ammo manufacturers are willing to play with fire when it comes to the bottom line.

This is a serious issue, no doubt.  California is the nation’s most populous state, and whether or not firearms and ammunition manufacturers can afford to pull out of the state entirely is a reasonable question.  But can they afford to keep complying with the costs of complying with the state’s ridiculous and ignorant policy in regards to firearms?  That’s a good question too.